Trump's lifeline: Democrats' socialism surge

[jknowgood]

Okay, she is the smartest woman in the world because she graduated from college, just like every other graduate.

Nobody said she was the "smartest woman in the world".

"Every other graduate" doesn't graduate cum laude, which is kind of the point of cum laude.

Why does anyone bother responding to your childish bullshit? You embarrass yourself.

You defending her intelligence, shows yours.

 

[jknowgood]

Okay this woman actually thinks air traffic can be stopped.

Again...no link. And brilliant people can get dumb/naive ideas...DUH.

I will ask you again...

So where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that 'stupid' people can graduate cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences majoring in international relations?

Tide pod challenge.

So once again folks. jknowgood makes a matter-of-fact point and offers ZERO factual evidence to back it up.

And then he dances around, desperately trying to spin it.

LOL.

I will ask you again...

So where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that 'stupid' people can graduate cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences majoring in international relations?

Okay, she is the smartest woman in the world because she graduated from college, just like every other graduate. It's the thousands of people who voted for her, they are the stupid ones. That scientific enough for you?

I do not think she is incredibly smart. But clearly, she is not stupid. Which was my ONLY point on this.


So...are you now admitting that you cannot factually prove that Ocasio-Cortez is stupid?

Yes or no, please?

You do - I will drop it.

I guess maybe she could be book smart,but i don't see how.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You defending her intelligence, shows yours.

That doesn't make sense, Trumpkin. I made fun of your intelligence, wirh examples of stupid shit you say. Saying someone looks smart next to you is certainly no defense of that other person's intelligence.

 

[jknowgood]

You defending her intelligence, shows yours.

That doesn't make sense, Trumpkin. I made fun of your intelligence, wirh examples of stupid shit you say. Saying someone looks smart next to you is certainly no defense of that other person's intelligence.

And whoosh, right over your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You defending her intelligence, shows yours.

That doesn't make sense, Trumpkin. I made fun of your intelligence, wirh examples of stupid shit you say. Saying someone looks smart next to you is certainly no defense of that other person's intelligence.

And whoosh, right over your head.

Haha, yeah, you trumpkins like to tell yourself over and over that have outsmarted everyone. So I now join the company of scientists, historians, the intelligence community, the military, and the justice system. Thanks numbnuts, I'm flattered.

 

[basquebromance]

"What if, instead giving tax breaks to billionaires and massive corporations, we gave 40 million Americans a raise by making the federal minimum wage a living wage of $15 an hour?" - Crazy Bernie

What if, you moved to Venezuela to witness how your socialist fantasies play out in the real world?

 

[McRocket]

Again...no link. And brilliant people can get dumb/naive ideas...DUH.

I will ask you again...

So where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that 'stupid' people can graduate cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences majoring in international relations?

Tide pod challenge.

So once again folks. jknowgood makes a matter-of-fact point and offers ZERO factual evidence to back it up.

And then he dances around, desperately trying to spin it.

LOL.

I will ask you again...

So where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that 'stupid' people can graduate cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences majoring in international relations?

Okay, she is the smartest woman in the world because she graduated from college, just like every other graduate. It's the thousands of people who voted for her, they are the stupid ones. That scientific enough for you?

I do not think she is incredibly smart. But clearly, she is not stupid. Which was my ONLY point on this.


So...are you now admitting that you cannot factually prove that Ocasio-Cortez is stupid?

Yes or no, please?

You do - I will drop it.

I guess maybe she could be book smart,but i don't see how.

Fair enough.

And I agree with you that her ideas are OUT there.

Good day.

 

[Claudette]

Seems quite a few of the Dems running for POTUS are backing the Green deal.

You can't cure stupid.

 

[Correll]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.
....

1. That is true. Which is why Dems are so committed to all forms of High Immigration policy, legal and illegal.

2. And dont' be to sure about it. Generations of liberal control of education and pop culture has convinced a lot of Americans that socialism is not all that bad.

 

[Dragonlady]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

You keep telling us that the USA cannot do for their citizens what the governments in the rest of the First World do for their citizens because it costs too much money. BULLSHIT.

This year, President Trump announced a military "space force". You are in your 18th year of continual foreign wars, and you spend more on your military than the next 10 countries combined.

Your people are fed up and tired of that lie.

 

[pondsbb]

People with any common sense at all can clearly see socialism in any form will never be long term.

Well, except for public transportation, public schools, state universities, medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, public highways, etc etc


But yeah, other than a very long list of things that show you are full of shit...you're spot on!

Even the wall Trump wants has a tinge of socialism in it, with private property land grab to build it on.

Sent from my RCT6303W87DK using Tapatalk

 

[kyzr]

There is no "popular vote" in presidential elections, please stop lying. The EC is how we elect presidents, period.
The MSM said, as seen in the video "there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes". The polls were and still are still total bullshit from the tiny blue dot urban plantations.

1) Show me where the ENTIRE MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes.'? That is TOTAL nonsense.
And who gives a shit what the MSM says? Anyone who gets their news from ANY MSM source has not a clue what is going on.
They are ALL next-to-useless - to varying degrees...especially the American ones.
2) I am talking about polls.
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
Trump lost the popular vote by only 3.2%.
Right now, his approval rating is nowhere near where it was on election night 2016.
And Trump was an unknown on election night as a candidate. He had ZERO political track record. Now he does...and it stinks.
He has acted like a buffoon and he lies like it is a bodily function.
Trump Lies
Barring a war (or the Dems embrace Socialism as THE party platform) - Trump is toast in 2020....guaranteed.

The video showed that Hillary's approval was 80%...(total bullshit)
You challenged me to show you where the MSM's polls/projections were wrong. Please see below where CNN said that Hillary had a 91% probability of winning. The other MSM's all predicted her to win, Trump had at best a very slight chance of winning because of the dem's "blue wall of PA, MI, WI, MN"
Here is ABC's projection, Hillary 274 to Trump's 188
Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump in ABC News' Electoral Ratings Before Tough Battleground Contests

Here is NBC's projection, Hillary 274 to Trump's 170
NBC's final battleground map shows a lead for Clinton

Clinton's chances for the White House on the rise - CNNPolitics
"Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton's odds of winning the presidency rose from 78% last week to 91% Monday before Election Day, according to CNN's Political Prediction Market."

WRONG. That is only part of the MSM.

You typed:

'The MSM said, as seen in the video "there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes".'

MSM means - Mainstream Media. ALL OF IT.

'Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people,and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used tocontrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissentingthought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.'

Mainstream media

So you said - in essence - that ALL of the MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes'.

1) the ENTIRE MSM did not say that.
2) you still have not quoted even one MSM source that said exactly that.

I suggest, in future, that you learn what words/phrases mean before you utter them.


And you still have not answered my question:

True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?

FALSE!! I did not see any "popular vote" predictions before the election. I saw EC projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning, and I saw that Hillary was up by 4-points.

You're getting ridiculous about the MSM composition. The MSM can be represented by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. I'm not sure what "share" of the TV audience their news gets but by adding FXN and MSNBC I probably have more than 95% of viewership. If you have another station that has significant viewership, please list it so I can prove you wrong <again>

Here is Fox News prediction 1-day before the election: Hillary by 4 points
fox news predicts 2016 election - Google Search

"Here's how MSNBC got election prediction so very wrong" Watch this one it has 'splaining
How the media got election predictions so very wrong

Wrong. MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such. You did not.
What you stated was factually wrong...period.
You misused a word/phrase and now you don't like it that someone called you on it.
Get over it.
And you AGAIN avoided my question:
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
I will not deal with you on that other nonsense until you answer my question.

The MSM predictions for the election were that Hillary was up by 4-points, that she won the meaningless "popular vote" by 2% is not the point. Is 2% "very close" as you say? Irrelevant. Say NO, because they all missed the actual winner.
The MSM was TOTALLY WRONG in predicting that Hillary would WIN THE ELECTION, which is the purpose of "polls".

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump | HuffPost
"With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump's 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.Dec 20, 2016"

"MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such.."
WTF are you talking about? Stop posting nonsense. Voters' main source of news is from the evening news, from many networks, and reliable newspapers. If you are inferring that the MSM includes online sources of "news" you are wrong, online sources are not credible. So yes, I'm stipulating that the MSM consists of the major TV network "news" and major newspapers.

I answered your big font question. Now answer mine. Were the MSM polls all wrong predicting the winner of the 2016 presidential election? From above:
"I saw Electoral College projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning"

[just remembered, I worked with a guy who insisted that AlJazerra was the only true unbiased news source, so there are all kinds of opinions out there]

 

[gipper]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

The article is wrong, as is the thread premise.

Democrats are not ‘flirting with socialism’ – and the article exhibits a comprehensive ignorance as to what ‘socialism’ actually is.

The mistake Democrats are making is to allow Republicans to use rightwing lies about ‘socialism’ as a political weapon.

It doesn’t matter what you think socialism is. In practice, socialism is tyranny by a small elite. I suspect most Americans know this and don’t want it.

We already have a government owned and controlled by a small elite. Socialism won’t fix it.

 

[McRocket]

1) Show me where the ENTIRE MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes.'? That is TOTAL nonsense.
And who gives a shit what the MSM says? Anyone who gets their news from ANY MSM source has not a clue what is going on.
They are ALL next-to-useless - to varying degrees...especially the American ones.
2) I am talking about polls.
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
Trump lost the popular vote by only 3.2%.
Right now, his approval rating is nowhere near where it was on election night 2016.
And Trump was an unknown on election night as a candidate. He had ZERO political track record. Now he does...and it stinks.
He has acted like a buffoon and he lies like it is a bodily function.
Trump Lies
Barring a war (or the Dems embrace Socialism as THE party platform) - Trump is toast in 2020....guaranteed.

The video showed that Hillary's approval was 80%...(total bullshit)
You challenged me to show you where the MSM's polls/projections were wrong. Please see below where CNN said that Hillary had a 91% probability of winning. The other MSM's all predicted her to win, Trump had at best a very slight chance of winning because of the dem's "blue wall of PA, MI, WI, MN"
Here is ABC's projection, Hillary 274 to Trump's 188
Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump in ABC News' Electoral Ratings Before Tough Battleground Contests

Here is NBC's projection, Hillary 274 to Trump's 170
NBC's final battleground map shows a lead for Clinton

Clinton's chances for the White House on the rise - CNNPolitics
"Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton's odds of winning the presidency rose from 78% last week to 91% Monday before Election Day, according to CNN's Political Prediction Market."

WRONG. That is only part of the MSM.

You typed:

'The MSM said, as seen in the video "there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes".'

MSM means - Mainstream Media. ALL OF IT.

'Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people,and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used tocontrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissentingthought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.'

Mainstream media

So you said - in essence - that ALL of the MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes'.

1) the ENTIRE MSM did not say that.
2) you still have not quoted even one MSM source that said exactly that.

I suggest, in future, that you learn what words/phrases mean before you utter them.


And you still have not answered my question:

True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?

FALSE!! I did not see any "popular vote" predictions before the election. I saw EC projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning, and I saw that Hillary was up by 4-points.

You're getting ridiculous about the MSM composition. The MSM can be represented by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. I'm not sure what "share" of the TV audience their news gets but by adding FXN and MSNBC I probably have more than 95% of viewership. If you have another station that has significant viewership, please list it so I can prove you wrong <again>

Here is Fox News prediction 1-day before the election: Hillary by 4 points
fox news predicts 2016 election - Google Search

"Here's how MSNBC got election prediction so very wrong" Watch this one it has 'splaining
How the media got election predictions so very wrong

Wrong. MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such. You did not.
What you stated was factually wrong...period.
You misused a word/phrase and now you don't like it that someone called you on it.
Get over it.
And you AGAIN avoided my question:
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
I will not deal with you on that other nonsense until you answer my question.

The MSM predictions for the election were that Hillary was up by 4-points, that she won the meaningless "popular vote" by 2% is not the point. Is 2% "very close" as you say? Irrelevant. Say NO, because they all missed the actual winner.
The MSM was TOTALLY WRONG in predicting that Hillary would WIN THE ELECTION, which is the purpose of "polls".

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump | HuffPost
"With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump's 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.Dec 20, 2016"

"MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such.."
WTF are you talking about? Stop posting nonsense. Voters' main source of news is from the evening news, from many networks, and reliable newspapers. If you are inferring that the MSM includes online sources of "news" you are wrong, online sources are not credible. So yes, I'm stipulating that the MSM consists of the major TV network "news" and major newspapers.

I answered your big font question. Now answer mine. Were the MSM polls all wrong predicting the winner of the 2016 presidential election? From above:
"I saw Electoral College projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning"

[just remembered, I worked with a guy who insisted that AlJazerra was the only true unbiased news source, so there are all kinds of opinions out there]

I see you are freaking out over this...in many colors, to boot. Why don't you calm down? It's a chat forum...not real life. Sheesh.

If there were EC predictions and IF they were wrong....then 'yes', they were wrong.

LOL.

But the candidate who wins the popular vote has won the election every time in American history but 2 or 3. And a swing of roughly 88,000 votes in the right districts would have given Clinton the EC victory.

I don't give a shit about the EC. I don't respect it, I don't honor it. And I don't care what the law says about it. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump is NOT my POTUS. If he tried to tell me what to do, I would laugh in his face (unless he had cops force me at gunpoint to do as he asked).
It means next to NOTHING to me (and if the reverse had happened, I would feel the same way about 'President' Clinton).


So, the major polls said that Clinton would win by 3.2%. And she won the popular vote by 2.1%. And you are saying that their estimates were NOT very close to the real outcome?

And just how close would they had to have been for you to say they were 'very close'?

 

[McRocket]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

You keep telling us that the USA cannot do for their citizens what the governments in the rest of the First World do for their citizens because it costs too much money. BULLSHIT.

This year, President Trump announced a military "space force". You are in your 18th year of continual foreign wars, and you spend more on your military than the next 10 countries combined.

Your people are fed up and tired of that lie.

Ummm...I want the military budget cut by 1/2-2/3 and ALL the troops brought home, BTW.

And 'yes, what Ocasio-Cortez (and many others like her) IS too expensive.

For example, they want a guaranteed income. Every American gets money just for being American.
Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal offers 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'

And a 'guaranteed income' has long been a request of many progressives.
Progressives and the Guaranteed Income Debate (Canadian article..but progressives, nonetheless)
Basic income - Wikipedia

So say they give every American adult (roughly 250 million people), say, $16,000 each. And every parent an extra $8,000 for every child they have (roughly another 80 million people).

That works out to $4.640 TRILLION dollars per year.

Now minus what is currently spent on Social Security and welfare (about $2 trillion). And you are left with a bill of $2.64 trillion per year...that is over and above the present deficit.
So, with that craziness - the federal deficit would be over $3.5 TRILLION...PER YEAR.

That is TOTALLY unsustainable.

You say me calling it unsustainable is bullshit?

Fine...now you explain EXACTLY how America pays for that?


And that does not even include guaranteed housing, guaranteed jobs, free college, single-payer healthcare, 'no more planes' in America and on and on...

 

[bendog]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

What comprises the gop today is united with over 80% approving of Trump. So far, he's in the shitter with independents. We'll see if they shift or even if they choose to vote for neither party in 20

 

[bendog]

'Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

• It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
• It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
• The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. '

Democrats' surge of socialism could be Trump's 2020 lifeline

The article is right - Democrats themselves are handing Trump a political lifeline.

There is NO WAY Democrats will win a general election on a socialism-mandate. There simply are not enough American voters to support that platform.

Sure, lots of people love the idea of everything being provided for them by the government - free university, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income, free healthcare and so on.

But when the Republicans (if they are smart) remind people of the INCREDIBLE and unsustainable costs of ALL of these programs (except free healthcare to the needy - so long as it is dual-payer and NOT single payer) AND stay away from the silly moral arguments of it?
Most of these people will shy away from the socialism angle.

The fact remains - not one progressive has REMOTELY explained how all of these pie-in-the-sky programs (especially that Green New Deal) can realistically be paid for.
Why?
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund all of these things in a sustained manner.
Impossible.

The bottom line - if Democrats fully embrace socialism...IMO, THEY WILL COST THEMSELVES FAR MORE VOTERS THEN THEY GAIN.

The article is wrong, as is the thread premise.

Democrats are not ‘flirting with socialism’ – and the article exhibits a comprehensive ignorance as to what ‘socialism’ actually is.

The mistake Democrats are making is to allow Republicans to use rightwing lies about ‘socialism’ as a political weapon.

It doesn’t matter what you think socialism is.. I suspect most Americans know this and don’t want it.

We already have a government owned and controlled by a small elite. Socialism won’t fix it.

" In practice, socialism is tyranny by a small elite"

I'm not a socialist but which countries are you speaking of?

 

[kyzr]

The video showed that Hillary's approval was 80%...(total bullshit)
You challenged me to show you where the MSM's polls/projections were wrong. Please see below where CNN said that Hillary had a 91% probability of winning. The other MSM's all predicted her to win, Trump had at best a very slight chance of winning because of the dem's "blue wall of PA, MI, WI, MN"
Here is ABC's projection, Hillary 274 to Trump's 188
Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump in ABC News' Electoral Ratings Before Tough Battleground Contests

Here is NBC's projection, Hillary 274 to Trump's 170
NBC's final battleground map shows a lead for Clinton

Clinton's chances for the White House on the rise - CNNPolitics
"Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton's odds of winning the presidency rose from 78% last week to 91% Monday before Election Day, according to CNN's Political Prediction Market."

WRONG. That is only part of the MSM.

You typed:

'The MSM said, as seen in the video "there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes".'

MSM means - Mainstream Media. ALL OF IT.

'Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people,and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used tocontrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissentingthought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.'

Mainstream media

So you said - in essence - that ALL of the MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes'.

1) the ENTIRE MSM did not say that.
2) you still have not quoted even one MSM source that said exactly that.

I suggest, in future, that you learn what words/phrases mean before you utter them.


And you still have not answered my question:

True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?

FALSE!! I did not see any "popular vote" predictions before the election. I saw EC projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning, and I saw that Hillary was up by 4-points.

You're getting ridiculous about the MSM composition. The MSM can be represented by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. I'm not sure what "share" of the TV audience their news gets but by adding FXN and MSNBC I probably have more than 95% of viewership. If you have another station that has significant viewership, please list it so I can prove you wrong <again>

Here is Fox News prediction 1-day before the election: Hillary by 4 points
fox news predicts 2016 election - Google Search

"Here's how MSNBC got election prediction so very wrong" Watch this one it has 'splaining
How the media got election predictions so very wrong

Wrong. MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such. You did not.
What you stated was factually wrong...period.
You misused a word/phrase and now you don't like it that someone called you on it.
Get over it.
And you AGAIN avoided my question:
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
I will not deal with you on that other nonsense until you answer my question.

The MSM predictions for the election were that Hillary was up by 4-points, that she won the meaningless "popular vote" by 2% is not the point. Is 2% "very close" as you say? Irrelevant. Say NO, because they all missed the actual winner.
The MSM was TOTALLY WRONG in predicting that Hillary would WIN THE ELECTION, which is the purpose of "polls".

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump | HuffPost
"With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump's 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.Dec 20, 2016"

"MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such.."
WTF are you talking about? Stop posting nonsense. Voters' main source of news is from the evening news, from many networks, and reliable newspapers. If you are inferring that the MSM includes online sources of "news" you are wrong, online sources are not credible. So yes, I'm stipulating that the MSM consists of the major TV network "news" and major newspapers.

I answered your big font question. Now answer mine. Were the MSM polls all wrong predicting the winner of the 2016 presidential election? From above:
"I saw Electoral College projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning"

[just remembered, I worked with a guy who insisted that AlJazerra was the only true unbiased news source, so there are all kinds of opinions out there]

I see you are freaking out over this...in many colors, to boot. Why don't you calm down? It's a chat forum...not real life. Sheesh.

If there were EC predictions and IF they were wrong....then 'yes', they were wrong.

LOL.

But the candidate who wins the popular vote has won the election every time in American history but 2 or 3. And a swing of roughly 88,000 votes in the right districts would have given Clinton the EC victory.

I don't give a shit about the EC. I don't respect it, I don't honor it. And I don't care what the law says about it. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump is NOT my POTUS. If he tried to tell me what to do, I would laugh in his face (unless he had cops force me at gunpoint to do as he asked).
It means next to NOTHING to me (and if the reverse had happened, I would feel the same way about 'President' Clinton).


So, the major polls said that Clinton would win by 3.2%. And she won the popular vote by 2.1%. And you are saying that their estimates were NOT very close to the real outcome?

And just how close would they had to have been for you to say they were 'very close'?

Ok, I took a nerve pill and washed it down with a beer. Its 12 O'clock somewhere...<g> I'm calmer now....

We're looking at polls from very different perspectives. I look at them as potentially influencing elections, so they need to be as accurate as possible. Then again, Trump disproved that beautiful theory with the ugly little fact that he won in spite of the polls and the MSM's and deep state's one-sided efforts.

We always need to obey the Laws, like them or not, or the democracy devolves into anarchy, and that you would not like, trust me. We didn't like Obama, but we put up with him for 8-years. You may need to put up with Trump for 8-years too. I can't pigeon hole you politically if you don't like Trump or Clinton?

The way you are pushing the poll issue, I'm assuming that you have something to do with polling. Okay, since you're being reasonable, I'll admit that if the margin of error of most polls is ~3.5% that the polls nailed the "popular vote", as irrelevant as they are. However, your spin that she would win the "election" by 3.2% falls flat, because the polls had her winning by a 90% probability and also projected her winning the EC, which was very wrong. So the polls missed the main reason they exist, to project the winner of the election.

 

[bendog]

WRONG. That is only part of the MSM.

You typed:

'The MSM said, as seen in the video "there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes".'

MSM means - Mainstream Media. ALL OF IT.

'Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence a large number of people,and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought.[1] The term is used tocontrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissentingthought as they do not reflect prevailing opinion.'

Mainstream media

So you said - in essence - that ALL of the MSM said 'there is no way Trump can win and get 270 EC votes'.

1) the ENTIRE MSM did not say that.
2) you still have not quoted even one MSM source that said exactly that.

I suggest, in future, that you learn what words/phrases mean before you utter them.


And you still have not answered my question:

True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?

FALSE!! I did not see any "popular vote" predictions before the election. I saw EC projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning, and I saw that Hillary was up by 4-points.

You're getting ridiculous about the MSM composition. The MSM can be represented by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC. I'm not sure what "share" of the TV audience their news gets but by adding FXN and MSNBC I probably have more than 95% of viewership. If you have another station that has significant viewership, please list it so I can prove you wrong <again>

Here is Fox News prediction 1-day before the election: Hillary by 4 points
fox news predicts 2016 election - Google Search

"Here's how MSNBC got election prediction so very wrong" Watch this one it has 'splaining
How the media got election predictions so very wrong

Wrong. MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such. You did not.
What you stated was factually wrong...period.
You misused a word/phrase and now you don't like it that someone called you on it.
Get over it.
And you AGAIN avoided my question:
True or False - did the polls estimate the popular vote VERY close to the real outcome in 2016?
I will not deal with you on that other nonsense until you answer my question.

The MSM predictions for the election were that Hillary was up by 4-points, that she won the meaningless "popular vote" by 2% is not the point. Is 2% "very close" as you say? Irrelevant. Say NO, because they all missed the actual winner.
The MSM was TOTALLY WRONG in predicting that Hillary would WIN THE ELECTION, which is the purpose of "polls".

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump | HuffPost
"With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump's 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.Dec 20, 2016"

"MSM - by definition - cannot be represented by singular, media sources unless you stipulate as such.."
WTF are you talking about? Stop posting nonsense. Voters' main source of news is from the evening news, from many networks, and reliable newspapers. If you are inferring that the MSM includes online sources of "news" you are wrong, online sources are not credible. So yes, I'm stipulating that the MSM consists of the major TV network "news" and major newspapers.

I answered your big font question. Now answer mine. Were the MSM polls all wrong predicting the winner of the 2016 presidential election? From above:
"I saw Electoral College projections, I saw that Hillary had between an 85% and 95% chance of winning"

[just remembered, I worked with a guy who insisted that AlJazerra was the only true unbiased news source, so there are all kinds of opinions out there]

I see you are freaking out over this...in many colors, to boot. Why don't you calm down? It's a chat forum...not real life. Sheesh.

If there were EC predictions and IF they were wrong....then 'yes', they were wrong.

LOL.

But the candidate who wins the popular vote has won the election every time in American history but 2 or 3. And a swing of roughly 88,000 votes in the right districts would have given Clinton the EC victory.

I don't give a shit about the EC. I don't respect it, I don't honor it. And I don't care what the law says about it. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump is NOT my POTUS. If he tried to tell me what to do, I would laugh in his face (unless he had cops force me at gunpoint to do as he asked).
It means next to NOTHING to me (and if the reverse had happened, I would feel the same way about 'President' Clinton).


So, the major polls said that Clinton would win by 3.2%. And she won the popular vote by 2.1%. And you are saying that their estimates were NOT very close to the real outcome?

And just how close would they had to have been for you to say they were 'very close'?

Ok, I took a nerve pill and washed it down with a beer. Its 12 O'clock somewhere...<g> I'm calmer now....

We're looking at polls from very different perspectives. I look at them as potentially influencing elections, so they need to be as accurate as possible. Then again, Trump disproved that beautiful theory with the ugly little fact that he won in spite of the polls and the MSM's and deep state's one-sided efforts.

We always need to obey the Laws, like them or not, or the democracy devolves into anarchy, and that you would not like, trust me. We didn't like Obama, but we put up with him for 8-years. You may need to put up with Trump for 8-years too. I can't pigeon hole you politically if you don't like Trump or Clinton?

The way you are pushing the poll issue, I'm assuming that you have something to do with polling. Okay, since you're being reasonable, I'll admit that if the margin of error of most polls is ~3.5% that the polls nailed the "popular vote", as irrelevant as they are. However, your spin that she would win the "election" by 3.2% falls flat, because the polls had her winning by a 90% probability and also projected her winning the EC, which was very wrong. So the polls missed the main reason they exist, to project the winner of the election.

You both are arguing nothing. The only relevant issue was whether the polls registered sentiment before the Comey surprise, or after, and if after whether there was measure of shifts. The polls were ALREADY shifting to Trump in Wisc before the Comeycomingout. Ed Rendell was on MSM complaining that Hillary was not deploying everything she had to the Midwest and Pa. I don't know if one can measure whether Comey's surprise had an effect on turnout in white suburbs, but that's where Trump won his EV count. The suburbs in those three states: Pa, Wisc and Mich.

Not that any of it matters ... so long as there's a different vote and outcome in 2020

 

[Thinker101]

Trump can't win....no fucking way.....the polls all said....

Which they did, right up until the end, when they were pretty much spot on. The final result was well within the margin of error.

Got a link for that bullshit claim? For CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS? The exit polls weren't even favorable to Trump...
I showed you that during the campaign there was no way Trump could win, on all MSM "news" outlets.
Basically pissing on the MSM polls, in 2016 and forever more....

I see ole c_clayton likes your posts too...LOL.