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

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

sethnintendo said:
KLAMarine said:

You stated previously that you "haven't seen such fanatical support since a politician named Hitler." It's bull: Hitler took control of mass media, Trump has no such control as demonstrated by the regular slamming he gets from many media outlets. Trump Hitler outlawed all parties but the Nazi Party, other parties beside the Republican party still exist under Trump. Hitler was leader for life, the presidency only allows for two terms.

The two aren't comparable...

I was talking about support from his fan base.  No matter what he does he will always have that 35 to 40 percent.  He even said he could shoot someone and still not lose support from his fans.  

So what has he done that should cost him the 35-40%?



Around the Network
eva01beserk said:
vivster said:

Look, social programs are not a bad thing, dont get me wrong. But you have to realize that good intentions is not all takes to lead a nation. Inequality is a law of nature as all people are inherently different and as such different outcomes will result from it. Sadly because of it, some will end rich some poor. But its impossible to completely fix that gap that nature made. If all needs for the poor where met, like guaranteed housing, health care and food and education, they would not need to even get off the bed in the mourning. The more the needs are met, the less people will work to improve themselves. I say we do have to help the most needed out of some hardships, but never completely remove all hardships from them. 

What the heck is this? 



People saying trump is the most human or you have to sacrifice morals to be in the Dems or trump is likable or whatever. He's a fake populist I'll give you that. You know who's a real populist? Bernie Sanders and much of the country agrees with most of his policies. And whether in YouTube or in person, his speeches are full of substance and worth listening to unlike Joe Biden or Donald Drumpf or Pete Buttigieg. Sure Warren and Gabbard and Yang and Gravel also have substance but not the mass appeal and revolutionary language that Bernie has



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

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.  



Also to the guy who hates independent media and loves corporate media so much, they are bought and paid or. Places like New York times and politico and Reuters and CNN constantly attack Bernie Sanders because he threatens their bottom line. They are liers and will do anything to keep the status quo. They would be happier if Drumpf won than Bernie. They are the rich and owned by the rich. If you want fair, objective analysis of news, look towards independent media.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network

In general, what men want most is sex, and what woman want most is resourcefulness (safety). If a woman wants a man, she needs to be able to satisfy him sexually, and the more satisfied he is, the more resourceful he will become (unless he ever hits a limit). If a man wants a woman, all he has to do is be seen as more resourceful than other men, and he will get his choice of woman, and will get to make more decisions about how the relationship operates. (obviously other things come into play but they aren't near as important as the main factor for most)

A resourceful man who chooses a woman knows what he wants and is going to get it or will leave the woman because he can easily acquire another one. A sexually satisfying woman is going to get what she wants or she will leave the man because she can easily acquire another one. Both will have to compromise along the way because neither can have everything the way they would always like.

Woman and men don't just fall in love because there's 'magic in the air', they fall in love because both satisfy each other's needs, whatever those may be, and because they are both willing to sacrifice what's necessary. Love itself isn't even necessary in a relationship, especially if the point isn't to directly please each other, but to indirectly help each other in some other manner. No relationship is perfect, and no relationship is a life sentence. 

Trump conned the most powerful nation on Earth into making him President apparently. If he's one of the lower tier cons, I'd hate to see what one of the top tier is capable of.

Yes you would not want to see what a top tier con artist could do.  Do not worry, they are already in government and have been playing this game for a very long time.  Putting idiots into power has always been one of their major strengths.  The interesting part will be can they do it a second time.  The odds are good as long as Trump and the economy doesn't falter before election time.  My money is that Trump will screw it up coming down the stretch.  



gamingsoul said:
Guys if you think Europe is so wonderful why don’t you live there? Is not that hard just find a job and you can stay as long as you want, escape from heartless America and enjoy your social utopia.

Well, the bestestest argument of all time. If you don't like Mexican immigrants, why don't you go to canada? If you like capitalism so much, why don't you go to China (do the research, China is ultracapitalist)? If you like no socialized health care, why don't you go to Singapur? If you do like overacting leaders so much, why don't you go to Hungary with Victor Orban?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
gamingsoul said:
Guys if you think Europe is so wonderful why don’t you live there? Is not that hard just find a job and you can stay as long as you want, escape from heartless America and enjoy your social utopia.

Well, the bestestest argument of all time. If you don't like Mexican immigrants, why don't you go to canada? If you like capitalism so much, why don't you go to China (do the research, China is ultracapitalist)? If you like no socialized health care, why don't you go to Singapur? If you do like overacting leaders so much, why don't you go to Hungary with Victor Orban?

Many people leave their country when they are dissatisfied with their own, look what’s happening at the souther border or all the Muslim immigrant going to Europe.



gamingsoul said:
Mnementh said:

Well, the bestestest argument of all time. If you don't like Mexican immigrants, why don't you go to canada? If you like capitalism so much, why don't you go to China (do the research, China is ultracapitalist)? If you like no socialized health care, why don't you go to Singapur? If you do like overacting leaders so much, why don't you go to Hungary with Victor Orban?

Many people leave their country when they are dissatisfied with their own, look what’s happening at the souther border or all the Muslim immigrant going to Europe.

Wow. That statement just revealed how incredibly ignorant you are of what's going on in the world, not to mention privileged enough to even think that just anybody can get up and go to a foreign land on a whim with no problems at all.

A vast majority of those people are refugees seeking asylum from incredibly impoverished and war-torn hostile states. I can assume that if you were trying to survive in the middle of a literal WAR and chaos you'd need to find a more suitable place to live. It takes A LOT to abandon your home because the powers that be have made it literally impossible for you to live there. It's not like going on a vacation on a whim, it's out of necessity, the countries that they love are no longer hospitable places to live at and so they're forced to relocate because their lives depend on it.



 

MrWayne said:
eva01beserk said:

Im not equating him to maduro, Im equating to chavez, the one who started it all. Like all socialism its all great and dandy in the beginning, as things start going south they slowly start taking from the rich then the middle class then when there is no one else to take from you get what was promised, no wealth inequality as everybody is poor now. Maduro already had a turd on his hand when it was handed to him.

The only thing missing for berni to be full socialist is the state appropriation of businesses. But like all socialism that is a last resort that inevitably end up resorting to, cuz guess what after a million examples, socialism does not work. 

You probably meant "state appropriation of all businesses", the word "all" is very important because almost all capitalist economies have some state owned businesses. The second sentence is also wrong, "state appropriation of all businesses" is the very first step in socialism and not a last resort, there is no socialism without the public ownership ( through the state or Worker cooperatives) of almost all businesses.

So Bernie missing this core characteristic of socialism in his policies is very important.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008 

Venezuela did not started by nationalizing all the industry, they did  some at a time, and at the beginning none where taken over. When ever they needed more money cuz they destroyed the first buisnes they took over, they move on to the next one. The latest things they took over was personal homes to turn a area into a turist atraction.

The same will be with berni and the rest of the democrats runing on socialism. When its ovbious that they cant pay for it, another sector will suffer and so on and so on, just like venezuela.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.