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+

MrWayne said:
Mnementh said:

Well, without universal health care Hitler might have gotten sick and died before he took over power, so health care is bad.

Hitler was an immigration problem, after all he was austrian not german.

As Austria copies everything from us germans, they introduced universal health care in 1889.



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

Around the Network
Mnementh said:
MrWayne said:

Hitler was an immigration problem, after all he was austrian not german.

As Austria copies everything from us germans, they introduced universal health care in 1889.

They all copied from us, Germany was the very first country to introduced universal health care



Azuren said:
SpokenTruth said:

This article links to 7 studies and criminal statistics to back up my claim.

But here's a couple of simple charts for quick reference.

The real question is why do the crime rates of native-born citizens matter in a discussion about immigrant crime rates? What immigration policies will prevent native-born citizens from committing crime?

Because the matter isn't about preventing crime.  The point of the post above isn't that native born citizens commit more crime, and that there should be a policy to handle it.  

The point of the post above is to point out that illegal immigrants are not inherently more violent than regular citizens.  The point is that illegal immigrants are not the violent monsters who are raping, murdering and pillaging left and right that some are trying to claim they are.  



o_O.Q said:

under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way? beyond that can you quote for me where she has mentioned another business?

You do know the government has broken up monopolistic businesses before, right? In 1911 Standard Oil was split up into multiple smaller companies, which went on to become oil companies familiar to us today like Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, and Amoco. Then in 1982 AT&T (the original version of the company) was required to divest itself of the Bell System, which was broken up into seven regional "Baby Bells." In both instances the breakup of a major corporation resulted in the creation of multiple smaller corporations, capitalistic entities all. The proposed breakup of certain tech giants today would be no different. It wasn't socialism then, and it wouldn't somehow be socialism today. So, you ask "under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way?", and I answer: "The same one we've always had, the same one that existed under Taft and Reagan." There is nothing inherently socialistic about anti-trust policies. And all governments redistribute wealth and property through their policies. Even the most simple changes in the tax code will necessarily redistribute some wealth. Supply-side tax cuts redistribute wealth upward by concentrating it into the hands of those who are already wealthy, but nobody considers that to be "socialism" even though it is redistributive. Redistribution is not socialism.

which is a completely irrelevant red herring

How so? All other advanced nations have a universal public health insurance system. All other nations have not forcibly nationalized all health insurance providers, and private for-profit insurance companies still exist in those nations. A single-payer system does not inherently involve the nationalization of private businesses. What makes you believe the situation will be any different in the U.S., assuming we ever do move to a truly universal single-payer system? Do you think Medicare and Medicaid are socialist?

When all of the private options are consolidated into a centrally controlled system then yes, yes it does

So public roads, police, emergency services, military defense, and other government services are socialism? Are you sure you're not one of those "Socialism is anything the government does" types?

I'm curious btw if you're going to jump as far as claiming its only socialism when there is no state

No. If the state nationalizes the means of production, I consider that a form of socialism. And no mainstream U.S. politician has advocated nationalizing any extant private for-profit business. I've seen them advocate for better regulation (of pollution, etc.), more progressive taxation, and expansion/improvement of services already provided by the government that may or may no compete with similar services offered by the private sector, but that's not socialism because there's no transfer of ownership of a private entity to the public.

but is gaining traction which was my point

No more traction than it had a century ago, which even then wasn't much. It's not a mainstream thing.

the nazis controlled all of the businesses in germany, they decided how they would operate and only allowed businesses inline with their agenda to survive, that can hardly be considered a mixed economy and especially not a capitalist economy as many dishonest people have claimed

What does privatization of state enterprises say about their economy? What do the continued existence of large corporations like Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Daimler-Benz, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen say about their economy? How is the active promotion of private for-profit business not capitalism? Does it cease to be capitalism when the state says corporations have to toe the party line, even if those corporations do so willingly and happily because it helps their bottom lines? No, it does not.

what does this say about their policies? I thought we were talking about policy?'

Hitler hated socialism and viewed it as a Jewish plot, and that informed his policies. But I guess since he was a statist he actually didn't really hate socialism, right? All statists are socialists by definition, and only libertarians are true "anti-socialists," huh? That whole "socialism is whatever the government does" bit really does seem to be your general attitude.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/workplace-democracy-policy-bernie-sanders

"Bernie Sanders’s embrace of worker ownership and control aims to extend democracy from the political sphere to the economy."

"As revealed Tuesday by the Washington Post, the Sanders presidential campaign is currently working on two proposals designed to win American workers a greater share of profits and give them a bigger say in company decisions.

While details are forthcoming, the first will involve requiring large businesses to put a portion of their stock into employee-controlled funds, which would in turn pay out dividends to workers — potentially turning them into owners."

what do you think the ultimate goal of the proposals made here is?

Giving the employees of big businesses some say in what goes on in said businesses in this era we live in where employees are mostly "wage-slaves" existing in an the authoritarian power structure that is the modern corporation and have lost almost all means of unionizing thanks to Orwellian-named "right to work" laws gutting the power of labor. The employees as a group being a shareholder doesn't necessarily fundamentally alter the nature of that business, that being a private for-profit corporation selling its goods and services in an open market and selling stock to current and potential investors. I suppose you're concerned that these measures are an incrementalist thing that will ultimately result in forced conversion of those businesses into worker co-ops, but that's not what's actually being pushed for.

I understand your desire to caricature my argument in this way, but I've clarified how you are wrong

Sure doesn't seem like that. You've pointed to any government intervention in the economy or government-provided service and have insinuated it was somehow socialistic. How else am I suppose to interpret that except as "socialism is everything the government does."

which is what democrats are calling for in some areas as I've clarified

I don't think you understand what "public ownership" means. If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism. If they passed a law forcing Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, etc., to become credit unions, that would be socialism. And that's not what the Democrats are pushing for. The Democrats by and large are moderates and capitalists, though you occasionally get a social democrat like AOC (Sanders is running as a Democrat for president, but he is not a member of the party). Even if they don't necessarily believe in the nominally laissez faire "vulture capitalism" the GOP ascribes to, the Democratic mainstream are not intent on fundamentally restructuring our economy, especially not along socialistic lines. Democrats get their re-election campaigns financed by big private for-profit capitalist entities. That comes with a certain tacit quid pro quo. They aren't going to challenge that relationship. They want to moderate capitalism and tone down its excesses. They don't want us to start resembling

who exactly are you arguing with? are you doing the thing where someone makes a point you disagree with and so therefore you just lump them in with everyone you disagree with and assume they are saying the exact same thing?

I think you even at one point suggested I'm right wing lol

Are you just unfamiliar with right-wing talking points? Do you not know anyone that spends all day listening to conservative talk radio and/or Fox News? Right-wing propagandists have spent decades lumping everybody that disagrees with them together and calling them "socialists," "Marxists," and "communists," and now there's the whole "argumentum ad Venezuela" strawman that's making the rounds. It's farcical to the extreme and lacks any factual basis, but this red-baiting works to agitate the base, and (to get back to the main topic of the thread) that's one reason why Trump supporters are so fervent in their love of the man. They've been fed this stead line of garbage that the Democrats are (among other things) Stalin incarnate, and they believe Trump is the ultimate embodiment of everything the Democrats hate, which makes him awesome in their book. I hear this red-baiting garbage all the time and I'm honestly sick of it. I don't know what you believe, but it's clear that you've at least picked up on some right-wing talking points through simple cultural osmosis if you think the Democrats are in any way socialist.

why do people say that?

Because they're either right-wing propagandists or people who spend all day listening to right-wing propaganda. Again, do you not know anyone who spends all day listening to right-wing radio talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage? CNN doesn't kiss Trump's ass and, more broadly, they don't kiss the GOP's ass and mindlessly spew right-wing talking points and condemn the Democrats every chance they get, so they're the enemy, and the enemy must be tarred with whatever slurs are deemed appropriate, up to an including insinuating that they're communists.



the-pi-guy said:
Azuren said:

The real question is why do the crime rates of native-born citizens matter in a discussion about immigrant crime rates? What immigration policies will prevent native-born citizens from committing crime?

Because the matter isn't about preventing crime.  The point of the post above isn't that native born citizens commit more crime, and that there should be a policy to handle it.  

The point of the post above is to point out that illegal immigrants are not inherently more violent than regular citizens.  The point is that illegal immigrants are not the violent monsters who are raping, murdering and pillaging left and right that some are trying to claim they are.  

Except they do still bring crime at a much higher rate than legal immigrants, crime that would happen much less if immigration policies were addressed and improved. The point made by those discussing crime committed by illegal immigrants does include the disingenuous claims that they commit crime at a higher rate than citizens, but the point that people who are acting in good faith would point out is much of this is crime wouldn't even be in the country in the first place if there was better border security.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
PortisheadBiscuit said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Mocking the left does not make someone automatically rightsided.

It doesn't NOT mean it either...

You are free to not trust others on what they say and assume about that ofcourse,i do think it is important to be critical on everything without fearing those assumptions.

If evaberserk tells us she/he is center while she/he never said something that could be considered rightsided i find it just more logical to just believe that till there is other info aviable that strongly says otherwise and in my opinion such info is currently nonexistent.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 25 June 2019

There 1 republican but like 25 democrats. That alone should explain everything



collint0101 said:
There 1 republican but like 25 democrats. That alone should explain everything

GOP have become masters of gerrymandering since they weaponized it around early 2010s.  I'm sure that lone republican will find away to multiple their influence.  Receive less than 50% of votes but win over 60% of seats in state legislator.  Happens all too frequently these days.



EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

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.  

So let me get this straight. You clearly dislike pretty much everything about him and everything he does as President, and yet he's just an idiot puppet to the elite pro con artists who are conning him into doing that they want done?

So why are you so mad at Trump then if he's a victim in this situation? The elites just keep ruining his life. Where's the support for this survivor?

Nope, I actually do not dislike Trump at all.  I do not have to like or dislike someone to have an opinion of them.  As I have stated, some of the stuff Trump tackles are legit issues, it's the fact that he is incompetent as the person to tackle those issues is the problem. 

Not sure why you believe I am mad at Trump just because I believe he is an idiot.  Why should I feel sorry for him when he plays the game just like any player.  Hell, I wouldn't even care if he goes another 4 years.  If he is this glorious leader you believe, I would definitely want you to get the full experience.  Trump has been the most entertaining President in a long time.  People who probably never followed politics know about positions and the people in those positions due to Trump more than any other President.  

The problem with you is that you always try to make even the most bone headed thing Trump do or say into something positive which is fun just seeing you work your magic.  I haven't notice any analogies from you lately but I am sure you will throw out a few once you get back up to speed.



Azuren said:
Machiavellian said:

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".

Lol, now we are comparing someone name to how you take them seriously or not.  Oh well, I guess we have reach that point in this discussion.  let's get back on topic in this thread and we can take this one to another one if you want as I can argue your points all day long but it would then mean another 3 hundred word post.