4
93

[–] howlinhoosier 4 points 93 points (+97|-4) ago 

Cannot beleive bush said that. SO stupid

7
48

[–] GaiusScot 7 points 48 points (+55|-7) ago 

Go Bernie!

1
18

[–] acratus 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

Tell me again how this place is different than /r/politics. sigh

3
16

[–] 2nd2none 3 points 16 points (+19|-3) ago 

It's sad that Hillary will win the democratic nomination and the presidency. We need Bernie more than dictators like Hillary.

2
9

[–] BernieSanders 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

:)

2
2

[–] Porphyrogennetos 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

I would vote for Bernie if I could.

I'm even very much right leaning. I just trust that he'll be more honest. At least I hope so. He's the only shot you've got really.

2
22

[–] cp10h 2 points 22 points (+24|-2) ago 

You are taking what he said out of context. His point was we need to convert more part time jobs to full time not that full time workers need to work more hours.

1
17

[–] erewhon 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

i have listened to the whole interview. this is not out of context. he is fundamentally wrong in his entire analysis. the american worker a.ready works more hours, takes less vacation, and has fewer benefits than most other developed nations. the correct solution is that the average american needs to be paid more of their fair share of their increased productivity.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/07/09/3678679/jeb-bush-workers-productivity-hours/

1
9

[–] Apocolipticbeulah 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

I came here to say this - if you watch the entire thing it obviously what Bush was talking about. I am about to turn 40 and I am terrified about the state of country and the uninformed voters that make decisions based off of little tiny half bits of information. If you like Bush or not this is BS

0
4

[–] Jamesx_ 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Maybe, you're right. But I also look at the other Republican candidates and can't wrap my head around what they say either. Look at Trump and his stupid comments. Not many of those can be taken out of context.

4
17

[–] Apoplectic1 4 points 17 points (+21|-4) ago 

Grew up in Florida when Jeb was governor, crime skyrocketed and graduation rates dropped to 60% (lower than even Mississippi). I am not surprised when he does anything wrong.

3
37

[–] atw 3 points 37 points (+40|-3) ago 

Verifiably total bullshit. You literally invented everything in that post.

Source: http://www.margatenews.net/Files/florida%20crime%20rate.png

0
4

[–] Sydviciouz 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

First, I'd like to see where you're sources are on this. I've never heard any if that. And I don't think he did anything "wrong". He might do/say some things you don't agree with, but who's to say it's wrong? I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but he's just standing up for what he believes in.

17
-13

0
14

[–] No_Its_EYEgore 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

It's the republican party philosophy of 'makers' vs. 'takers'. Doesn't surprise me at all that this dribble is spewing from his mouth.

0
11

[–] Marquistador 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

So out of touch with the actual struggles and needs of the middle and lower class. Their corresponding policies don't give a fuck about a person's quality of life if you can't "make it."

0
9

[–] Mysteryman64 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

The hilarious thing is that they ripped that shit right out of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not sure if they've even realized they've become just as much "takers" as the people they claim to rally against with all their corporate welfare bullshit. People always seem to forget that parasites in the book came from all classes, poor AND rich. It wasn't just a bunch of welfare queens, it was also a bunch of business moguls using the government to prop up their businesses against competitors.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

2
5

[–] Dontcensormebro 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

No more deoderant while kids are in poverty!!! Bernie 2016!!!

0
1

[–] draco_nite 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

...deoderant?

0
0

[–] The_Time_Master 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

99.6% of poor households have deodorant!

0
2

[–] Jello12 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The fact that Donald Trump thinks he's going to get the Latino vote shows how out of touch he is. That's not a guy you want in any public office.

0
4

[–] TexasComments 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Donald Trump will actually capture a lot of the vote. I work in this field and you have to understand that those who waited and came here legally do not like illegals. He will get the legal hispanic vote and he will probably pick Cruz as his running mate for the GOP or TEP.

0
0

[–] Rummel 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

9 months later and Trump is absolutely killing it with Latino voters

0
1

[–] TexasComments 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Trump is the Right Wing version of the Left Wing Bernie Sanders.

0
0

[–] alexandertwentytwo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This has two axes and you're only looking at one. There's the left/right X axis and then the crazy/sane axis of Y. While they may be equal with regards to the absolute values on the X axis there is no comparison on the Y

0
32

[–] Bobbie_Sacamano 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

As somebody that averages 50-60 per week with a spouse that works even longer hours Jeb really pissed me off with that one.

2
13

[–] magical_liopleurodon 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

I hear ya, and I had the same initial reaction.

I really don't want to defend Jeb, Jeb has no chance of getting my vote for many reasons. The chief reason is him saying that there should be no leniency for Snowden. He and Hillary have the same position on Snowden, so neither one has a chance of getting my vote.

Now that I've said that, Jeb's comment was apparently directed at those who are underemployed. In that context, he's less wrong. He's really talking about lowering unemployment and underemployment, but he said it in the worst way possible.

1
6

[–] Prostetnicvogontrill 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Now that I've said that, Jeb's comment was apparently directed at those who are underemployed. In that context, he's less wrong. He's really talking about lowering unemployment and underemployment, but he said it in the worst way possible

Upvote for being pragmatic.

0
1

[–] ASS_IN_MY_PISS 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

so he equates 'Americans' to 'underemployed?'

0
0

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

In that context, he's less wrong.

Not really, no, because it's not like underemployed people CAN work more hours. Those hours aren't available, largely due to insane pro-billionaire Reaganomics.

0
1

[–] VoatLawyer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As someone that works 80 hours a week, I find it a little funny that we're talking like working additional hours beyond 40 per week somehow leads to a totalitarian regime.

0
2

[–] Bobbie_Sacamano 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Who said that?

1
1

[–] knubie 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I can't speak for Jeb Bush but I imagine he was referring to the rise of part time employment in the country.

0
1

[–] mipbar 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So should raising the retirement age.

9
32

[–] Rummel 9 points 32 points (+41|-9) ago 

Bernie 'Americans need to make better wages so I can tax the fuck out of them' Sanders

2
47

[–] Mylon 2 points 47 points (+49|-2) ago 

If my wages go up by 50% and my taxes go up by 30%, I'm still bringing home more money.

4
24

[–] TotalWar 4 points 24 points (+28|-4) ago 

What kind of crack are you smoking that you think wages would go up 50%?

0
3

[–] admiral_pinkbeard 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Depending on what you're taxed at currently, that might not even be true.

e.g., if you're taxed at 60%, and then it goes to 78%, you are making 22 cents for every 40 cents you made before. A 50% wage increase corresponds to 33 cents, or roughly 83% of what you made before.

1
-1

[–] TheGoatOfVoat 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Bernie wants to raise taxes on businesses too. While your pay might not increase much under Bush, it certainly won't under Sanders.

5
25

[–] howlinhoosier 5 points 25 points (+30|-5) ago 

He primarily wants to tax the super rich..... Millionaires and Billionaires...

7
15

[–] jollycynic 7 points 15 points (+22|-7) ago 

That's nothing but populist garbage though the scary part is that Sanders may be mathematically incompetent enough to believe it himself. You could shit all over the Laffer curve and tax the "rich" for 90% and you'd still not make meaningful headway at our deficit spending. Pure populist garbage typically used by politicians and special interest group spokesmen to con the rubes into making contributions.

0
9

[–] master_voater 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

When the income tax first came out, it was billed and sold as only being applied to the ultra rich of the day, such as the Rothchilds, Mellons, Rockafellers. Then, within the same bill, they put in the language to keep the ultra rich's fortunes intack by the way of 'foundations' (think Bill and Malinda Gates, Clinton, Koch). In the end, the actual rich skipped the bill and the income was saddled on the kinda rich, who then were reclassified, in the post war era,to middle class. So, love it or hate it, the middle of the bell curve will be required to pay the bills for those at the ends.

1
0

[–] VoatLawyer 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Well fuck them. I'm not a principled person, and I don't care about rich people.

0
17

[–] dannyduchamp 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure he's in favour of lowering taxes on lower income earners.

0
1

[–] Sorahzahd 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Shh, we're equating billionaires with "all Americans" so that we can make a tax on the oligarchs that have been fleecing us all for 30 years seem bad.

1
4

[–] eg0death 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Yeah we should keep people making less so that a small percentage doesn't go to the government!

[–] [deleted] 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
15

[–] Tonguestun 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

The biggest problem with those part time workers isn't the workers, it's the businesses not giving out enough hours so they don't have to provide benefits.

1
6

[–] Rellik88 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Well when the government tells business at x hours do this, and what ever "this" is cost money. Of course they will find a way around it. Imagine the Feds put a tax on driving your car pass X amount of miles. I bet your ass youll and most people will find away around it.

0
2

[–] TexasComments 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If I am required to provide extra money that makes me unprofitable or an unacceptable level of profit I will be hiring more people and lowering everyone's hours.

0
1

[–] Thebaby1423 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This guy has it.

I've witnessed my boss/manager refuse a person hours. His reasoning was "I can't provide you more hours because you'll be eligible for benefits, and the owner told me not to allow that".

No business is going to provide a couple more hours if that means they will lose big money off of those extra hours. It makes more sense to just raise everyone's wages. A lot harder to loop around that.

1
-1

[–] erietemperance 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

So you are saying that government manipulation somehow made things worse for everyone?

I agree.

1
8

[–] phillip 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Kind of driving me crazy too, I am no Bush fan, but what he said was the underemployed need the opportunity to work full time. Let's say you want to work 40 hours a week but can only get 15 because the economy is great, that's who he was walking about.

0
5

[–] Prostetnicvogontrill 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

People love to jump on those type of things. Like when he misunderstood the question of "If you knew then what we know now, would you still go to war with Iraq." He obviously misunderstood the question. You can even tell based on how he referenced Hillary's vote at the time. I don't want him to be president, but I at least try to see things how they are, not pull out the pitchforks and look for reasons to hate someone.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
4

[–] darwinsblackboxers 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

But the thing is, Bush pretends that when you have a full time job you'll be fine financially, which is not the case at all.

1
1

[–] GeneticsGuy 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

And that is the real problem... I recently read some statistics, though can't seem to find them now, but something like 50% of people that are considered "poor" have full-time 40 hr a week jobs or more than 1 job. This is purely being out of touch with the real problem with our economy... wages aren't high enough and there is a surplus of labor. Also, we have to compete against 3rd world labor wages to keep our jobs, thus making the bare minimum under threat the company will have to pack up and move overseas (which isn't necessarily their fault, but all their competition is moving production overseas, so if they don't want to go bankrupt, they likely will have to too). It's actually pretty clear... I really don't want a 3rd Bush, and for that matter, Hillary... omg, please no!

0
2

[–] VoatLawyer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

THANK YOU. One of my favorite parts about voat has been the lack of liberal/atheist/meme/neckbeard circle-jerking. Lately it looks like everyone flat out assumes that everyone worships Uncle Bernie.

0
2

[–] shmegegy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

look at you dividing.. you should apply to JTRIG

[–] [deleted] 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] TexasComments 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It should also be noted that a 10 round magazine restriction won't get rid of the rest of the hundreds of thousands that are floating around and the fact that ten rounds semi can easily take down a group.

0
3

[–] VoatLawyer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm tired of everyone acting like Uncle Bernie is Jesus Christ, risen from the grave and here to save us from those rich, white, old, bully republicans.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] Rellik88 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

but but I only want one choice of deodorant.

2
0

[–] BoiseNTheHood 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Think of the poor children who will starve to death if we don't all use Old Spice!

1
10

[–] BloodPool 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I always thought it cute that a large amount of people think it's perfectly normal to take a large portion of money from someone who has made their way financially to a millionaire status (or higher) by their own, or their relatives hard work. Do they (individuals taking welfare money) think that they deserve it by doing little to nothing? What do they (those accepting welfare un-ethically) think?Does anyone else think that this is, IN SOME WAY flawed? If I'm the only one, I should probably not be on the Internet. I do understand helping those in need (in fact I strongly support those who would help themselves getting a footing in the workforce, I really do) but, I've been first hand witness to those exploiting this system...regularly, as I live in the Nation's Capital and (even as a co-worker) saw this abused regularly, so I may be jaded by a Socialist agenda...just a little bit. Furthermore...in case you were curious...I am FAR (very far) from being a millionaire. That does not negate, however, the contempt I feel for those exploiting other's money for their own personal gain, self-servedly. I may have some typos as I'm mildly tipsy. Judge as you will.

5
0

[–] cynoclast [S] 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

And how much wealth do you think the top 1% has? What percentage?

It's not a test question. Here's the answer.

Do you think it's perfectly normal to take a large portion of money from someone who actually created it and give it to people who were born into a rich family?

0
5

[–] BloodPool 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Also, if you are so adverse to making money from someone else's deeds (whatever they are), why don't you strike up a venture or going concern. I'm sure if you had a brilliant idea, more would flock to you for redistribution of wealth and that you, the hard worker, would gladly oblige.

1
5

[–] BloodPool 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I guess my question to you is: "What do YOU FEEL you DESERVE, from the contributions YOU'VE made?" My argument wasn't even about the 1%, in case you didn't read. It was about the fraud inherently connected with a welfare state, or welfarism in general. As someone working for their own livelihood with an excess of hours per week, just to see the company they work for succeed into the future, I could not justify those that (by report) take money for themselves for actual work done by others. That (however you want to play it) is, by definition, criminal. Criminal being defined as: "an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong." In this context, I'll lead to it being more wrong or shameful than anything else...and that's only by this given definition.

0
1

[–] veritas23 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is red herring. They want people to think that if someone is wealthy it means they got it from stealing, cheating or exploiting. Instead of attempting to figure how they got there, and how to emulate we attempt to demonize it.

The quickest path to wealth? Good ol' hard work and ambition.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

5
22

[–] TotalWar 5 points 22 points (+27|-5) ago 

"Sanders knows how to successfully pander to a crowd of young, inexperienced, and/or delusional leftists."

1
22

[–] darwinsblackboxers 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

It's not pandering if your words are backed up by your actions.

0
18

[–] Potetmos 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Could you elaborate on why you think Sanders' ideals are delusional and/or only possible for inexperienced people to believe in? As a student of political science in a social democracy I'd say I'm not inexperienced, and I don't think my age has anything to say, so that makes me delusional. Why is it so? Sure, making actual change in America isn't exactly realistic, but it's better than just giving up?

0
8

[–] eg0death 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Except it's not pandering if you actually believe it. I'm not saying he's not a leftist- but it's not an act.

0
7

[–] HappyExile 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Come back and say then when the right gets one thing right about anything.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] umpaloompa 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

You mean /v/politics.

4
0

[–] BoiseNTheHood 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

...to liberal and/or SJW college students who just got out of sociology class and totally know all the answers.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] HappyExile 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

As opposed to arm-chair economists who think that they actually know something about how markets function?

load more comments ▼ (67 remaining)