Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

[Azuren]

Machiavellian said:

Azuren said:

You are, but why would you admit it? No, instead you'd rather deflect to asking me if I'd let my daughter date him. Good on you. As expected of someone who goes by the name "Machiavellian". Now put those goalposts back.

So basically you have no answer.  Either you accept his statement and believe it means nothing or you do not.  You can call it whatever you want but what you did not do is answer the question.

He didn't say maybe. He said he assumes some are good people among those coming into the country illegally. Out of context or in this conversation if you said "maybe your mom is not a whore", then you'd probably get a warning or a ban. Now, a discussion concerning a rise in prostitution among 50-60 women that included that? I'd assume it meant you didn't think my mom was a whore.

So if I said I assume your mom isn't a whore how is that any better.  Whether is maybe, assume or whatever your choice its the phrasing that means the most.  

What's that? A comment on a Trump policy instead of just calling him racist? Color me surprised. I'm not an economist, but I would assume the President of the United States (who has shown in the past that he defers to the wisdom of people who know what they're doing, such as with his chance from a wall to a fence at the suggestion of border control) would probably have a guy in his cabinet who knows a little more about economics than I, a dip who just gets exhausted from all the Trump Anxiety people try to spread, or you, a guy who thought the name Machiavellian was a good faith name for someone arguing politics.

Where have I ever called Trump a racist.  I guess you have never read any of my post because I do not believe Trump is a racist, I believe he is an opportunist.  Also you do not need to be a racist to be prejudice but that's another story.  Next you assume that Trump who has no polical experience would make sure he has a guy in his babinet who knows more about economics.  I guess you can keep assuming instead of knowing since it doesn't take to much effort to find that bit of info out.

And then a 180 back to the inane. What's amoral about a wall? What about their plans are stupid? How are they idiots? Are you just going to throw a bunch of insults around and make an attempt at moral posturing, or are you going to make a point?

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.  What wall.  There is nothing within my post that talks about a wall.  Did you just totally ignore what I stated and interjected what you believed I said because this whole statement lost me.

And again, insults. This time without the moral posturing at least, but now it's just insults. "Trump's plans are bad because he's dumb". Great argument, genius, I'm totally convinced.

Yes, that is exactly my opinion, what you did not do is provide any argument to show how I am wrong.  You did not show how any of the things I listed shows anything that he knows what he is doing but I pretty much knew you wouldn't.

"A con job". I suppose that's a better argument than "he dumb".

Nope, he is still an idiot.

A quick google into that one about the Steel Industry shows a back-and-forth between Trump and never-Trump that I don't care to get into. There are reports from October that show surges, and reports of "insiders" from January that clash with what Trump claims... Seems like something worthy of a discussion, but it doesn't seem like something I would drop into a "Trump bad" column so readily.

This has nothing to do with never Trump.  I am not sure exactly what you are researching.  This has to do with bringing back Steel to the US.  and the effect of the Tariffs on that plan.  This is not political just numbers.

Can you? Because you've really only made one solid point about trade tariffs another another hot-take point about the nuance currently surrounding the steel industry. Instead, you just called him and his administration dumb a lot, which makes it seem more like you watch Maddow a lot rather than actual news. It seems your homework comes from one kind of source rather than a spread of sources, and the result is the thought process that insulting someone a lot makes you correct. Which would make you more like Trump than you'd probably like to admit.

As I stated we could do this in another thread.  I have no interest in going off tangent within this thread with a long post on his policy.  I do have to say I love how you threw Maddow into your point.  As always, with most people who defend Trump, you always believe someone has to be a Democrat, watch CNN, MSNBC or whatever.  You have no clue what my source comes from because you have done no homework yourself.  As to me calling Trump an idiot, its because that is my opinion.  No sense in pussyfooting about it.  One thing I have not seen from you is defending why you believe he isn't.

And for the record, I voted for Bernie and never watched any of Trump's shows. I knew the "you're fired" meme and that he was in Home Alone, but that was the extent of my knowledge concerning Trump before he was elected. I just get tired of the Trump Derangement Syndrome that the media has stirred up in people. It was annoying when Fox did it to Obama, and it's even more annoying when everyone else does it to Trump. Argue policies and research statements. An insult isn't a valid substitution for an argument.

It would be hard to vote for Bernie since he was not on the ticket for President.  The difference between you and I is that I did a lot of research on Trump when he was in the Republican Primaries because he was the front runner.  I did more after that once he was nominated for the GOP party.  I went to his web site and compared all his points to Clinton.  I watched a number of his rallies to get an ideal on his policy.  

What I see from you is what I see from another person in this thread, who always blames the media for not approving of Trump.  It's everyone else fault besides him and that is the derangement Syndrome I see.  

I mean, why would I take you seriously when your name is literally derivative of one of three "dark" personality traits and means politically unscrupulous? That and you're clearly the type to gloss things over, which I'll prove in just a moment.

But first, the act of assuming my mother isn't a whore? Because it's about context. I get that you're here to be two-faced (not my words, it's simply a verified synonym of your name), but context is pretty important when someone says I assume some are good people. Just based on that fact that he assumes some are good throws a wrench in your analogy, since he's assuming a positive and not simply assuming the lack of a negative. But hey, your name continues to paint a picture of just what exactly you're here to do.

Back to the glossing over things: I never said you were racist. I actually complimented how you were addressing policy instead of just calling him racist. It's gotta be embarrassing when you call someone out for not reading your posts, when that's exactly what you did. And you also assume he wouldn't want someone with more experience in his cabinet, but that's just your bias showing. You don't want to give him any credit, you just want to call him stupid and dumb and not have anyone retaliate.

Less about what you said and more about challenging the moral posturing that goes into effect again Trump's immigration policies. Want a more direct rebuttle? Well, you're aware of when and why those laws went into effect, right? It was a Clinton era law that was set up to stop child trafficking, which was a huge problem at the time. It's also still been upheld throughout Clinton's tenure, as well as Bush's and Obama's. The reason it's an issue now is two-fold: there are record numbers of illegal crossings, so there would obviously be a record number of separations. It sucks, but child trafficking is a terrifying thing. The other reason is because the media is trying to earn their next dollar off of the Trump bump, so they incite people with their ragebait.

Insults aren't a viable substitution for an argument, but I suppose it does help you live up to your conniving name (another verifiable synonym). I didn't make an attempt to "show how you are wrong", because you didn't present anything to prove or disprove. You made a vague blanket statement and called Trump dumb.

Again, you're not making a point. You're just calling him an idiot.

Which is why I said some sources show a positive effect and some show a negative effect, making it something that seems more nuanced than you would probably care to admit.

That's a whole lot of accusations coming from someone with such an insidious name (verifiable synonym). I do enjoy how you didn't deny getting information from Maddow, too. Instead you just double down on the "Trump is dumb" arguments and make the hypocritical claim that I don't know anything just because I don't immediately agree with someone who would call out Trump for being opportunistic when their username is quite literally a synonym for opportunistic. 

It's called a write-in, bub. You can't seriously expect me to take someone as deceitful, dishonest, and treacherous (all verifiable synonyms) as you seriously when you can't even formulate the idea in your head that someone liked Bernie so much they opted to write-in his name? Get a clue, dude, the only reason there is derangement syndrome is because people hear his name and immediately think "gotta shit on this guy, even if I don't have a point to make".