Bernie wins New Hampshire!

LV426 said:
Well, I sure as hell care about the youth vote more than I care about the votes of people who demand accommodation despite getting that accommodation non-stop for the last 10 years.

We did the moderate thing...it didn't work. In fact, it got us Trump. At what point are you going to admit that pinning your hopes on a few million voters of bad faith is misguided?

We don't need moderates to win elections.

For every "moderate" in 2016 that voted for Clinton, we can replace them at an almost 2:1 clip with non-voters.

Clinton got about 65 million votes in 2016, but 95 million people didn't vote. So if losing one Clinton vote means picking up one and a half to two non-voters, are you more behind 2016 or ahead of it?
Click to expand...

Nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions and conclusions jumped to with specious reasoning.

You have ZERO clues as to what would turn out best, only gut feeling like the rest of us.

I think progs and young people, especially today's young people, are naive, sky-pie-grasping nitwits, and as such, I don't buy anything they promote.

Age and experience bring wisdom and wisdom in its leadership is what this country desperately needs.
 
Nomad said:
You have ZERO clues as to what would turn out best, only gut feeling like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Well, here's what I know...

In 2016, we went with the "moderate" and lost.

In 2014, we went with "moderate" Senate candidates and lost.

In 2010, we went with "moderate" House candidates and lost.

So...if we keep going to moderates and we keep losing, what is that telling you?

"Moderation" by definition isn't enthusiasm or excitement. And the only way you get people to the polls is by getting them enthused and excited for something. "Moderation" ain't it, as we saw in 2016.


I think progs and young people, especially today's young people, are naive, sky-pie-grasping nitwits, and as such, I don't buy anything they promote.
Click to expand...

Well they think you act in bad faith and demand outsized accommodation after a track record of failure, like 2016.

To think that winning an election isn't dependent on spurring turnout is naive and sky-grasping.

To think that you can persuade people of bad faith to your candidate is naive and sky-grasping.

It's much easier to get a non-voter to vote than it is to change the mind of a Conservative.

If "moderation" was what people wanted, Clinton would be our President.


Age and experience bring wisdom and wisdom in its leadership is what this country desperately needs.
Click to expand...

Then Bernie should be your guy since he's the oldest candidate.
 
LV426 said:
OK...billionaires have concentrated wealth, which means they've concentrated their power. If they concentrate their power, how do the rest of us get any?

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're successful or a better person. When you are that rich, you've cast your morality aside and are for self-preservation solely. That's because of the wealth you've concentrated for yourself that insulates you from the problems facing most people.

So yeah...that's a pretty big fucking problem.

Fuck Oprah. How's that? I don't want any billionaires running for President because they're out of touch with the needs of most people in this country.

Billionaire accommodations are not aligned with accommodations for everyone else.

Listen to the people at the bottom; they outnumber those at the top.
Click to expand...

Oh, puh-lease.

More half-baked opinion.

Maybe being a billionaire gives one a better grasp of how to solve complex financial problems.

Maybe being a billionaire gives certain people a better perspective on what it takes to become successful in both business and life.

Maybe being a billionaire gives one better access to and familiarity with the levers of power and how to best pull them.

Was Bloomberg born a billionaire or a spoiled rotten multi-millionaire with a silver spoon, like Trump was?

Cannot guys like Steyer who started out with nothing empathize with those struggling?

You ignore a lot in jumping to your half-baked conclusions.

There are good billionaires and bad billionaires.

You're lumping them all in with Trump whether you admit it or not.
 
LV426 said:
Well, here's what I know...

In 2016, we went with the "moderate" and lost.

In 2014, we went with "moderate" Senate candidates and lost.

In 2010, we went with "moderate" House candidates and lost.

So...if we keep going to moderates and we keep losing, what is that telling you?

"Moderation" by definition isn't enthusiasm or excitement. And the only way you get people to the polls is by getting them enthused and excited for something. "Moderation" ain't it, as we saw in 2016.

Well they think you act in bad faith and demand outsized accommodation after a track record of failure, like 2016.

To think that winning an election isn't dependent on spurring turnout is naive and sky-grasping.

To think that you can persuade people of bad faith to your candidate is naive and sky-grasping.

It's much easier to get a non-voter to vote than it is to change the mind of a Conservative.

If "moderation" was what people wanted, Clinton would be our President.

Then Bernie should be your guy since he's the oldest candidate.
Click to expand...

I've attempted to talk sense to immature teenagers enough times in my life that I should know better than to try to do so with a Bernie-bot.

I explain and you ignore, then come back with the same half-baked nonsense and jumped-to conclusions.

I'll make a deal with you.... you go vote for ol' BS and I'll vote for a real Democrat.

I won't try to stop you and you don't try to stop me.

Otherwise, I'm done with this monotonous exercise in futility.
 
Nomad said:
Maybe being a billionaire gives one a better grasp of how to solve complex financial problems.
Click to expand...

Or not because those are usually handled by CFO's.


Maybe being a billionaire gives certain people a better perspective on what it takes to become successful in both business and life.
Click to expand...

Unless they inherited that wealth or were given help either by their family, or the institutional advantages that are inherent in the system.

No billionaire is going to read this thread, so there's no point in sucking up to them.

Let me tell you another secret: Billionaires don't give a shit about you. The reason is because they don't have to because their wealth has insulated them from you. If billionaires did give a shit about you, they wouldn't be billionaires.


Maybe being a billionaire gives one better access to and familiarity with the levers of power and how to best pull them.
Click to expand...

So concentrating power is a good thing?


Was Bloomberg born a billionaire or a spoiled rotten multi-millionaire with a silver spoon, like Drumpf was?
Click to expand...

No, but he became on because of his wealth.


Cannot guys like Steyer who started out with nothing empathize with those struggling?
Click to expand...

Empathy and sympathy are two different things. And no, I don't believe billionaires are capable of either because they've concentrated their wealth and power, and are trying to do more of that concentration.


You ignore a lot in jumping to your half-baked conclusions.
Click to expand...

What is half-baked? You're the one with the half-baked idea that a billionaire cares about your needs and wants, or that a billionaire would ever accommodate you. They don't care about you, and they don't want to accommodate you. All they want to do is preserve their pile of gold, like Smaug. Say, what happened to Smaug?


There are good billionaires and bad billionaires.
Click to expand...

LOL...would you say that some are "very fine people"?


You're lumping them all in with Drumpf whether you admit it or not.
Click to expand...

They lump themselves in with him. How many pictures are there of Bloomberg and Trump together? Several. In fact, here's one. At a fucking golf course. Like besties.

donald-trump-mike-bloomberg-golf-1.jpg
 
Nomad said:
I've attempted to talk sense to immature teenagers enough times in my life that I should know better than to try to do so with a Bernie-bot.
Click to expand...

If standing with workers at the bottom means I'm a Bernie-bot, then I guess standing with billionaires makes you a fascist.
 
Nomad said:
I explain and you ignore, then come back with the same half-baked nonsense and jumped-to conclusions.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained shit.

You've decided to attack me and attack the millions of young voters who want a change.

You've decided to attack the millions of people at the bottom, whose voices are ignored by billionaires.

You haven't explained why motivating non-voters is a losing strategy while ignoring the fact that "moderation" never results in election victories.

If Clinton was President today, then you might have a point. But she's not. So you don't.


I'll make a deal with you.... you go vote for ol' BS and I'll vote for a real Democrat.
Click to expand...

I don't care who you vote for, as long as you vote. And as long as you get others to vote, particularly people who didn't vote in 2016.

I'm willing to bet the message of "moderation" isn't one that is going to help you get those non-voters out to the polls. Who gets excited for "moderation"? Would you get excited for "moderation"? If so, then you have some pretty low standards.
 
Nomad said:
Look at your posts.

It's one after another after another.
Click to expand...

Try me. Take one and expand upon it. I'm willing to defend myself. You don't seem eager for that fight. That's why if we nominate a moderate, Trump is going to win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top