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+

o_O.Q said:

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

"These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform."

if the company no longer "owns" their own platform, then who does?


Another company. Breaking up a company into multiple smaller companies ≠ nationalizing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html

"Unlike Obamacare, emerging plans would sweep away theprivate health insurance system. What would that mean for the companies’ workers, the stock market and the cost of care?"

nationalised healthcare

Every other advanced nation has a single-payer or some other publicly-funded universal health insurance system. They haven't abolished private health insurance altogether. It will be no different here. And a service provided by the government does not socialism make, unless you want to argue public roads, emergency services, police & national defense, etc., are "socialism."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/05/17/bernie-sanders-ban-forprofit-charter-schools/3709607002/

"Sen. Bernie Sanders will call for a federal ban on building for-profit charter schools in a major education policy address to be delivered Saturday in South Carolina, a senior campaign official for the 2020 presidential contender tells USA TODAY."

there are also suggestions for banning private education

Charter schools (which are a very new thing in the U.S.) operate privately and independently of the public school system and in some cases operate on a for-profit basis, but unlike traditional private schools they are largely publicly funded. If they are receiving taxpayer dollars, then it is a legitimate thing to ask if for-profit charter schools (the specific target of Sanders' objections) or even the charter school system itself should be abolished.

Abolition of all private education is an idea that is not mainstream within the Democratic Party, though it is an idea that dates back well over a century and has been a topic of discussion in some circles. Public schools have existed in America since the Colonial Era, though private schools as we know them were a product of the 19th century and were largely a response by Catholics to perceived Protestant domination of public school systems.

And it's worth pointing out: public schools are not socialism.

and there's a lot more that I've probably forgotten or overlooked, many of the major things they are campaigning on are rooted in socialism... I'm getting flashbacks of the denials that nazi germany was socialist right now

Nazi Germany operated on a war economy during WW2, but their overall economic system was the same mixed economy practiced by essentially every non-Communist nation contemporaneous to them. Private for-profit industries were not only allowed, but they thrived under Hitler's regime. The Nazis violently persecuted socialists, communists, and other leftists, and Hitler and his cronies thought "Bolshevism" was a Jewish plot.

obviously if everything must be made equal(the core ideology driving the left) then there must be centralised control to achieve that

Nobody outside of a small fringe thinks everybody ought to have exactly equal economic outcomes. It's certainly not something advocated by the Democrats. Saying "we ought to reduce income inequality" and "level the playing" field doesn't mean "everybody's income should be 100% the same."

Responses in bold.

It seems like you're operating on the common right-wing assumption that socialism is defined as "anything the government does." Conservative talking heads have been feeding this steady stream of garbage to the American public for decades now. But it was hogwash then and it's hogwash now. It is defined by public ownership of the means of production. Not regulation, not taxes, not government services. Public ownership through nationalizing private industry or direct ownership by the workers and/or consumers (e.g., cooperatives, worker-owned factories). Last I checked, the likes of Sanders and AOC weren't arguing that Walmart, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, etc., etc., ought to be nationalized or forcibly converted into some kind of worker-owned co-op. The idea that they are "socialists," much less "Marxists" or "communists," cannot be taken seriously. And most of the rest of the Democrats arguably don't even qualify as center-left, much less far-left.

I especially find it funny when even major multi-billion dollar corporations get slapped with cliche Red Scare slanders. CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network," as though we're expected to believe that Time Warner is actually some sort of Leninist front. I guess the ghosts of Leon Trotsky and Enver Hoxha sit on the board of directors at Comcast (MSNBC's parent company).

The red-baiting from the right long ago reached the point of self-parody.



Around the Network

Simple. He's the anti-politician and people hate establishment politicians.

Everyone running against him walks and talks like they've been in government their entire adult life. Those people have had enough of the establishment political class and feel his brash nature represent their collective disdain for the typical politician.

Oh and every time someone twists his words like we've seen on this board already it reinforces the belief that his opposition is just irrational-foaming at the mouth Never Trumpers. The same way how completely insane Republicans looked during Obama's two terms.

He's going to win reelection and I am going to enjoy watching the overreactions.



Shadow1980 said:
TheBird said:
More people lined up for the washrooms at his rally than the number of people showing up for every democratic rally COMBINED. Democrats are just a bunch of communist clowns nowadays, nothing they stand for is American, and therefore no Americans want to waste their time listening to their crap.

@Italicized: False, as others have pointed out.

@Bolded:

Show me where in the Democratic platform, policies, or rhetoric where they suggest nationalizing the means of production.

@The rest: You don't get to define what is and isn't American. Progressives love America, too. We just have a different idea about what makes America great, and what makes for good policy. We also don't think loving your country means refusing to criticize aspects about its history or government. There's a fine line between patriotism and blind nationalism.

And lots of Americans do listen to our "crap," as you put it. That's why the Democrats won the 2018 midterms despite gerrymandering working against us, and why Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote precisely once in the past 30 years. If nobody cared what we have to say, we wouldn't win elections. Republicans are the ones that are less popular, and they make most of their successes thanks to geography, a flawed electoral system, gerrymandering, and an unfortunate tendency of progressives to sit at home and stew or vote third-party if they don't like the Democratic candidate.

Well put. I think we would blow the Republicans and establishment Democrats out of the water if there weren't so many barriers in our way like corporate money in government.



 

only777 said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

Who's twisting words? It came straight out of his big ass denture infused mouth. This whole fake news narrative his base tries to push is nauseating at best 

Thing is, he didn't call Mexican immigrants rapists though.

He never mentioned Mexican immigrants.  He said Mexican illegal migrants.  Mexican immigrants are not the same thing as Mexican illegal migrants, despite how many people manage to confuse the two.

He said he welcomed Mexican immigrants, that's why he said about building a door in his wall to let people through so they could work at all the jobs he claimed he would create.

But why would someone try to cross illegally and not go through the course of filling out the paper work and getting a visa? 

That would be be people who know they have a criminal history and would be rejected.  That would be the drug dealers and people with sexual assault history.

------

I don't blame you for getting it all wrong.  there is a lot of mis-information around these days.

So someone trying to escape a country full of crime, violence, government corruption and doesnt want to wait years to do it should automatically labled a rapist? Especially by someone who's been on record bragging about sexual assualt. Hmmmm okay... 



Cubedramirez said:
Simple. He's the anti-politician and people hate establishment politicians.

Everyone running against him walks and talks like they've been in government their entire adult life. Those people have had enough of the establishment political class and feel his brash nature represent their collective disdain for the typical politician.

Oh and every time someone twists his words like we've seen on this board already it reinforces the belief that his opposition is just irrational-foaming at the mouth Never Trumpers. The same way how completely insane Republicans looked during Obama's two terms.

He's going to win reelection and I am going to enjoy watching the overreactions.

Yeah he'll most likely win if the DNC supports Joe Biden like they did with Hillary but anybody who thinks he's not part of the establishment or at the very least enables its agenda is delusional. He puts in place and is regularly for corporate establishment policies. Really the only thing that's not "establishment" about him is attitude and that he's extremely blunt, to put it nicely.

Last edited by tsogud - on 21 June 2019

 

Around the Network

My thoughts are basically what shadow 1980 said. I completely agree with him.



Shadow1980 said:
o_O.Q said:

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

"These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform."

if the company no longer "owns" their own platform, then who does?


Another company. Breaking up a company into multiple smaller companies ≠ nationalizing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html

"Unlike Obamacare, emerging plans would sweep away theprivate health insurance system. What would that mean for the companies’ workers, the stock market and the cost of care?"

nationalised healthcare

Every other advanced nation has a single-payer or some other publicly-funded universal health insurance system. They haven't abolished private health insurance altogether. It will be no different here. And a service provided by the government does not socialism make, unless you want to argue public roads, emergency services, police & national defense, etc., are "socialism."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/05/17/bernie-sanders-ban-forprofit-charter-schools/3709607002/

"Sen. Bernie Sanders will call for a federal ban on building for-profit charter schools in a major education policy address to be delivered Saturday in South Carolina, a senior campaign official for the 2020 presidential contender tells USA TODAY."

there are also suggestions for banning private education

Charter schools (which are a very new thing in the U.S.) operate privately and independently of the public school system and in some cases operate on a for-profit basis, but unlike traditional private schools they are largely publicly funded. If they are receiving taxpayer dollars, then it is a legitimate thing to ask if for-profit charter schools (the specific target of Sanders' objections) or even the charter school system itself should be abolished.

Abolition of all private education is an idea that is not mainstream within the Democratic Party, though it is an idea that dates back well over a century and has been a topic of discussion in some circles. Public schools have existed in America since the Colonial Era, though private schools as we know them were a product of the 19th century and were largely a response by Catholics to perceived Protestant domination of public school systems.

And it's worth pointing out: public schools are not socialism.

and there's a lot more that I've probably forgotten or overlooked, many of the major things they are campaigning on are rooted in socialism... I'm getting flashbacks of the denials that nazi germany was socialist right now

Nazi Germany operated on a war economy during WW2, but their overall economic system was the same mixed economy practiced by essentially every non-Communist nation contemporaneous to them. Private for-profit industries were not only allowed, but they thrived under Hitler's regime. The Nazis violently persecuted socialists, communists, and other leftists, and Hitler and his cronies thought "Bolshevism" was a Jewish plot.

obviously if everything must be made equal(the core ideology driving the left) then there must be centralised control to achieve that

Nobody outside of a small fringe thinks everybody ought to have exactly equal economic outcomes. It's certainly not something advocated by the Democrats. Saying "we ought to reduce income inequality" and "level the playing" field doesn't mean "everybody's income should be 100% the same."

Responses in bold.

It seems like you're operating on the common right-wing assumption that socialism is defined as "anything the government does." Conservative talking heads have been feeding this steady stream of garbage to the American public for decades now. But it was hogwash then and it's hogwash now. It is defined by public ownership of the means of production. Not regulation, not taxes, not government services. Public ownership through nationalizing private industry or direct ownership by the workers and/or consumers (e.g., cooperatives, worker-owned factories). Last I checked, the likes of Sanders and AOC weren't arguing that Walmart, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, etc., etc., ought to be nationalized or forcibly converted into some kind of worker-owned co-op. The idea that they are "socialists," much less "Marxists" or "communists," cannot be taken seriously. And most of the rest of the Democrats arguably don't even qualify as center-left, much less far-left.

I especially find it funny when even major multi-billion dollar corporations get slapped with cliche Red Scare slanders. CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network," as though we're expected to believe that Time Warner is actually some sort of Leninist front. I guess the ghosts of Leon Trotsky and Enver Hoxha sit on the board of directors at Comcast (MSNBC's parent company).

The red-baiting from the right long ago reached the point of self-parody.

"

if the company no longer "owns" their own platform, then who does?


Another company."

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?

"Every other advanced nation has a single-payer or some other publicly-funded universal health insurance system."

which is a completely irrelevant red herring

"And a service provided by the government does not socialism make"

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

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

"Abolition of all private education is an idea that is not mainstream within the Democratic Party"

but is gaining traction which was my point

"but their overall economic system was the same mixed economy"

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

"The Nazis violently persecuted socialists, communists, and other leftists"

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

" Last I checked, the likes of Sanders and AOC weren't arguing that Walmart, Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, etc., etc., ought to be nationalized or forcibly converted into some kind of worker-owned co-op."

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?

"It seems like you're operating on the common right-wing assumption that socialism is defined as "anything the government does.""

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

"It is defined by public ownership of the means of production."

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

"much less "Marxists" or "communists"

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

" CNN has often been referred to as the "Communist News Network"

why do people say that?



RolStoppable said:
Machiavellian said:

I totally agree.  Trump is the complete mirror of what America is and he represents exactly our standards.  He is exactly what every American harbors in their hearts and he reflect the current values and morals of this Nation.  I hope he gets another 4 years so that he can cement who he is and what America is.  Maybe he can actually change the laws so he can serve a 3rd term which would be even better.

Alternatively, he could announce Charlie Sheen as his successor after the second term. Charlie is also an iconic figure who represents American values and he has already proven that he has mastered the art of spin during his time as the second mayor of New York City.

I have a better idea. Instead of Charlie Sheen it should be done by Carlos Estevez, he has already experience in this area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvky8UI5Ryk

EDIT:

Oh, he already has a very convincing clip for election (he has my vote):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b-W5uzk86Y

And he has a policy-program thought through:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lOnYL1uSuc

Last edited by Mnementh - on 21 June 2019

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

tsogud said:
Cubedramirez said:
Simple. He's the anti-politician and people hate establishment politicians.

Everyone running against him walks and talks like they've been in government their entire adult life. Those people have had enough of the establishment political class and feel his brash nature represent their collective disdain for the typical politician.

Oh and every time someone twists his words like we've seen on this board already it reinforces the belief that his opposition is just irrational-foaming at the mouth Never Trumpers. The same way how completely insane Republicans looked during Obama's two terms.

He's going to win reelection and I am going to enjoy watching the overreactions.

Yeah he'll most likely win if the DNC supports Joe Biden like they did with Hillary but anybody who thinks he's not part of the establishment or at the very least enables its agenda is delusional. He puts in place and is regularly for corporate establishment policies. Really the only thing that's not "establishment" about him is attitude and that he's extremely blunt, to put it nicely.

Yeah. It boggles my mind how people believe of all the democratic candidates is the one most likely to beat Trump, that is most similar to the last nominee that ... lost against Trump.

I think overall this electability argument is wrong. People need policies that make their life better. It doesn't matter who and how. If people focus on electability, they get politicians that do the same regardless of party affiliation. Instead they should focus on the policies they want and push them. Even if the candidate with that policies loses in the end, the policies got more exposure and other candidates might pick them up.



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

Just because the mainstream media hates him that doesn’t mean that most Americans do, I mean he got elected once didn’t he?...oh wait I forgot it was the Russians