Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sanders is persona non grata with the MSM.
lol did you see the clip of chris mathews saying that if people like bernie sanders were in charge he would have been executed in central park? Or that sanders wouldn't stop to help someone in trouble?
They are so afraid of them it is making them say batshit crazy stuff.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
That's a pretty big if. Klobochar has little support outside the 1st two states. I think the last national poll I saw put her at 0% support among black people. Unless something radically changes for her, she has no path to winning.Buttigieg campaigned hard in Iowa and NH dumping almost everything he had into the races. There is not another race in the future where he is projected to win as of right now. If he slides hard when Nevada and South Carolina vote, but Klobuchar manages to stick around and do well, she could siphon off not only voters from Buttigieg and Biden, but also those still supporting Warren who value her for being a woman and also not being as liberal as Bernie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Okay this is the caucus site data. Can you verify the source that Chris gave as accurate or am I supposed to believe it to be the true? I don't ask the same for the DNC because they are an official body not a single person. This is important because drama impacts a company more than an individual.
it was in the same source. The head of that caucus location tweeted out the information.
This official link I gave earlier didn't seem to have the errors that were pointed in the Tweet. I skimmed Patrick again and he had 0 first expression and final.
I think in this case the democratic party officials made the error, not the people at the caucus site. Therefore they were willing to fix it. if the guy at the caucus site had screwed it up, they would have refused to fix it. So again, if they are willing to fix all the errors, then that would be fine, but so far they are saying they wont do that.
We can move on if that doesn't work.
it's also asking me to subscribe. But i think the short version is that the NYT found over 100 errors, they just didn't explain exactly what those errors were. But combined with all the other examples of errors that have come out, it is pretty clear lots of errors were made.
The link does not work. Guess Chicago Tribune just doesn't want to work for me. :
weird. the short version is that internal emails have shown their lawyers saying that once the local officials sign off on the results, those results are legally binding. It doesn't matter if they made mistakes (or intentionally entered incorrect info), once they sign for them that is it.
This is from Bernie's team right? You do understand I can't exactly take this as evidence mainly since it is aimed to support Bernie not give a view outside of it.
did you look at it? It lists the exact errors that occurred. if you want to you could go and check the data for yourself. You don't have to take their word for it.
The DNC might dislike Bernie but I do trust they would maintain their own system more than to change it just for Bernie.
I'm not arguing they changed their system. I think it was broken before. It allows local officials to make choices about who wins and loses. In one case they literally flipped a coin to give a delegate to warren when the rules said that delegate should go to bernie. Until now there was zero visibility into how they were doing this. Now that we can see how it works, we can see it is a train wreck.
I would say if the findings are true then they messed up but I can't really accept what I consider pro-Bernie propaganda. I don't think they would've re-canvased if Bernie won and still there was errors and I wouldn't accept findings from Pete's sources unless an external source not running for office verified something akin to that so basically I wouldn't accept Pete's sources either.
you don't have to take their word for it. They gave exactly what the errors were. You or anyone else can go and check if you want. there is a mountain of anecdotal cases, multiple news outlets, to people on twitter reporting dozens, if not hundreds of cases of errors being made.
Do you think it is reasonable to say you know who the winner is when there is just 2 state delegate difference between the top 2 candidates and there are hundreds of errors that we know of? The delegate count could potentially shift 10 or 20 in either direction at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh so just because you don’t think it’s anti-semitic means it isn’t? Cause Americans overwhelmingly denounced the organization as anti-semitic. They have a direct goal of exterminating the Israeli State. If that’s not anti-Semitic idk what is lol.
This doesn't even make sense. People who want to protect israel say any attempt to do anything to control israel's abuses is anti-semetic. Why do you just assume that it is anti-semetic? Your link didn't really provide any evidence it was, just accusations.
Currently it is not because the Allied forces recaptured it and gave it back to France lol.
and the palestinians will keep fighting until they retake their land. What is your point.
You fail to denounce the claim that the Palestinians started this conflict.
lol that is extremely debatable and completely besides the point. Even if I accepted they started it, it will never end until the israeli's give them back their land.
To preserve national security, occupation is required. Simple as that
this makes no sense. Occupying their land and forcing the conflict to continue forever only makes security more of a problem. The only way to preserve national security is to negotiate an end to the conflict.
My point is that peace isn’t going to happen anyways because the Palestinians demand the extermination of the Israeli State.
you keep repeating this as if it is a fact. Some palestinians demand that. You have not demonstrated that all, or even a majority, of palestinians want that. And even if they did want that, how does stealing their land do anything to improve the situation. this argument makes no sense.
I love how you dodge my request for a source and then ask for one yourself. It’s impossible to prove that every Palestinian wants Israel gone. I never said that either. I was talking about Palestinians in general want Israel gone. Stop misrepresenting what I’m saying. A vast majority of Palestinians want Israel gone
by all means, please provide evidence of that.
You have to prove that a vast majority of Israelis want the Palestinians gone.
I never said that. I said i'm sure some do.
Pretty simple. They tried to do it in 1967 by invading Israel.
you may want to check your history books. Israel started the 6 day war when they attacked Egypt and invaded the Gaza strip.
The land belongs to Israel because they rightfully invaded it and took because that was where the attacks on Israel were launched from.
lol they rightfully took it during a surprise attack without declaring war? Is that the argument you are making?
A peace plan was presented, but rejected by the Palestinians because they want Israel gone. Plain and simple.
Diplomatic negotiations are always difficult. Peace is definitely going to be complicated. But if isreal refuses to give back the land they stole, peace is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How are the delegates normally distributed? Link would be nice.
I'm not entirely clear how they do their math. They appear to translate people's votes into state delegates, then use the state delegates to determine the actual delegates that matter. It appears to be a bit convoluted.
How are you verifying Chris' data to say it is accurate?
it isn't Chris' data. That is the data released by the person in charge of that caucus site. This is the data that was given to the democratic party, they then released different data.
If they fixed the problem do you still have a problem?
if they fix all of the hundreds of problems? sure, i guess. but they aren't going to do that.
With the link you gave they provided hypothetical errors not links to the errors.
I can't really see it to confirm, but if i understand correctly they are reporting they found over 100 errors. But didn't explain exactly what all those errors were. Are you saying they are lying they found errors? Or that they don't know what errors are?
They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurredLink?
Here you go. Basically, if the people at the caucus site did the math wrong and signed off on incorrect numbers, they will not fix it. They will stand by the numbers that are demonstrably wrong.
If you could read the NYT article you would realize they didn't link to the error merely showed what the errors looked like.
so you don't believe them that they found the errors?
Do you have data on how the delegates are distributed if not why are saying Pete had 3 too many?
Here is a link to the request from sanders. Pages 3-9 detail the specific examples they were reporting.
The final state delegate count they are going with puts pete at 564 and sanders at 562. If just these errors sanders' team found were corrected then sanders won. And there are many, many more errors as well. So saying that we know who won the most state delegates in Iowa is currently impossible.
The only reliable metric we have at the moment is vote counts, and we know sanders won that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why do you accept that Bernie won more votes but not that he lost on delegates? Your earlier reply didn't really answer the question.
The issues appear to be around when the calculated the number of people to assign delegates. They did the math wrong in dozens of cases. They are also refusing to fix those errors. So the raw vote counts, from what I have seen, appear to be correct. The counts for the delegates are considerably off.
Claim 2: Official results were differentOkay but what proof does Chris Schwartz give other than his word that his findings are more accurate?
what do you mean? the results the local official announced are different than the results that were released as official. That is a very obvious red flag.
Claim 3: Sanders delegates were given to Duval patrick, Warren and SteyerIs this Phil's tweets? I can't read it. Do you have a link to his tweets?
I don't link to twitter much. Hopefully this works. But these are just the obvious errors that people on twitter found. If the new york times can find over 100 errors in a day, there are serious problems with the numbers.
If someone is making a cake and you say this has a lot of strawberries in it. I ask you to ask the baker about the strawberries. You said you have but they didn't reply. Is me saying well I am not going to believe you until I get word that the cake has strawberries valid?
I'm not sure i understand the implication you are going for. We know for a fact the results of this caucus were screwed up. There were errors in over 100 sites and there was no mechanism in place to prevent it. They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurred. Given that they had no way to deal with errors in place, it is reasonable to believe this was true in previous caucuses as well.
Not a single one of your links support this. Unless the second link you gave me was but the 1st and 3rd one are not. The 1st one is an article about supposed errors using hypothetical tables. The third one was literally a tweet. No mention of the methodology so we have is well his word his findings are correct.
what are you talking about? The new york times found over 100 errors. The tweet showed them making 2 errors. Why are you continuing to insist errors didn't happen?
The sanders campaign when they requested a recount showed that in at least 25 sites errors were made that lowered sanders' results and increased pete's. In just those 25 sites, they show pete getting 3 too many delegates and sanders getting 2 less than he should have.
with these kinds of inaccuracies and the results being so narrow, you cannot make the case that we know who got the most delegates. But we do know who got the most votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Looks like you didn’t bother reading the articles I send you. BDS is clearly anti-semetic. If you bothered to read the article it explains exactly why.It just doesn’t fit your narrative that these congresswomen support an anti-semitic movement.
nothing in that article convinced me that the BDS movement is anti-semetic. In large part because it is a movement, not a single organization. I am sure there are anti-semetic people who are in the movement. There are lots that aren't. There is nothing anti-semetic about using economic pressure to correct human rights abuse. People will argue that literally anything that anyone does that Israel doesn't like is anti-semetic.
Uh ya. That’s what conquest and invasions do. Annex parts of another nation. How do you think the Roman Empire got to where it was. The argument that they do not “own” it is worthless. They rightfully invaded the land in their defense and need to hold it for national security.
lol well paris isn't part of germany is it? The french continued resisting until the germans were forced back into their own land. The palestinians are going to continue fighting until the israeli's are forced back into Israel. Pretending like Israel can keep the stolen land and somehow peace could happen is a bad joke,
Peace is impossible in general because the Palestinians want Israel to be exterminated. That’s not me saying that, it’s them. There is no peace until that happens. Dismissing it as only “some people believe that” is inherently false.
please prove that every single palestinian wants to destroy israel? Otherwise this is a massive generalization without any supporting evidence.
They’ve made it very clear they are not going to stop till Israel is gone. Occupation of that land prevents a mass genocide from happening.
this literally makes no sense. How does stealing some land prevent genocide. With or without that land the israeli army is extremely well equipped and capable. The land does not protect israel in any way. It is just stolen property they want to keep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Refused to condemn BDS.
why would anyone condemn BDS? It is exactly what republicans argue we should do. It is the market reacting to bad behavior.
BDS is not racist. People have a right to decide whether they want to support Israeli products or specifically products produced on stolen land. Do you want to take away people's rights to decide what to buy?
They took the land after they were attacked by the Palestinians and Arabs because they wanted to exterminate the Jewish State. That’s the goal no matter how much you deny it. They won’t be content with “their land.” Israel rightfully took the land by invading it in response to national security and keeps it to this day for the exact same reason.
lol so when the nazi's took paris, paris became a german city? Just because you take something, doesn't make it yours. No treaty ever gave that land to israel. Therefore it is not theirs. They took it, they are sitting on it, but they do not own it.
They want to get rid of the Jewish State. It’s pretty simple. I don’t know how you support that. There is no such thing as peace until the Jewish State is exterminated. And that’s not me saying it. It’s the Palestinians and groups that support them.
some of them believe that. I'm not arguing they don't. Some jewish people would love to expel or kill all the palestinians i'm sure. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Peace is impossible while israel continues to refuse to give back the land they have stolen. A 2 state solution is possible, but not if Israel insists on keeping all the land that should be in the palestinian state.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
"I promise that if you make me president, you won't have to think about me for long stretches of time." I have to admit that's an appealing promise.
lol i feel like this was true of him no matter what. No one thought about him during the race. Now that he has dropped out, people are continuing to not think about him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Something being horrendously flawed doesn't discount Pete's victory. These are two different things.
no, they are not. The numbers that were used to say pete won are wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong. So saying that pete won is at best disingenuous and at worst an outright lie.
Hasn't Caucus' always been a shitshow? Your saying it was based on popular votes before. I don't think it was.
yes and no. It has always been a bit of a shitshow, that is true. But they have never released all this much information before. They only released the final numbers. And without any information about how those numbers were reached, people assumed they were accurate. Now that we see how they got those numbers and we know they did it wrong, it is pretty clear they have been doing it horrendously for a while but no one could tell.
So you don't actually know there are errors?
as i said, i don't have a subscription to the times so I can't quote the article itself. But the article is saying there are hundreds of errors.
Do you have the reasons that Sanders had more votes than Pete?
I'm not sure I understand. He got more votes because he is more popular.
The first link doesn't show that. I'm guessing it is the second link. Do you have another link that is similar to the second one?
Try this one, they are discussing that the supervisor for a location tweeted out the results of that location. But the "official" results that were posted were wrong. They got delegates wrong giving some sanders delegates to Duval patrick and some warren delegates to Steyer.
stuff like this happened all over the place. And it suspiciously usually seemed to be giving progressive candidate's supporters to corportist candidates. Although it could just be a coincidence.
Do you have any evidence that previous Caucus' were not like this or were they the same?
no one knows. Until Sanders forced them to release the additional information, people only had the final results to work off of. They could have been rigging/screwing up this information for a long time and no one would know.
With the available information you gave me I don't see how you got this. I find this to be a conspiracy theory do you disagree?
how so? We know for a fact that there were dozens if not hundreds of errors in the data. That is not disputed. And those are just the ones journalists and people on twitter found. It is not a conspiracy theory to say the data is wrong, it is a fact. Now there are conspiracy theories about why the data is wrong and that the errors seem to consistently undermine sanders and warren, but that is a separate question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I think you misunderstand. When asked they’ve refused to condemn it lol.
refused to condemn what? Please provide a reference.
As for settlements I’ve said that they lost the land...
no. The land has been stolen. No treaty ever granted that land to israel. If Israel ever wants peace they will give it back. Otherwise the current stalemate of terrorism and bombings will continue forever.
and to be clear I mean the settlements on Palestinian land, I don't mean all of israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
All I know is if you don’t support the Jews, you’re a Nazi 🤷♂️
lol. So if you don't support thieves, you're a murderer. That's some grade A logic.
he land is rightfully Israel’s. Won after the various wars the Muslims waged upon the Jews in their anti-semitic attacks which still exist today
I don't deny there are anti-semetic people in the world. But alot of the land Israel is building settlements on is not theirs. They are occupying it illegally. Until that changes, peace will be impossible.
and Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar refuse to condemn today.
Please find me an example of them supporting antisemitism. They have called out the fact that israeli lobbyists have huge amounts of influence in american politics. But that is not antisemitism, it is accurately describing corruption.
You can object to what Israel does without hating the jews. I very much support a 2 state solution. That includes a jewish state. I do not support the horrible things that Israel has and continues to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I support a Jewish state. “Palestinians” have their own place.
Most people agree with this statement. It is called a 2 state solution. But it can't happen until Israel stops occupying so much stolen Palestinian land.
They can accept it and live in peace or be greedy. Pretty simple.
lol so the people who have been living under an economic blockade are the greedy ones? The people who have been consistently stealing land are somehow innocent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Hillary had more votes in 2016 yet she still lost. Since I have rebutted that claim I would you like to provide proof of the tallies riddled with errors?
my point is that the tallies for the purposes with delegates are horrendously flawed. Therefore trying to judge a winner by a metric that we know for certain is wrong is a horrible idea. We know for certain that sanders got the most votes. Since that is the only metric we know is correct, why would we use any other metric?
Here is a link directly to a times article. I don't have a subscription so I can't quote it directly.
Here is an article discussing how they can't/won't fix obvious errors on the worksheets they used to calculate
There were examples of delegates given to the wrong candidates. Lots of examples of more people apparently voting in the 2nd round than the 1st, which is supposed to be impossible.
Basically, it is impossible to say if butigieg or Sanders won the most delegates because the counts are utterly fucked up.
If there are inaccuracies in who had the delegates why isn't their errors in the number of votes?
primarily the errors are in adding numbers together. So after a 1st round they would give the wrong numbers of supporters to the wrong candidate. They added numbers together wrong, that sort of thing. We have the tallies of the number of people between each round. It is possible they fucked up vote counts too, but there is no reason to believe that pete got more votes than Sanders. There is ample evidence that the delegate tallies are fucked up.
I can't find the source i had at the moment, but there was one case where on the 2nd round they counted the people who had moved to sanders in the 2nd round as voting for Steyer instead of sanders.
It being flawed doesn't mean Pete lost.
it means that the only metric by which pete "won" was massively screwed up. The metric by which we have more accurate data, ie raw votes, says sanders won. If we have 1 fairly reliable metric and 1 obviously inaccurate metric, why would you choose to use the inaccurate one? The only reason to do that is to try to crown Pete the winner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No one can possibly say they know who got the most delegates in Iowa because the results are so obviously flawed.
The only thing we can say for certain is who got the most votes, which is sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
this is a joke right?
Sanders got thousands more votes. The tallies are riddled with errors, and most went against sanders. The new york times wrote an article about how they found over 100 errors in the data.
We have no idea who got the most delegates yet because we don't have accurate calculations. What we do know is that sanders got the most votes in both the 1st and 2nd rounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
oh, and also, neither one of them was a billionaire. who knows what kind of preferential treatment they could have bought with just a bit more money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Tell that to Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.
they abused women and children for decades. Government agencies chose to look the other way for them on many occasions before the evidence became so obvious they couldn't avoid it.
No one without large amounts of money and influence could have gotten away with those crimes for so long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
I think the kind of wealth gap that exists now is extremely dangerous. There is a group of people that simply do not have the rules apply to them and have massively outsized influence. A politician is always (in most cases) going to take the call of a wealthy donor over the call of a poor person. Wealth isn't just some abstract thing that certain people have. It is power. If you create a society where a few dozen people have more wealth than hundreds of millions of their fellow countrymen, you create a system where the people become powerless. All the power rests in the hands a relatively few oligarchs. Bloomberg is trying to leverage that wealth right now to seize power and protect his interests.
The wider this gap gets the bigger the threat. Billionaires are a threat to democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Looks like it’ll be Bernie v Buttigieg at Convention now
nah. Butigieg has no support among people of color or young people. The 1st few states are the only ones he is competitive in. Unless he can win 2 or three of the first 4 states, he will be done on super Tuesday.
With Biden's pitiful showing in Iowa, if that trend continues in New Hampshire and Nevada, Biden's campaign might be in serious trouble too. I think that is what Bloomberg is hoping for. He wants to be able to sweep in and try to take over Biden's spot and centerist candidate. I highly doubt it will work though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you misunderstand. I don't care what they identify as. they can believe they are a martian for all I care. If they do not meet the requirements to be the thing they claim they are, then they are not that thing.Really great way of changing people's minds oh wait you are going to tell me you don't care about that as well expect preach to people who already agree with you?
Isreal is doing immoral things. The rest of the world sees this and wants it to stop. Why should they not take action to that end? Israel will never stop doing these things unless there is pressure to make them. They profit from the abuse of the palestinians.
"Nothing is free so there is no chance ever for a "true" democracy."Do you want to answer that?
Is the implication you are trying to make that no democracy is ever free?
Literally everyone at a certain or currently have been delusional or are delusional. If you actually cared about your issues you wouldn't be dismissing so many people because you need support and if you don't get it what are you going to start a revolution or something?
no, you convince the people who are willing to listen. Take trump supporters for example. There are millions of them who would support him no matter what. He could order the army in to murder his political rivals and millions would support him. They cannot be convinced otherwise. Trying to do so is a waste of time. Instead you need to convince the people whose minds are not completely closed to reality.
So majority of Americans are not delusional, how much would you say are? Percentage or stats from a source would be fine
Sorry, I don't have stats handy. The floor for trump's approval rating from what I can recall is about 33% of americans that will never waver from their support of trump. Here is one where 62% of trump supporters said there was literally nothing he could do that would sway their support. I would say the majority of those people are delusional and unreachable. If you cannot imagine a scenario where you would lose support for a leader, then you are a cultist.
What is this other public vote you are talking about and where has it ever been used?
Well the iowa primary caucus is public. You stand in a gym with your friends and neighbors and have to argue with them about why you support this candidate vs that candidate.
So your telling me Israel and Palestine will agree with who is picked?
of course not. What defendant gets to choose their jury? The world is their jury.
Then it isn't theft. Both sides will have to agree on the same laws in order for whatever body that represents it to make that case. If you want to say under US standards then sure but under a standard they both agree then that isn't the case.
again no. I can strongly disagree with what constitutes theft. But if I steal i will be punished. Isreal is stealing land. The world sees this and recognizes this. Why would israel have to agree it is stealing before anyone should do anything about it? Should we require people carrying out genocide to publicly acknowledge they are carrying out a genocide before we can get involved?
Israel has the backing of the US. The UN won't do anything when the US supports Israel.
correct, which is why we need the US to use it's leverage on Israel. As long as the US gives unconditional support to Israel they will continue stealing and abusing the Palestinians. The palestinians will continue attacking the Israelis and nothing will change.
Lol is this some anime where Palestine has a Goku who wins in the end? In reality people can take too much and die. An improve in resolve doesn't matter since it is not about who is suffered more it is about who has the better weapons.
not familiar with the Vietnam war I take it? Lots of forces with inferior numbers and/or equipment have defeated numerically or technologically superior enemies. The Vietnamese had the resolve to continue fighting for as long as it took, no matter the cost. Resolve beat technological superiority.
You already understand it but still spoke about resolve as if that mattered.
I discussed resolve above and why it matters. The technological advantage has managed to keep the stalemate going. But it can't actually win. You don't win a war until the other side gives up or is exterminated. Since genocide is off the table, the Israeli's need to deal if this is ever going to end. They will never deal until the world makes them.
The framework of peace would be an investment and that would span a long time, I think longer than 4 years so enough time for another president to ruin it.
fair enough, peace is always complicated. But as long as the territorial disputes came to an agreement, at least other things can be negotiated. As long as Israel insists it is keeping all the land they have stolen, peace is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ideologically, socialism is anti-Christian and a declaration of war against the church.
1) there are no socialists running
2) socialism is not a religion.
3) the US already has a separation of church and state. religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution and no one has ever suggested changing that.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Socialists always try to win through election until they find that it doesn't work. As soon as the opportunity arises, they seize power.
Please note there are no socialists running. So your ridiculous generalization is both inaccurate as well as irrelevant.
Socialism is a religion, and it is one that is intolerant towards the existence of others.
1) there are no socialists running
2) socialism is definitely not a religion. It is an economic system. That is like saying capitalism is a religion.
Because socialism is a materialistic religion.
socialism is not a religion in any sense.
All other religions are seen as tools of the oppressors to pacify the oppressed.
no. Many religions do not have the top down approach that some do. Catholicism, for example, is very centralized and has often been used as a tool of oppression. Kings and despots all over the world ruled because "god willed it".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
We're not stopping people from going out or stopping people from coming in. We're stopping illegal immigrants from coming in.
I know. And literally no one is advocating for changing that.
Nope, it's gonna create "equity" with black and "repressed" minorities getting their test scores boosted.
ok, so you read "school for everyone" and decided that means "only school for black people because we will rig the system". How the hell did you make that leap?
But it's not it treats illegal immigrants better.
how? They don't get most of the rights that citizens get. They will get some of the rights that citizens get. That is, by definition, not being treated better than a citizen.
Keep twisting words see what good that'll do you. People are literally getting raised by the government, not working at all.
And you think that is Marxism? Again, you are showing you don't know what that word means.
And secondly, this study just shows black people get in trouble more not that they're punished anymore severely.
lol you ask for a study, I provide an article where a study was discussed and you immediately dismiss the study and don't even seem to have looked at it. If you don't want to read the articles I provide, please stop asking for them.
Pass a permanent repeal of the public charge statute, so we do not penalize immigrants who at some point may need to access support programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).It's for illegal immigrantssssssssssssssssssssss
Stop and read that again. What they are saying is that they want to change the system to not penalize immigrants who need to access those programs. They are not adding new programs. Those progreams already exist.
ok, so we are expanding the workforce, increasing the education and skills of the workforce. What about that is a bad thing?They're not the workforce, they're literally illegal immigrants and we're giving them free stuff. And you talk like all of them want to work, they can get raised by the government why would they need to work.
They come to america because they want the american dream. That means getting a job and putting their kids through college. You talk about immigrants as if they are lazy sub-humans when they are the backbone of the american economy. You are descended from immigrants. Are you and your family lazy immigrant who just wants free stuff?
THEY'RE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, you're making it sound like I hate them, I don't. I just don't want to have my tax dollars spent on illegal immigrants
You would rather them die than lift a finger to help. You would rather them live in squalor and their children never get any education so that they are unable to get jobs or participate in society. If illegal immigrants have no path to joining the economy and doing well on their own, then they will stay as the burden you seem to think they are. If they have a path to jobs, wealth and security then they will work for it and america will be all the richer.
lol, the two things liberals say "we need more equity" and "more rich tax". And I don't think you understand how capitalism works.
The tax rate on the rich has been falling for decades. income inequality has been massive rising for decades. Basically, the rich are sqeezing all the money out of the middle class so they become even richer while everyone else gets poorer. This imbalance is unsustainable and hurts the economy. It would appear that it is you who does not understand capitalism. Without progressive taxation and social programs to protect the working class, capitalism creates oligarchy.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Not too long after the "Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party" or the Bolsheviks took over Russia, they held elections. They lost and decided to do away with elections.
Bernie Sanders and the Bolsheviks have nothing in common. One took power by force then kept it by force. The other is gaining power via the support of the people and democracy.
If you want a fine example of what an anti-Christ government looks like, The Soviet Union is a fine example from modern history.
This doesn't even make sense. The US has freedom of religion. No government policies should ever be dictated by religion. So being "anti-Christ" is nonsense on the face of it.
Is it any suprise that the most vocal socialists are also very atheistic? It isn't, because socialism and militant atheism are inseparable.
How exactly is that? What makes socialism and Atheism linked?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Bolsheviks claimed to be democratic socialists.
please provide a source.
First thing they did when they seized power was hold elections. The people voted against them, so they scrapped elections.
ok. so people who took power using force, kept power by force. That is in no way related to what is happening now.
How did these people ever seize power? Look at what is happening now. The very same tactics they used to gain enough support to seize power are being used today to trick America into socialism.
This is in no way similar. The Bolsheviks seized power through violence. Then kept it by violence. Sanders is gaining power by a democratic election and will rule via democracy. There is absolutely nothing in common between the Bolsheviks and Sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
No, it’s because a third of Americans are moderate, which are unlikely to support radical, socialist policies. These moderate Americans helped Democrats win back the House, not Progressives who as I mentioned were pretty much slaughtered.
The idea of the "moderate" voter is a bit of a myth the political pundits like to throw around. If you ask someone if they are on the left, odds are they will say no. If you ask them if they support specific left wing policy ideas, alot of the them will say yes.
I specifically said base - voters that will stick with him no matter what. These people are disproportionately young voters. Bernie trounced Hillary in that category, and his share is practically the same but a bit less because there are more candidates out there.
his base is everyone who supports him, not just the "bernie bros" the media would like you to believe are his core constituents. If you look at his political donations the top professions donating to him are retirees, teachers, and healthcare workers.
Here’s proof that working class voters support Biden, in November it was 2:1 ratio. Now I believe it’s tied. Either way, they’re not a part of the base which means people that would support their candidate no matter what. Think of the evangelicals and Trump.
what? You acknowledge that Sanders has just as much support as Biden among the working class, but insist they don't count as his base? That doesn't make sense.
He’s losing by an average of 7 percent in aggregate polling in my home state of Texas.
most of that polling is months out of date.
The conclusion: he’s not winning one state in the South because of the traditional African American voters supporting Biden
have you not been noticing his massive surge the last few weeks? Most of that is from minority communities, and in large part black people.
Again, what’s the difference between a poor hungry person coming from Latin America and a poor hungry person in Africa. Using your logic we have an obligation to help both and not just one.
yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If you see a child starving to death on your front door, you have an obligation to help them. If you hear there are starving children halfway around the world then the level of responsibility is different.
Let me be selfish, you’re more than welcome to donate all your money. No one is stopping you.
this is kind of my point as to why it can't be based on charity. Because lots of people will refuse to help and the resources will not be stable enough to deal with the issue. That's why it has to be a government program.
You and your family have to give up half of everything you have to an illegal immigrant family. Would you do it? Yes or No. If yes, great! Go bring an illegal immigrant family in your house and do it. If not, you’re selfish and immoral.
I have never claimed we should give illegal immigrants half of our resources. That is a straw man argument. But I would gladly pay slightly higher taxes to help them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Spoken like a true authoritarian.
it's not authoritarian to not add stupid questions to a referendum. If the people want to do something stupid badly enough, they will vote for a party that wants to fight for it. The conservatives were idiots. They put up a referendum on something incredibly stupid and tore their country apart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You can argue all you want but if you can't persuade the other-side then they are still what they identify as.
you misunderstand. I don't care what they identify as. they can believe they are a martian for all I care. If they do not meet the requirements to be the thing they claim they are, then they are not that thing.
You said "free democratic elections" what do you mean?
sorry, in the context of your sentence I had thought you were referring to free as in the cost of an item.
You can argue that but until you can persuade them they are not going to say they are allowing people to die.
again, who cares? You aren't going to be able to get through to delusional people. They will keep on believing that delusion. The goal is to inoculate others against their delusions. There will always be republicans who want to destroy america and turn it into an oligarchy where the poor are an expendable resource. We can't stop that. We can work on convincing the majority of americans that this is what the republicans are about so that they don't manage to succeed.
A public vote is when everyone has a chance to vote on the situation. Last I heard no trial has ever had everyone had a chance of casting their view.
1) no election has a "public vote" every vote is private.
2) that is exactly what a jury is. They are a representation of society, IE a jury of your peers. They then vote on whether or not you are guilty.
Stealing has to be decided in court. It just so happens Israel and Palestine I don't think will agree to some sort of cross-country trials and this can't be settled.
between 2 individuals, sure. Between nations there is no court for that. We do have bodies such as the UN that could very easily pass resolutions on the matter if the US didn't always block them.
Now if you are not making a claim about law then say it then I will say what is the point of bringing up this information when the two sides do not agree on what you are saying?
again, with the UN, sanctions etc we don't need Israel to agree they are stealing. Everyone else sees they are stealing and want it to stop. We can take steps to make them stop even if they don't agree.
It is evident that you are feelings driven because you can't stay on topic ever instead choose to nudge in your feelings. You are not recognizing this is a projection of your anti-intellectualism.
lol so pointing out how silly your question is being anti-intellectual? I think you just can't stand it when people don't immediately agree with you.
It just so happens Trump can use God or US against the world rhetoric to agitate the Palestinian or tariff them on some kind of intelligence.
you think that people who are dirt poor and fighting for their lives can be tariffed into surrendering? The Israeli's have been blockading Palestine for years, it only hardens their resolve to keep fighting. Israel holds all the power in the relationship. They are occupying the land, they have way more weapons and the US as their backer.
How would you get a really long deal to span across many presidencies that aims to invest into Palestine then work with them later on?
Investment would be for private businesses to do. If the US is able to negotiate a stable framework for peace, then that kind of investment will likely come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Depends on the definition and what people identify as. People identify as Christian and by definition they would be.
If I call myself a christian but worship pagan gods, am I a christian? If you claim to be a christian but actively choose not to follow the rules of Christianity, I would argue they are not in fact a christian.
Nothing is free so there is no chance ever for a "true" democracy.
how does things being free have anything to do with democracy?
You can say the right allows poor people to die but that is not how they see it. They blame the other-side or policies.
i'm sure they do. But that is a cop out. They actively choose to allow people to die then try to pin the blame on others.
Most of the world does not count. It is between Israel and Palestine or maybe I forgot how when someone is put to trial it is up to a public vote if they are sentenced for the crime or not?
lol that is exactly how a trial works. It is called a jury of your peers.
You are literally arguing for mob rule which is not how any of the developed countries sentence someone. There is a person representing the law not the entirety of the population voting on it.
I'm arguing that a country should not be allowed to steal land. The entire world sees them stealing the land and calls it what it is.
You jsut can't help yourself but espouse the negatives of conflict when I asked for the positives. Another chance of getting more than one positive without saying negative or is that too much to ask from feelings driven person like yourself?
lol I answered your question. Conflict usually has far greater downsides than upsides. Recognizing that is not "feelings driven".
Okay so money. You said free trade as a positive for if they do decide to go towards your peace route but there are problems with this. Why would Palestine work with the US?
trade benefits both sides. If the US treated the palestinians like actual people instead of backing Israel at every opportunity, why would they not want to work with the US?
Why would the US population fund money to Palestine to build their country and why would the government wait more than 4 years for this to happen when the president really only cares about his cycle not afterwards?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm not suggesting the US should fund money to palestine. Who is waiting 4 years for what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Brexit seems to be a cautionary tale to those in government who continue to say the public cannot be trusted with major decisions.
actually, it very strongly reinforces that idea. A bunch of liars were able to convince stupid people to do a very stupid thing. Governments all over the world have learned that asking the country if they want to do stupid thing is a horrible plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
You know that proof means the actual polls right?
Here is one. there are tons more.
No this is literally a refugee camp. Do you understand what the purpose of borders are?
borders delineate where one nation state ends and another begins. Most rational people understand that they are not intended to be closed borders where no one comes in or goes out.
and provide first-generation and minority students supports and services needed to end equity gaps in higher education attainment.When the word "equity" is used you know it's gonna be bad.
The current system, for many reasons, makes it easier for white kids to go to college. A system where literally everyone has the ability to go to college would fix that gap. That's not "affirmative action" it is providing a service to everyone.
It is literally for everyone. That is the opposite of affirmative action.sure lol
so you see the plan that says it is for everyone and your response is "sure lol"? Do you have any reason to doubt that this is the case?
First of all, these aren't poor people. They're illegal immigrants. Secondly, most of them are unemployed, it's literally marxism, do nothing and get raised by the government.
if you think feeding people is marxism, you obviously have no idea what marxism is.
lots of studies have shown that schools punish people of color much more strictly than they punish white children. Pointing out and wanting to do something about that is a good thing.Again, please link those "studies".
Here you go
pays benefitsI mean lol it literally has "income" in the name.
did you actually look at the information? It was about whether the government would charge people to access those services, not about creating those services.
I think your high. This treats immigrants better, not your average working class american. Did you even read the "Embrace Act" bs. Here, let me clarify:WE'RE GIVING THEM FREE MONEY, FOOD, AND EDUCATION.
ok, so we are expanding the workforce, increasing the education and skills of the workforce. What about that is a bad thing? And this is just 1 part of his platform. The vast majority of it is about how he will make your life better. You are focusing on one part where he will make other peoples lives better too and I can't figure out why that offends you.
No wonder libtards hate republicans so much, they literally have no idea what's going on.
lol sanders has plans to help the vast majority of americas. You (I am guessing) support a party that loves to screw over the working class and funnel money to the rich. And you claim that liberals don't understand what is going on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A bad Christian is still a Christian.
Are they though? If you call a country a democracy, but it is a dictatorship, should we accept that it's a democracy? In my opinion no. If they don't have free democratic elections, then you aren't a democracy. If you don't actually follow the teachings of jesus, then you aren't actually a christian. You can call yourself that all you want, but if you think poor people deserve to die, then you definitely aren't a christian.
The problem with Israel and Palestine I don't think they agree on laws cross country lines so it isn't theft.
again, so what? The thief says that they aren't stealing. the rest of society agrees that it is. Israel says they haven't stolen the land, most of the rest of the world agrees that they did. Who cares if what Israel calls it?
Do you know the benefits of conflict?
Military contractor companies love conflict. But to society and the american people, little to nothing.
If you say there are no benefits then I'll say stuff.
some people reap tons of benefits. The companies that make the weapons the US gives to Israel make a killing. Lobbyists spend a fortune wining and dining politicians. Politicians get a big "friend of Israel" badge they can use to campaign with. But the american people get stuck funding death and destruction. Some of them end up dying in the inevitable backlash against america.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Economic refugees fear socialism, not violence. Although in a roundabout way they are equivalent, Socialism and violence.
lol they fear socialism? I didn't realize there were refugees from the soviet union.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Progressive candidates he supported in the suburbs all lost to moderate Democrats in the primaries or to the GOP in the General.
This would be part of that narrative I mentioned. The mainstream news all hammered on the idea that only corporatist sellout candidates could possibly win. People bought into it. Then Hilary lost anyway to a populist. That narrative is alot harder to sell now.
Americans just don’t like progressivism especially in the suburbs.
Lol the majority of bernie's support is working class people. Do you have any evidence for that?
He has zero appeal in the South.
Recent polling had him within a few points of Biden in Texas. So no, you're wrong.
His base is college voters, that’s where the majority of his support comes from. Working class voters are divided to Biden in the primary and Trump in the general.
Please provide evidence for that. The vast majority of bernie's support is working class people, so I'd love to see your proof reality isn't true.
Per your logic the US is responsible for every single death in the world due to the causes you mentioned.
That's not what I said at all. I said refusing someone care in america is immoral. Letting women and children die so you can save a few bucks makes you a really shitty person.
Fundamental concept of economic: resources are scarce. You can’t help everybody.
America is the richest country in the world. It has the resources to provide basic care for everyone in it's borders. The only reason the government struggles to afford things and runs massive deficits is because the right has been forcing down tax rates on the rich for decades.
It’s much moral to take the side of what you were tasked to do and let the other govts help their own people. It’s not immoral to prefer to help your own people than others.
It is immoral to allow people in your country that you have the power and resources to help die to save a few bucks. If you think otherwise, then you are immoral.
I’d help my son over any random homeless guy on the street, and you would too
If you saw someone starving on the side of the road close to death, would you share some food with him or watch him die and then smugly post online about how you don't have the resources?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, I do not consider economic refugees fleeing socialist nations to be innocent. They asked for it.
People fleeing for fear of their lives deserve to die? I mean, if you think you are a christian, you really, really aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hadn't you been watching the protests and riots in Iran before Soleimani was killed? And have you not seen how happy they were when the news of his death broke? Iran is practically on its knees , you obviously just don't know it.
There were massive protests about soleimani's murder. Did you not see those?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump was an anomaly and unpredictable. Bernie Sanders is tested. He lost the suburbs and urban areas to Hillary Clinton. .
The media worked overtime trying to spin a narrative that sanders couldn't win. Sanders also wasn't all that well known and didn't have a team built up. Sanders is now extremely well known. The narrative that he can't win is collapsing. And he has one of, if not the best running ground teams. Alot has changed this cycle.
His base is literally college voters.
This is not true. He is popular with college voters, that is true. But the majority of his support is working class people. He has one of, if not the most diverse coalitions.
If they’re illegal immigrants, yes. The obligation of the President is to his constituents. Pretty simple. If there’s money left over, sure.
lol there is that morality the right likes to pretend it has. Let's let innocent people die to save a few bucks. Jesus would be proud of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m voting for Bernie in the primaries. Wipeout for Dems in the suburbs. I ask that y’all join me so Trump wins'
lol the dems said the same thing about trump, look how that worked out for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You're in favor of giving illegal immigrants access to government-funded healthcare?
are you in favor of letting women and children die by refusing to give them basic medical care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
You have proof that he brings in young people?
every poll done shows he has massive support among young people. The trend line for elections recently has young people voting in record numbers.
I'd rather tulsi than bernie or biden tbh.
you are entitled to your opinion. but she has no chance of winning.
If you aren't going to bother making a point then we can drop it.You asked for it.
I did,, but then you refused to actually make an argument because it was too much work.
Yes let's give free healthcare for anyone who just so happens to wander into America.
as opposed to just letting people die? Does anyone think it's a good idea to refuse people care and let them die?
- Enact College for All, which will make public colleges and universities tuition and debt free to all regardless of immigration status, and provide first-generation and minority students supports and services needed to end equity gaps in higher education attainment.
This'll cost a bunch. But what worries me most is that this might turn out to be some type of affirmative act shit.
How does "everyone gets access to free college" turn into "affirmative act shit"? It is literally for everyone. That is the opposite of affirmative action.
Free education, Free healthcare, Free meals, and you don't even have to be a U.S citizen cough cough refugee camp cough cough
lol so poor people get to be able to go to school and not starve, and that is supposed to be a bad thing?
Address disciplinary practices in schools that disproportionately affect Black and Brown children.yeah yeah yeah, vote farmer.
lots of studies have shown that schools punish people of color much more strictly than they punish white children. Pointing out and wanting to do something about that is a good thing.
Pass a permanent repeal of the public charge statute, so we do not penalize immigrants who at some point may need to access support programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).Wait we haven't given them FREE MONEY yet!
umm what? It just says that they wont be charged to access government services that they need. That isn't free money.
Pass the Embrace Act introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to ensure immigrants get the assistance they need.that moment when illegal immigrants get treated better than americans.
The point is to make things better for EVERYONE. will he treat immigrants better than republicans do, absolutely. Will he make sure that americans get much better care than republicans do? Definitely.
I can't understand why people are so happy to shit on other people. Sanders' plans will help you and it will help others. You hear that it will help others and immediately attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The sad thing is that Bernie could have won easily against any of the establishment GOP candidates like Bush, Romney, and McCain.Trump already has the support of the people with a middle finger to give to the establishment.
he did. but he is also a terrible president. so there are still alot of right wing people who hate the establishment that will back him, but that is like 30% of the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not in the swing states lol.
That's kind of my point though. the reliable dem voters will turn out for biden, but in swing states that isn't enough to win. That's why sanders has a much better chance because he can turn out new voters in a way biden never could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yang is having a bigger surge and horrible news.
The average of polls has yang up about 1 point lately. That is not a bigger surge.
Bernie is a socialist liar
He is a democratic socialist. I'm guessing you mean that as a negative, however it is a big positive. What has he lied about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
He's also the best placed to beat trump.debateable
Anyone who regularly votes dem will turn out to beat trump. Plus he brings in alot of new people. young people, people who are sick of the corruption and greed of the neo-lib controlled establishment dems.
None of the other candidates are going to do that. (maybe yang or tulsi, but they can't win at this point). Biden will get the core dem base and then alot of people will stay home. He will lose just like hilary.
just scroll down to that place im not copying and pasting like that many words.
If you aren't going to bother making a point then we can drop it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
nah he's just really old and losing it.*lost it
He's still coherent at least half the time. so i'd say "losing" is the accurate term
eh hes still old af
ok. what's your point. He has more energy than most of the people running. He's also the best placed to beat trump.
from his campaign site
what is your point? America already takes migrants and refugees. Why do you think this is a significant departure from what happens now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Isn't CNN a corporation?
yep. Their wealthy news castors are fighting hard to protect the interests of their corporate overlords.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Biden is awful and is probably high when he's debating about how weed should be legalized
nah he's just really old and losing it.
I already told you about how bernie will die halfway through his term
lol the guy still plays baseball. he has more energy than half the people running.
and literally wants to make America into a giant refugee camp.
I have no words. I mean this makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Oh no no no no, not bernie please no. Dude is like 50x worse than biden.
lol in what way? Biden is awful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Who is CNN backing?
CNN compliments any of the corporatist candidates. They are pretty easy on Biden. They constantly faun over Butigieg and Klobachar. They are pretty light on Warren too. Just an edit here, they also loved Kamela, Booker and Beto before they flamed out.
They constantly bash Sanders, Yang and Tulsi.
And yeah, it's weird that being qualified for the position has become a mark against applicants.
They understand that being an outsider is a big appeal for alot of people. So they want to make it seem like Sanders isn't an outsider candidate to try to push some of his supporters towards other candidates that have no shot at winning.
But yeah, it's really weird to see them do this.
Created: