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+

the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

So California should have more say because it has more people? So what you want is immigration wars?

That's not exactly what it does.  

Eliminating the electoral college would make Republican votes in California actually matter.  Which could cause more Republicans to vote.  

EricHiggin said:

 Screw the minority and balancing needed for equality, right?..

That's what the electoral college does.  

Republicans in blue states get screwed over, because their vote doesn't matter.

Democrats in red states gets screwed over, because their vote doesn't matter.

EricHiggin said:

Have you not seen how the far left is reacting to the right now, and how calm and gentle they are being? Imagine a further left President along with that after 16 years straight. I'm sure things will go smoothly and peacefully...

How far left or right someone is, has absolutely no bearing on how "calm or gentle" people are.  

EricHiggin said:

Yes, completely restricted airspace over the central portion or tolls to fly over, along with the road tolls to pass through. Who cares what other countries think, they can go around, or talk some sense into the coasts who brought this on.

Yes, the evil coastal states making every vote the same.  

EricHiggin said:

You mean like tossing the EC so there will only be solely Democrat American leadership, further left in this case from now on? That's not evil? Food is a right?

Tossing the EC would not lead to solely Democratic American leadership.  The electoral college has voted the same as the popular vote nearly every single election.  So no, eliminating the EC would not cause only Democrat American leadership.  

EricHiggin said:

Shipping costs are covered and the consumer is covering it. The coasts could pay more, but there is only so much money, and if you take it from one place for another, something somewhere has to deal with that loss, and you can be sure that those people who are part of that something won't be upset at all, not in the slightest...

What happened to creating wealth?  

EricHiggin said:

Exactly. So now the coasts aren't getting their imported food, and the central portion isn't getting whatever. Who cares, the central portion has their own food, oil, water, and guns, so they are fine, and the coasts are now screwed. Are you trying to say that people don't or won't move if they can't live the type of life they want because of how the Gov is being run? Look at how many people are leaving states like California because of this right now.

>Are you trying to say that people don't or won't move if they can't live the type of life they want because of how the Gov is being run?

It's unlikely.  Most families are mixed.  

>the coasts are now screwed

More than likely both sides would be fine.

EricHiggin said:

A wall of guns if necessary. It won't be a problem though because the central conservative portion sucks and is poor apparently, plus the illegal immigrants aren't wanted there, where as the blue coasts want as many as possible because they care oh so much about them... Just wait until other countries see the coasts keeping those poor illegal immigrants out who are just going to perish otherwise. Who do you think they are going to side with then?

I guess if we just start tossing stuff out and changing things that don't favor us, well then, what's really off the table?

>plus the illegal immigrants aren't wanted there

Several red states have some of the largest undocumented populations.  

>I guess if we just start tossing stuff out and changing things that don't favor us, well then, what's really off the table?

Yes, making every vote equal and making every vote worth something is just unthinkable.  

Reps in Cali still wouldn't get their way, so what's the difference?

A more balanced system would be to have only Democrat leadership instead of the back and forth that tends to take place with the existing system?

So you're saying the past and present doesn't help predict the future?

Which will lead to the coastal states getting the locked in Democrat leadership they want, that their opposition doesn't. Who cares though right? They can fight can't they? It's not like they aren't being given an option. Hmm, I wonder if people can work to pay more for things or grow things themselves?

I thought the past and present didn't help predict the future, but now it does in this case?

Tell that to the poor and minorities. What happened to everyone working together? What happened to give and take?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

Try going without food, water, oil, or electricity for a couple days, or half as much anyway, and not for vacation. Now imagine that happening over weeks and months consistently. Everything's going to be just fine? Ironic since that's what they say in the movies before everyone get's snuffed.

Being undocumented makes it kinda hard to say how many there really are no? Plus it's for things like cheap labor to keep the produce prices low, which isn't necessary in this situation anymore. It's not like the one's who wanted to stay couldn't become tax paying citizens.

It is when it only ends up giving one side what it wants. The fact that side doesn't seem to be able to see this, or knows it and doesn't care, is all the more reason to make sure the EC remains in place. It's the Dems who are trying to accomplish this, and since they aren't in power and very well may lose again, you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
Torillian said:
EricHiggin said:

(...)

I want you to know your scenarios read like a Ben Shapiro novella or fan fiction on r/trump. 

That's all. 

edit: or the political version of "my dad could totally beat up your dad". 

Eric wears a T-shirt, so it's intended to be this way.



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

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

irstupid said:
o_O.Q said:

Love that photo. Sums it up perfectly.

Every like ten years we hear of some new "Socialist golden child" and the media and left point and praise it and say that is how it shoudl be done and it's the best country in the world.

Then 10 years later that very country is in a crisis, a total dictatorship, fleeing immigrants, ect. That place all of a sudden is "not socialism" but some new country that is doing it is the new golden child. 

"Perfectly" = Don't mention every single developed nation on the planet, and only focus on dictatorships and developing countries.

Here's a list of fictional countries from Tolkien's books that all have socialized healthcare:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
S. Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

That's every single fictional developed country in the world. Except for one. USA. The richest country in the history of the world, and also the only one where healthcare and financial bankruptcy go hand in hand. Sounds fictional, right?

When people talk about social democracies, they're talking about things like the Scandinavian model. Countries that are still capitalist, but have socialized healthcare and often times tuition free college.
But every time I watch a Fox News segment it's as if they don't understand this, or don't want their viewers to focus on that, so they mention Venezuela instead. A dictatorship and developing nation that were overdependent on their oil with no plan B...

⚠️

Anyway, this is the Democratic presidential nominee topic.
If you're going to talk about this subject then do it in accordance to what the actual discussion is.

Last edited by Hiku - on 29 June 2019

Hiku said:
irstupid said:

Love that photo. Sums it up perfectly.

Every like ten years we hear of some new "Socialist golden child" and the media and left point and praise it and say that is how it shoudl be done and it's the best country in the world.

Then 10 years later that very country is in a crisis, a total dictatorship, fleeing immigrants, ect. That place all of a sudden is "not socialism" but some new country that is doing it is the new golden child. 

"Perfectly" = Don't mention every single developed nation on the planet, and only focus on dictatorships and developing countries.

Here's a list of fictional countries from Tolkien's books that all have socialized healthcare:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
S. Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

That's every single fictional developed country in the world. Except for one. USA. The richest country in the history of the world, and also the only one where healthcare and financial bankruptcy go hand in hand. Sounds fictional, right?

When people talk about social democracies, they're talking about things like the Scandinavian model. Countries that are still capitalist, but have socialized healthcare and often times tuition free college.
But every time I watch a Fox News segment it's as if they don't understand this, or don't want their viewers to focus on that, so they mention Venezuela instead. A dictatorship and developing nation that were overdependent on their oil with no plan B...

⚠️

Anyway, this is the Democratic presidential nominee topic.
If you're going to talk about this subject then do it in accordance to what the actual discussion is.

the actual discussion was about democrats calling for the abolition of private healthcare which I've called socialism, for some reason shadow completely ignored that this was my point and went off into some ridiculous strawman



Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's not because of the electoral college - that's because the winner takes all.

Another point of the electoral college which often gets overlooked is to ensure that every state will have it's representatives. Remove the electoral college, and it becomes a luck-based mission for all the smaller states as the more populous states and cities would gobble up most, if not all the spots. As a result, they would only cater for their states/cities, leaving most of the country in the dust. That's why even a tiny country like Luxembourg still has 4 voting districts to ensure every region of the country is accounted for.

That would still happen in a representative election.  Just to a lesser extent.  

EricHiggin said:

Reps in Cali still wouldn't get their way, so what's the difference?

A more balanced system would be to have only Democrat leadership instead of the back and forth that tends to take place with the existing system?

So you're saying the past and present doesn't help predict the future?

Which will lead to the coastal states getting the locked in Democrat leadership they want, that their opposition doesn't. Who cares though right? They can fight can't they? It's not like they aren't being given an option. Hmm, I wonder if people can work to pay more for things or grow things themselves?

I thought the past and present didn't help predict the future, but now it does in this case?

Tell that to the poor and minorities. What happened to everyone working together? What happened to give and take?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

Try going without food, water, oil, or electricity for a couple days, or half as much anyway, and not for vacation. Now imagine that happening over weeks and months consistently. Everything's going to be just fine? Ironic since that's what they say in the movies before everyone get's snuffed.

Being undocumented makes it kinda hard to say how many there really are no? Plus it's for things like cheap labor to keep the produce prices low, which isn't necessary in this situation anymore. It's not like the one's who wanted to stay couldn't become tax paying citizens.

It is when it only ends up giving one side what it wants. The fact that side doesn't seem to be able to see this, or knows it and doesn't care, is all the more reason to make sure the EC remains in place. It's the Dems who are trying to accomplish this, and since they aren't in power and very well may lose again, you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

@bold: again, all of this is an inconsistent version of what you think would happen.  The reality is, even if there was a red/blue split up, both countries would be fine.  Either one would be richer than nearly any country on the planet.  

>California housing costs

Are high because the state isn't building enough houses for the people that want or have to live there.  

>you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

They're proposing it because it's fair. Every vote is equal to any other vote.  

The reality is, there is no way to know for sure how future elections would play out.  Republicans in blue states like California might be more willing to vote, which could change things.  



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

"Perfectly" = Don't mention every single developed nation on the planet, and only focus on dictatorships and developing countries.

Here's a list of fictional countries from Tolkien's books that all have socialized healthcare:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
S. Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

That's every single fictional developed country in the world. Except for one. USA. The richest country in the history of the world, and also the only one where healthcare and financial bankruptcy go hand in hand. Sounds fictional, right?

When people talk about social democracies, they're talking about things like the Scandinavian model. Countries that are still capitalist, but have socialized healthcare and often times tuition free college.
But every time I watch a Fox News segment it's as if they don't understand this, or don't want their viewers to focus on that, so they mention Venezuela instead. A dictatorship and developing nation that were overdependent on their oil with no plan B...

⚠️

Anyway, this is the Democratic presidential nominee topic.
If you're going to talk about this subject then do it in accordance to what the actual discussion is.

the actual discussion was about democrats calling for the abolition of private healthcare which I've called socialism, for some reason shadow completely ignored that this was my point and went off into some ridiculous strawman

The actual discussion, as in what the democratic nominees propose. They're not proposing anything other than the healthcare models found in other developed nations.

Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships, isn't going to lead to any productive discussion about the topic.



Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:

the actual discussion was about democrats calling for the abolition of private healthcare which I've called socialism, for some reason shadow completely ignored that this was my point and went off into some ridiculous strawman

The actual discussion, as in what the democratic nominees propose. They're not proposing anything other than the healthcare models found in other developed nations.

Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships, isn't going to lead to any productive discussion about the topic.

"Bernie Sanders says there's no middle ground on eliminating private insurance"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-says-theres-no-middle-ground-on-eliminating-private-insurance

but that's not socialism correct? because socialism does not exist right?

"Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships" 

I didn't initially, someone else did and they were called wrong all I did was to point out how its valid for people to state that democrats are pushing socialism... so are we not allowed to discuss this because it potentially makes democrats look bad?



the-pi-guy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's not because of the electoral college - that's because the winner takes all.

Another point of the electoral college which often gets overlooked is to ensure that every state will have it's representatives. Remove the electoral college, and it becomes a luck-based mission for all the smaller states as the more populous states and cities would gobble up most, if not all the spots. As a result, they would only cater for their states/cities, leaving most of the country in the dust. That's why even a tiny country like Luxembourg still has 4 voting districts to ensure every region of the country is accounted for.

That would still happen in a representative election.  Just to a lesser extent.  

EricHiggin said:

Reps in Cali still wouldn't get their way, so what's the difference?

A more balanced system would be to have only Democrat leadership instead of the back and forth that tends to take place with the existing system?

So you're saying the past and present doesn't help predict the future?

Which will lead to the coastal states getting the locked in Democrat leadership they want, that their opposition doesn't. Who cares though right? They can fight can't they? It's not like they aren't being given an option. Hmm, I wonder if people can work to pay more for things or grow things themselves?

I thought the past and present didn't help predict the future, but now it does in this case?

Tell that to the poor and minorities. What happened to everyone working together? What happened to give and take?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

Try going without food, water, oil, or electricity for a couple days, or half as much anyway, and not for vacation. Now imagine that happening over weeks and months consistently. Everything's going to be just fine? Ironic since that's what they say in the movies before everyone get's snuffed.

Being undocumented makes it kinda hard to say how many there really are no? Plus it's for things like cheap labor to keep the produce prices low, which isn't necessary in this situation anymore. It's not like the one's who wanted to stay couldn't become tax paying citizens.

It is when it only ends up giving one side what it wants. The fact that side doesn't seem to be able to see this, or knows it and doesn't care, is all the more reason to make sure the EC remains in place. It's the Dems who are trying to accomplish this, and since they aren't in power and very well may lose again, you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

@bold: again, all of this is an inconsistent version of what you think would happen.  The reality is, even if there was a red/blue split up, both countries would be fine.  Either one would be richer than nearly any country on the planet.  

>California housing costs

Are high because the state isn't building enough houses for the people that want or have to live there.  

>you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

They're proposing it because it's fair. Every vote is equal to any other vote.  

The reality is, there is no way to know for sure how future elections would play out.  Republicans in blue states like California might be more willing to vote, which could change things.  



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

The actual discussion, as in what the democratic nominees propose. They're not proposing anything other than the healthcare models found in other developed nations.

Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships, isn't going to lead to any productive discussion about the topic.

"Bernie Sanders says there's no middle ground on eliminating private insurance"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-says-theres-no-middle-ground-on-eliminating-private-insurance

but that's not socialism correct? because socialism does not exist right?

"Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships" 

I didn't initially, someone else did and they were called wrong all I did was to point out how its valid for people to state that democrats are pushing socialism... so are we not allowed to discuss this because it potentially makes democrats look bad?

There was nothing valid about your image.
None of the democrats are pushing for USA to become a dictatorship or developing nation. And the country models from other democratic/capitalistic nations that they are looking to emulate are not fictional, unlike what your image suggests.

While some have a mix of public and private health insurance, generally private health insurance is pretty much unheard of.

Socialism is an extremely broad term. You could call roads, bridges, libraries, public schools, law enforcement, etc, socialism.
You shouldn't use labels for ambiguation just to fearmonger with irrelevant disingenuous correlations. In that case, just stick to the subject.
That Bernie wants private health insurance to be relegated to elective procedures. As it essentially is in the rest of the developed world.

If anything 'looks bad' it's avoiding what the actual conversation is.
I should not have had to point out why you should compare it to other developed democratic/capitalistic nations, in particular the 'Nordic model' that is often cited as an example, rather than Cambodia.

I'm not interested in debating the many different forms of socialism and their definitions. (For example the distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy.)
But when you bring this up, you should not go out of your way to hide the fact that the Democrats are looking to emulate healthcare models from other developed democratic/capitalistic nations. Acting like those countries don't exist, just to fearmonger about irrelevant developing/dictatorships is disingenuous, and something we'll leave to certain news outlets. Not in here please.

Last edited by Hiku - on 30 June 2019

Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:

"Bernie Sanders says there's no middle ground on eliminating private insurance"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-says-theres-no-middle-ground-on-eliminating-private-insurance

but that's not socialism correct? because socialism does not exist right?

"Calling it socialism, just to bring up non-developed nations and dictatorships" 

I didn't initially, someone else did and they were called wrong all I did was to point out how its valid for people to state that democrats are pushing socialism... so are we not allowed to discuss this because it potentially makes democrats look bad?

There was nothing valid about your image.
None of the democrats are pushing for USA to become a dictatorship or developing nation. And the country models from other democratic/capitalistic nations that they are looking to emulate are not fictional, unlike what your image suggests.

While some have a mix of public and private health insurance, generally private health insurance is pretty much unheard of.

Socialism is an extremely broad term. You could call roads, bridges, libraries, public schools, law enforcement, etc, socialism.
You shouldn't use labels just for the sake of drawing irrelevant disingenuous correlations for the sake of fearmongering. In that case, just stick to the subject.
That Bernie wants private health insurance to be relegated to elective procedures. As it essentially is in the rest of the developed world.

If anything 'looks bad' it's avoiding what the actual conversation is.
I should not have had to point out why you should compare it to other developed democratic/capitalistic nations, in particular the 'Nordic model' that is often cited as an example, rather than Cambodia.

And this isn't an invitation to debate the definition of socialism.
The democrats are looking to emulate healthcare models from other developed democratic/capitalistic nations. Acting like those countries don't exist, just to fearmonger about irrelevant developing/dictatorships is disingenuous, and something we'll leave to certain news outlets. Not in here please.

"There was nothing valid about your image."

well come on now, there is, socialists constantly claim that there are no real world examples of socialism, whether you agree or disagree with this you should at least be able to acknowledge that this is a thing

"Socialism is an extremely broad term."

socialism as its defined is the public ownership of resources, the abolition of private property and the formation of a stateless society... people include each of these descriptions to varying degrees but ultimately no matter what they all agree that the central idea is public ownership

how does this not describe public ownership?

"Bernie Sanders says there's no middle ground on eliminating private insurance"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-says-theres-no-middle-ground-on-eliminating-private-insurance

he's literally saying he wants all health insurance to be publicly owned and that is reality

"That Bernie wants private health insurance to be relegated to elective procedures."

he says he wants private health insurance to be eliminated

"I should not have had to point out why you should compare it to other developed democratic/capitalistic nations, in particular the 'Nordic model' that is often cited as an example, rather than Cambodia."

which I did not do, I never made a comparison, what I said is that this is clearly socialism

the image as I explained above was to describe a certain trend where real world examples are denied constantly, it has nothing to do with comparing healthcare across nations and if you read my comment you'd realise that

"And this isn't an invitation to debate the definition of socialism."

there's no need for debate, its a pretty easy concept to understand, but people try to cloud the issue for obvious reasons

"he democrats are looking to emulate healthcare models from other developed democratic/capitalistic nations. Acting like those countries don't exist, just to fearmonger about irrelevant developing/dictatorships is disingenuous"

again I did not do this, what I said is that this is clearly socialism, are you in disagreement that this is socialism?

the image as I explained above was to describe a certain trend where real world examples are denied constantly, it has nothing to do with comparing healthcare across nations and if you read my comment you'd realise that