[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Let's also remember to keep comments civil. If you want to offer a rebuttal, you can do that with facts and evidence, you don't need to do so with rudeness. It would be great if everyone could please take that onboard

My intention at that specific point was not to rebut anything because there was nothing to be rebutted. I pointed out how offensive and... unintelligent his comment was, and then asked him to keep other offensive comments like that to himself.
Diabetes is a disease, not a joke. If he had substituted it for cancer I bet I wouldn't be needing to explain this right now.

Anyone want some popcorn?

Sometimes the truth is a hard pill to swallow. There is one way to get diabetes: eating a ridiculous amount of sugar. If you substituted it for cancer it would be a completely different argument. Irony I think is at play here.

False. The American Civil War was funded in part by an income tax. Then there is the 16th Amendment to our constitution well before World War II. If you make claims like this without researching any of it, how can I trust any of the other things you say? Also, making claims like your cartoon does without citing sources or reasoning then calling people who disagree with it "naive children" is like lobbing a grenade then running away. If you can provide a good example to back up your claim, great. If you can't do that I can't take anything else you say seriously.

I thought we were supposed to try to keep this a serious discussion thread. Poo flinging is going to make us all stinky. This sort of post isn't going to persuade anyone and instead makes people dig in their heels.

I didn't call anyone a naive child. Bernie Sanders campaigns against police brutality and claims he wants to de militarize the police... YET!! He voted yes in the NDAA and patriot act, voted no on putting a leash in the NSA that would keep them from spying on American citizens. There ya go, how is that? He is a politician, when his lips are moving... well you get the point.

Diabetes is the failure of the body to properly produce insulin. You can get diabetes in the womb which I guess isn't YOU eating a bunch of sugar. Monosodium glutsmate also causes your body to produce a bunch of insulin because the neurotoxin in MSG convinces your brain you are eating meat which requires a lot of insulin to digest as well and can cause diabetes. Either way, eating crap is what causes diabetes. As you said, if you are going to make a claim then maybe you should back it up.

Edit: did you just change what you quoted? I'm almost certain you did. Which changed what my original comment would mean in reference to your reply... and it seems it continues. I will play along though. The 16th amendmnent was never ratified(correction, it was illegally ratified) and the federal government has no authority to tax income. It wasn't until world war 2 that the government was taxing income. Before that there was a "income tax" of sorts but it only applied to the very very wealthy and it wasn't called an income tax. If you were referring to state income tax that is completely different. States have lawful authority to tax income.

As far as taking me seriously, I'm unconcerned nor would I be willing to return the sentiment, considering

Second edit: apparently it was the states that began taxing income later. The US taxed income briefly to fund the civil war then began taxing income in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson was president. At the time taxes on goods were outrageous and Wilson used the 16th amendment as cause to impose the tax on revenue in order to combat other taxes... which makes sense of course. Lets start a new tax so we don't have to tax something else. Basically spreading the tax around so there wasn't one thing to focus on. Psychological pandering at its best I suppose. However, the 16th amendment required 38 of the then 49 states to be lawful. Of which only 4-8 (the actual number has been up for debate for decades as several investigations have shown that states that very obviously and overtly voted against the ratification of the 16th amendment were claimed by Knox to have supported it. One state, Oklahoma, even submitted paperwork to ratify the 16th amendment but had changed the wording in the 16th amendment to say that congress could never tax income) states affirmed the amendment legally.

https://i.imgur.com/ceDOjfa.jpg

http://imgur.com/LR8NwS3

This one is preemptive... since I am obviously encountering some seriously deep statism:

http://freedomfeens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/RP-on-roads-300x200.jpg

What's your source for this? I just did some searching because I found that point interesting but only found this:
Are you talking about the NDAA 2016? https://votesmart.org/bill/20286/54...ization-act-for-fiscal-year-2016#.Vveb6vl97IU I didn't look at any other years though

And for the Patriot Act:

His Wikipedia page is quite clear in saying that he was opposed, with multiple sources

It seems I had misconstrued the freedom and patriot act... two very very very different things.

Also, it seems he voted for a version of the NDAA 2013 after the indefinite detention was amended but then the amendment was changed. Perhaps its used as a talking point for the competition.

Either way one thing is for certain, taxes= theft at the end of a barrel. Don't pay your taxes? IRS comes to see you, throw you in jail. You don't want to go to jail because the boogey man wants to steal your money? That's too bad because if you resist then you are gonna get beat, perhaps killed. Bernie is no stranger to taxes

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/smallbusiness/2012/10/15/state-taxes/4.html

That's a quite impressive position to hold there.

Seemingly a straw man argument, I assure you that finding out that he didn't support the NDAA because of the issue that was brought up the most by CNN doesn't make me rest any easier. If his opposition to the NDAA was a bit more convincingly genuine it might, but doubtful. I mean... the freedom act didn't go far enough and we have to pick the best of the worst right? Nah, I will let him do that, then talk about how good of a person he is because he didn't pick the other terrible option.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/bernie...ical-to-his-purported-anti-war-stance/208066/







"Bernie also voted against the ending the practice of bundling unrelated bills ("earmarks") in 2007. Bernie, like all politicians, wants us to be confused about what his votes mean, and where the money goes. That way, we all listen to his speeches (all against the war) and not his votes (all supported the continuation of the war). NONE of the Iraq war funding bills Bernie supported would have suspended soldier's paychecks if they didn't pass-- you made that up just now, come on. Oh, and just for the record- Bernie voted against continued funding for the FDA (he was the only senator to do so) the same year he voted for continued war funding. His Senate record is just not good. It's called the " Illusion of Choice ", and a lot of kids are really fooled. If you actually get him elected, you'll see."


AND! for a man that is politically keen enough to understand that our policies is what led to the war in vietnam.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Homeland_Security.htm

Why is it that he is incapable of seeing that our policies led us also into Afghanistan? Why is he supporting our military chasing heroin and drugs under the guise of a "war on terror" which is obviously a oxymoron not only in name but practice.

So... sanders is a bit confusing when you start realizing that he isn't just campaigning for the president of the USA but he is a politician that has a very very long record. One that has been questionable at best.

Bernie on how he is going to deal with police:

http://www.copblock.org/137283/copblock-interviews-bernie-sanders/

I'm going to use violence against the... oh wait... how am I going to... nope. nice rhetoric bernie but you left your brain somewhere again. More laws and more violence. Don't forget from his dealings with vietnam, "I'm not a pacifist." which is cool, I don't get that either but he isn't just "not a pacifist" he is a war monger. Ready to wage war on even his soldiers. Get this bull outta here already, just another snake in the grass. Why can't we go back to bashing the candidates with memes?

Dude, you are so wrong and hugely offensive. My grandfather lost his leg to diabetes and it had nothing to do with sugar. I'm sure there are many people on this server that have had people in their family that have suffered terribly from it and also find you offensive. You really need to get your facts correct before just spouting off things that will hurt random people's feelings.

Diabetes can be genetic.

Well, I wanted to just leave this thread be, but someone decided to repeatedly tell me my opinions and views are "moronic", "stupid", and "unintelligent", so here I am.

I'm sorry about your grandfather. But Gawa is clearly referring to T 2 diabetes which has a direct correlation to sugar and the way you treat your body. I have had many family member's lives threatened by type 2, but I can still recognize that the wounds caused by the disease were self-inflicted.

Type 2 is not contracted because your mother/father grandmother/grandfather had it, you get T 2 when you deny your body the care attention and exercise it needs.

I didn't use it as a joke. I didn't use abortion as a joke. Because I typed something about abortion does that mean I don't care about it? Because I used the example of a diabetic mean that I have no compassion for people struggling with diabetes? No. My grandfather is a type 2 diabetic as well as two of my uncles. My grandfather has had sores on his neck that will not heal for years because of his diabetes, and has been hospitalized many times for various diabetes related reasons. Diabetes most likely effects my family much more than your's. But that doesn't take away from what I said. Type 2 diabetes is a self-inflicted disease, caused (Not always, but about 90% of the time) by obesity and a lack of weekly exercise/movement. And it can generally be cured by getting your blood sugar under control by fixing your diet, and just moving about for 20-40 minutes a day. But rather than do that, Medicare part D is providing free insulin for around 400,000 people, many of whom are between 20 and 50 years of age, still able to get the exercise necessary. Diabetes isn't like cancer. Diabetes is a choice that someone makes to not take care of their body like they should. So I should have to pay for them to continue to mistreat themselves?

How about rather than "Shut up, you're stupid hurr durr" responses, you make intelligent points about how what I've said is incorrect. The irony in you calling me stupid rather than replying to what I've said in a debate is quite extreme.

Type 1 diabetes is genetic.

Both Gawa and myself were referencing type 2 diabetes.

This guy gets it.

Donald Trump, "It wasn't easy starting off. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars." Wow, so smart, so small.

HKR, not only that but he has already lost a huge portion of his inheritance which was billions. If he left his inheritance in a mutual fund he would be worth about 8 billion dollars right now. Mutual funds have pitiful returns by the way. Instead he is worth about 2.6 billion. So when someone tells you that trump is a great business man, its probably ok to laugh.

Your grandfather has nothing to do with what I said. You are creating a straw man argument and saying that I'm hurting peoples feelings by talking about a disease. You crying "that's offensive" really adds nothing to this conversation.

The only argument I am making is that over and over you are making false statements and when others confront your inaccuracies you admit them but just continue doing it. Even if it means attacking other people's families. My grandfather had type 1 which also causes peripheral artery disease. But here is what you said. Notice the "there is only one way" which is totally inaccurate but you had to say anyway. No matter how it could offend people. My point is that you just continue hurtling inaccuracies so why should anyone believe anything you say?

Gawadrolt said: ↑

There is one way to get diabetes: eating a ridiculous amount of sugar.

Dang it, too small to see xD

And as dh pointed out, from context you can easily figure out we were obviously talking about type 2 diabetes. Also, cutting just part of what I said out makes it seem like that is all I said and it is not. I admitted other contributing factors.

And again, I never mentioned your grandfather, you did. Also, yes when I am wrong I admit it as you even point out in your post. If you want to stop reading my posts or don't believe anything I say because you want to take what I said out of context or introduce straw man arguments, I'm ok with that