o_O.Q said:
(1) "I'm going to answer this question and if you continue to misconstrue the facts" i have done no such thing (2) " He didn't say centralized food distribution is a good thing in itself." his argument is that the rich hoarded the resources can we agree on this to begin with? then he states that a solution to this("it's a good thing") is to centralise distribution, do we agree on that secondly? (3) "He's saying it's better than no bread at all." because without centralised distribution the rich hoard the wealth, this is the obvious conclusion of his argument (4) "You can take the rest of your Sanders rant to the Official US Politics Thread or make one just for Sanders." sanders isn't worth that effort, he's pretty much done since we also have him on the sexual abuse scandals within his campaigns to add to him hypocritically having millions of dollars in wealth now while demonising millionaires |
(1) Well, yes you do. You take it out of context and overimpose a specific interpretation.
(2) The rich horde the resources. And he says it is better to make a central distribution of basic needs instead of letting people die ABSENT OF BETTER SOLUTIONS. Better solutions obviously would be to build the economic system from start the way, that everyone gets his basic needs fulfilled and he fights for that (minimum wage, medicare for all). So he actually fights for a USA that does not need bread lines to start with.
(3) Well yes I agree with him. Before people die it is better to have bread lines as short term solution. Long term though the society has to be rebuild to make that unnecessary, and he actually does fight for that. But what would you think preferable, given only these two choices:
- people starve
- bread lines
(4) Well then, lean back and watch Sanders campaign crash and burn. 
