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+

Machiavellian said:
Azuren 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.

It's a pretty important aspect to keep in mind when it pertains to the type of discussion. I don't believe you're here in good faith, just like it would be fair to assume a guy named XboxSux is probably not participating in Xbox discussion in good faith. If you have a hard time understanding that... Well, that's on you.

And what point? The one where you have a hard time contesting the fact that over half of your arguments have been insults rather than positions, or the one where you realize you named yourself after the personality trait of politicians that literally everyone here can agree is the problem with politicians?



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

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.

Good for you, everyone perceives things differently. 



Azuren said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

It's a pretty important aspect to keep in mind when it pertains to the type of discussion. I don't believe you're here in good faith, just like it would be fair to assume a guy named XboxSux is probably not participating in Xbox discussion in good faith. If you have a hard time understanding that... Well, that's on you.

And what point? The one where you have a hard time contesting the fact that over half of your arguments have been insults rather than positions, or the one where you realize you named yourself after the personality trait of politicians that literally everyone here can agree is the problem with politicians?

Ahh you got me.  I guess you know me so well based on a username I picked.  Well, I cannot defeat your perfect logic on this front.  Just so you know, if you see Machiavellian on any other websites forums there is a good chance it's me as I use it on everyone I have registered.  With that said, your opinion is pretty much baseless.  Who really cares what you believe based on a username but you are more than welcome to believe it.

The point is that this thread really isn't about Trump so, while I do enjoy arguing about the idiot, I really did not feel I need another 300 word post to continue to discuss about him in this topic.  I am more than happy to continue this discussion in that general political thread, then I can really test exactly how much research you have done because so far it appears to be very empty.  I am more than happy to test how much you actually have been paying attention to current events if you so chose to do so.



Machiavellian said:
Azuren said:

It's a pretty important aspect to keep in mind when it pertains to the type of discussion. I don't believe you're here in good faith, just like it would be fair to assume a guy named XboxSux is probably not participating in Xbox discussion in good faith. If you have a hard time understanding that... Well, that's on you.

And what point? The one where you have a hard time contesting the fact that over half of your arguments have been insults rather than positions, or the one where you realize you named yourself after the personality trait of politicians that literally everyone here can agree is the problem with politicians?

Ahh you got me.  I guess you know me so well based on a username I picked.  Well, I cannot defeat your perfect logic on this front.  Just so you know, if you see Machiavellian on any other websites forums there is a good chance it's me as I use it on everyone I have registered.  With that said, your opinion is pretty much baseless.  Who really cares what you believe based on a username but you are more than welcome to believe it.

The point is that this thread really isn't about Trump so, while I do enjoy arguing about the idiot, I really did not feel I need another 300 word post to continue to discuss about him in this topic.  I am more than happy to continue this discussion in that general political thread, then I can really test exactly how much research you have done because so far it appears to be very empty.  I am more than happy to test how much you actually have been paying attention to current events if you so chose to do so.

And then the lowest form of wit from the lowest form of political commentator. Appropriate. Good luck with convincing anyone who knows what the word means that you're trying to have a discussion about politics in a rational manner. You'll need it when you take into consideration half your argument is insults and the other half is sarcasm.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

tsogud said:
eva01beserk said:

No, i refuse to believe that I have to be in one extreme or the other on any topic,  no matter what it is. Thats a lousy excuse for people to say im ultimately right and you dont agree cuz you are evil. 

And yes, the proverb does apply, you just have to reach the man before he is on that condition. When he still has options. And the only people who will put the effort if all their needs are met are only going to be the ones who have a chance to reach the very top. If they fail they will give up and settle for free living. Most people dont have a shot at the big leagues so the majority will just accept it and just let life and opportunity pass them by. 

I never said you had to be at an extreme, all I said was that being on the fence or "in the middle" on issues is not a definitive stance. You can be on the fence on things but ultimately, once you hear both sides of the argument, you have to come to your own conclusion on who/what you believe is right and then compromise from there IF you feel it's an issue worth compromising on. You can't be on the fence your whole life.

@bolded: Did you not understand what I wrote?? That's what those social programs do! That's us reaching out to the man before he's in that condition, so he has options. Not everyone is born with a roof over their heads, food on the table, and good health. And the best part is that these programs have been proven to work.

I honestly think you need to take a step back and look at the facts, apart from everyone else, and come to your own conclusion on what you believe. It seems you don't have your political beliefs all ironed out yet and that's fine but you at least need to have some idea on where you stand and where you draw the line. Maybe you'll end up admitting to yourself that maybe you're more conservative/liberal than you previously thought.

Well thas something you took cuz you refuse to accept what im saying. In no way am I indecisive or in the fence. I stated clearly what I believe should be done. You for some reason think that the only two options are get rid of all social programs or 100% free everything. I say we keep the social programs but only to those that really need it and never 100% everything, give them the need to work for the rest. Its quite simple, if you refuse to accept that than thats on you.



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

Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
eva01beserk said:

And you do know why affordability is so low right? Because they refuse to build affordable housing. 

I've literally said this exact thing in the past 2 or 3 posts towards you...  

eva01beserk said:

like I said before, shouldn't the state leading the race in social programs be doing better with the wealth inequality? the middle class is shrinking by the day and poverty increasing. And a problem that is everywhere but nowhere is it as bad as in california. 

And again:

>Social programs don't tend to spend very much on housing.  A lot of it goes towards things like food. 

>California isn't leading in social programs per capita.  They are getting more than any other state, but they also have 40 million people to share it with.  They are not even in the top 10 for most spent per capita.  

Yea I noticed late that you did multiple responses. 

Thats still not a good thing considering that they have 1/9 of the US population but have 1/3 the poor of the entire country. Thats still insanely dis proportionally.  They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 



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

vivster said:
eva01beserk said:

I think the best example that I could show you is California. You cant tell me that they are nt trying their best to as you call it"catch up to the EU". Its the worst ranking state in the US and before the insanity they where the best. Now the have the highest wealth inequality. The middle class shrinks every day. Homelessness as far as the eye can see. Rich neighborhoods gated. Thats what to many "social programs" do to an economy. The state has not yet taken the resources of the big corporations like google there cuz they know they will just flee to either another state, or out the country if need be.  Radical leftist have full reign in California and nobody stops they crazzy policies they put up and look what they have. 

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. 

The example you bring up is just as stupid as calling universal healthcare bad because it failed in the US. Let me fill you in on some secret.

Social policies only work if they're applied UNIVERSALLY. Not on a state level, not on a class level or any other division that doesn't include 100% of the population of a country. That's why it works in Europe and Canada and that's why it doesn't work in the US. Not only is every try in the right direction terribly sabotaged by Republicans who gut the bills out as much as possible, but it's only ever insular and has giant loopholes. Insurance doesn't work if not everyone is paying into it. Especially people who DON'T need insurance right now. That's the whole basis of any insurance or any social policy. EVERYONE has to pay in. But that concept is apparently too hard to grasp for Americans and is the first thing that gets gutted in the process of implementing it. OF COURSE YOUR SHIT DOESN'T WORK IF YOU REMOVE ALL OF THE FUNCTIONING PARTS. Coincidentally also the exact same reason why gun control won't ever work in the US.

Inequality exists because the naturally egotistic nature of humans strives for it. But everyone knows that. That's why we invented government and politics. Because most people are assholes and need to be reigned in. It's the government's sole job to work specifically against human urges in an attempt to achieve as much wealth for everyone as possible. Of course that doesn't work if the work of the government is constantly demonized and "taking from the rich" is considered a bad thing.

You're talking absolute nonsense here. If what you said about poor people not wanting to work then Europe would have collapsed by now. In Germany everyone gets housing and basic welfare all sponsored by the government. The vast majority of unemployed people want to work to improve their live, even though they already get paid plenty to just live without working. Germany has an unemployment rate of 3%. How do you explain that in a country that cannot stop itself from sending loads of money to unemployed people. Basic income will become a necessity in the future but that's another topic with a lot more going on than just being a "social program".

I'll leave you with this.

Thats the issue right there. Its only in highly populated states where the is a severe need for theese social programs. Like I said in the previous post, california has 1/9 the US population but has 1/3 the poor of the US. Its disproportionate. Thats the point of the electoral college. So all the resources are not drained from smaller states to feed the bigger states for the issues they created. 

And  Ill give you that humans are naturally egotistical. As much as we evolved we still carry that in us to just horde as much as possible for ourselfs only. I dont think theres going to be a fix for that anytime soon. 

As much as I dont believe that about germany, its great if true. Do you really believe that if we do the same as germany it will work just the same? We have 4x the population and a higher GDP per capita. It tends to be that the higher the population the lower the GDP per capita, so We must be doing something a lot better than germany.

Edit: Just wish there was a different response from a little criticism than being called a republican or far right.

Last edited by eva01beserk - on 25 June 2019

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

MrWayne said:
eva01beserk said:

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.

So Venezuela didn't immediately went socialist the moment Chavez was elected, I got it. 

Look I'm not a Socialist and I don't want to defend Socialism nor Maduro and Chavez, they are awful but it's incredibly dishonest fear mongering to say the "far left" democratic candidates will turn the US into a failed socialist country like Venezuela. Bernie, Warren and co have very moderate policies which have been in force in other countries for decades without turning those countries into "shithole countries".

Hell Germany has a form of universal healthcare since 1883 and I'm unaware that Germany is known for ruining its economy or that Germans are known to be lazy.

All im saying is that there is the potential for the slippery slope. Once the doors is open for moderate socialist programs. Like vivster said before, Unless the full nation wide its not gona have even a chance of working. But there is no way the US will just take in all of germanys policies in that manner. It will have to be a few a a time, slowly. but if you leave programs half ass like that they are bound to fail one by one and by the time you could get to where germany is it will all be a clusterf**k.



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

eva01beserk said:
the-pi-guy said:

I've literally said this exact thing in the past 2 or 3 posts towards you...  

And again:

>Social programs don't tend to spend very much on housing.  A lot of it goes towards things like food. 

>California isn't leading in social programs per capita.  They are getting more than any other state, but they also have 40 million people to share it with.  They are not even in the top 10 for most spent per capita.  

Yea I noticed late that you did multiple responses. 

Thats still not a good thing considering that they have 1/9 of the US population but have 1/3 the poor of the entire country. Thats still insanely dis proportionally.  They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 

What numbers are you using in which California has 1/3 of the US's poor population?



...

Azuren said:
Machiavellian said:

Ahh you got me.  I guess you know me so well based on a username I picked.  Well, I cannot defeat your perfect logic on this front.  Just so you know, if you see Machiavellian on any other websites forums there is a good chance it's me as I use it on everyone I have registered.  With that said, your opinion is pretty much baseless.  Who really cares what you believe based on a username but you are more than welcome to believe it.

The point is that this thread really isn't about Trump so, while I do enjoy arguing about the idiot, I really did not feel I need another 300 word post to continue to discuss about him in this topic.  I am more than happy to continue this discussion in that general political thread, then I can really test exactly how much research you have done because so far it appears to be very empty.  I am more than happy to test how much you actually have been paying attention to current events if you so chose to do so.

And then the lowest form of wit from the lowest form of political commentator. Appropriate. Good luck with convincing anyone who knows what the word means that you're trying to have a discussion about politics in a rational manner. You'll need it when you take into consideration half your argument is insults and the other half is sarcasm.

I don't think he needs good luck when his posts speak for themselves.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club