-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do the Democrats have a viable candidate who can beat Trump?
- Thread starter pramod
- Start date
Spheyr
Banned
Do you sincerely think there's zero legal immigration allowed right now or something?
He couldn't even beat Hillary, though.
No but I think it should be a bit higher and easier than the actual process. But by doing so you always should consider what you can manage. How you integrate them do not leave them on their own help them build a future. And also do not overdo it in terms of numbers.
Spheyr
Banned
Our current system pretty well ensures that only properly integrated people make it as citizens. The process doesn't need to be made easier.
Vicetrailia
Banned
We should stick to deporting violent criminals, keep border protection as is, and find a pathway for those here.
But what we don't need to do is go ham by building a wall, blindly deport via ICE, or blindly increase boarder patrol budgets even more. So far we're good on 2/3.
In fact ICE raiding manufacturing facilities or corporate farms creates voids that aren't getting filled, so the economy should factored in as well. I know a lot of people will be mad at that, but if we wanted those jobs we could easily have them.
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/truth-about-undocumented-immigration
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...&gwh=395A21F8B10297ACD58E7D972266DB05&gwt=pay
I agree with that but that is not what democrates want in the US. Many pledge even for open borders. And we also should not celebrate or encourage illegal immigrants as well.
As for my country we can not even deport illegal immigrants which is really insane IMO. We now pay immigrants to leave our country....
Vicetrailia
Banned
It's no surprise that they wouldn't want to leave Germany at all.
Democrats don't support open borders, but the thought experiments are out there. At this point they don't want the good people already here gone.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5737722
infinitys_7th
Member
If we get peace in the Koreas, combined with the strong economy, more jobs, and more take-home from tax cuts, Bubba Bill could not even beat Trump.
#MarchForOurLives shows the desparation of the Democrat party - it's more or less their March for Our Relevancy. They could not even attract the demographics they wanted for the march.
#MarchForOurLives shows the desparation of the Democrat party - it's more or less their March for Our Relevancy. They could not even attract the demographics they wanted for the march.
BANGS
Banned
He would have if he didn't turn tail and kiss Hillary's butt after she cheated him out of his inevitable victory, now the public knows he's a dishonest cowardly sheep...
TheLaughingStock
Member
I doubt many people think Sanders is an untrustworthy coward.
Sanders lost because he was hopping up and down about a *political revolution* but tons of people said no thanks when it came time to vote. So, I think if he had a hard time competing against Pres. Trump in 2020 it would be because Hillary already whooped his tail and no one is going to be caught off guard if he runs again. In other words, the novelty of 'feel the bern' is gone.
It's true Hillary Clinton is so bad that she helped make him one of the most popular politicians in America, but if Bernie made it out as a Democrat beating Pres. Trump wouldn't be easy.
generaldane
Banned
It's actually kinda interesting because Hillary got almost exactly the same amount of votes as Obama did four years before. The problem was the distribution.
generaldane
Banned
My last post said almost the exact opposite of what I wanted to posted lol, corrected now though.
Obviously Trump isn't some unbeatable candidate, hell his margin was incredibly slim, but I don't get the attitude of people being convinced and even smug about how there's no way he'll win again in 2020. Over 60m people voted for this cheeto, a lot will do so again.
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Banned
Don't you think that we should avoid these situations? But it does speed up automation, which isn't a bad thing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e16362-1d65-11e8-ae5a-16e60e4605f3_story.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...t-is-going-to-die-on-the-vine-after-ice-raids
I will be honest here. Most of these reasons are very dumb and also false especially when you consider reason 7. The EU is an Union with the same laws across these states, they have the same currency etc. and in this case it makes sense to have people of an union going around free. Outside of this our borders are not open. And you have to fulfill a lot of regulations to get access. Also Mass Immigration will cause a ton of problems for the economy, education welfare system etc.
Example: Education: It is said that if 5 out of 20 children can not speak real german in our classes you will lower the education level of the whole class by a significant percentage. So now some of our schools have 80-90% immigration.
Also we now get more and more reports of antisemitic actions against Jewish children. Muslim children are not only bullying them and other non Muslims they threaten them with cutting of their heads also with knifes and in one case even´with a pistol. And these are elementary children. And even with mexicans witch have not such a huge difference in cultures you have to consider a lot.
Another one would be the housing situation. Kindergarten places. Another example:
This is a picture of people standing in line for a Kindergarten spot.
This is our current housing situation
This is for one lousy apartment and it has become the norm. Open Boarders or something like Merkel did was not good for anyone. Not for the people living here nor for the immigrants wanting to come here. There are now families with 2 children living in a 20m² refugee camp house because they can not find any place to live for over 2 years now.
D
Deleted member 738645
Unconfirmed Member
Wait what? This makes absolutely no sense. Can you please make sense of it? Your post is simply bad and makes no sense.
He did what he always said he was gonna do. When he announced his run for presidency, he said if he failed he was gonna support whoever won the democratic ticket.
Btw, he is perhaps the most popular politician in the US.
BANGS
Banned
I 100% disagree. Bernie WAS GOING TO WIN because he was "hopping up and down about a *political revolution*". He had a ridiculous amount of support and The Bern was being felt all over the nation. In the end he lost to Hillary because crooked Hillary got the media to be all like "Nothing to see here folks, Hillary is going to win everything just vote for her". Every political analyst agrees Bernie had a much better shot at beating Trump than Hillary did. She ruined the entire election, destroyed her party just to give herself a chance...
If he had any sort of value, he would have berated Hillary for her disgusting handling of the election. He wouldn't stick by his party that she corrupted, he would stick with the best interest of American people. But it turns out he's just another disgusting sheep, and The Bern will never be felt again...
D
Deleted member 738645
Unconfirmed Member
No he wouldn't. He stayed true to his own words like he always has. He said he was gonna support whoever was gonna be the democratic ticket if he lost. If he berated and stood against Hillary he would have lied.
He is not a sheep. He stayed true to his words.
So for you, it was better that he lied and did what you want him to do than him actually doing what we always wanted to do?
Is the best interest of the american people for Bernie to go against Hillary? You do realize that Hillary got millions of more votes than Trump? The american people wanted her, not Trump.
BANGS
Banned
It's not lying when the situation changes. Right now, I'd really like to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. But it someone literally pulled one out of their ass and handed it to me and I refused to eat it, would that make me a liar? That's what happened to Bernie...
And again, crooked Hillary got the media pretending she was gonna win against Trump and that effects votes. Up until the day after they were pretending she would win by a landslide, again against the advice of political analysts. The whole thing was a sham that ruined the Democratic party's clout for years to come...
TheLaughingStock
Member
How can you disagree? She had about 17 million votes to his 13 mil. She had hundreds more pledged delegates/superdelegates. Hillary whooped his tail plain and simple. It seems clear to me that tons of liberal primary voters weren't interested in what Bernie Sanders was selling. And Trump showed that it doesn't matter what the preferred outcome of the fake news media is if the people want you. If people hear your message and say to themselves that guy or gal has a point. So, I don't buy that argument personally that he lost because of the media. Sanders was hopping up and down about a political revolution. He was huffing and puffing about bringing all these new voters in, but in the end it didn't work out for him. They didn't show up.
Last edited:
These super delegates were totally bribed and bought with the amount of money Hillary did gather. And yes the media also played a huge role in it. The more popular Bernie became the more they tried to push against him and his fanbase/voters. They even compared them to fascists sexist and misogynistic assholes. Which by the way they also did with everyone who was against Clinton.
What the people wanted back then was change and it did not matter what kind of change. So it was either Trump or Sanders. Hillary was the same old shit so she never had any chance.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Where's the evidence of bribes? Or this huge role by the media? The media isn't all-powerful and what they prefer doesn't matter much.
A lot of people said organically that Bernie's ideas were pie in the sky, he can't win, the GOP will tear him the shreds, the system isn't rigged, he's demonizing Wall St., Hillary knows how to get things done, etc. In other words, folks thought he was too risky to vote for, they were incrementalists, or they didn't agree fundamentally with his platform. In the end, he didn't get more votes or delegates than his opponent. You can make up all the excuses you want but the media didn't dictate the outcome nor unilaterally determine over the will of the people who the nominee would be. Hillary whooped his behind fair and square.
Also, Trump received tons of push back against his message and base too like Sanders did. But here's the difference. He received more primary votes and more delegates than the competition. Imagine that. Tons of people made endorsements, wrote letters and made pleas to vote a certain way. And guess what? Donald Trump is president of the USA anyway. Who cares who the media compares you to? Or if they push back against what you stand for? People's minds are already made up. The media is mainly an echo chamber. Sometimes they set it up, but other times they reinforce what already exists as an idea. If enough of guys and gals want you in charge, then you'll be rewarded with power. People were looking for change, but not from Bernie Sanders.
Last edited:
Hotel Security
Member
I wouldn't say untrustworthy either (certainly had far less dirt on him than Hillary) but I felt Sanders was very similar to Trump in that he was just promising the moon and stars and anyone sensible knew there was no chance of him doing anything he was promising. He just talked up some utopian and perfect world (Ron Paul pulled the same BS) but never had a plan for how he'd do it because he couldn't do it.
I do think he would have done better vs Trump though. The Dems totally underestimated how many people just plain detested Hillary from the time when Billy was president...outside of millenials who didn't even remember any of that stuff, I don't know anyone who liked her. And they mistakenly thought that all the Obama supporters would just latch onto Hillary...like black folks were really going to come out to vote for a rich white woman with no charisma.
At least Bernie didn't have an army of people who would have hated him the second he got the nomination. But would he have overcome the "PC Backlash" that we got from Republican voters who were sick of the pandering to every special interest group in existence? I doubt it. But he wouldn't have lost every fricking battleground state like Hillary did.
Also, would it kill one of these parties to nominate someone who isn't pushing 70? I swear the candidates are getting older and older. My Dad is 70+ and I wouldn't trust him to work the TV remote, let alone the country. Even now I see folks pushing Joe Biden and he's fucking 75 and will be 77 in 2020. Are we just trying to set age records or something? Why not have Sister Jean run?
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Why would she have to bribe anyone when not enough people voted for him?
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
Bernie Sanders is the only person that can beat Trump easily at this point in time and the Democrats don't want people like him. Trump can win re-election if he plays his cards right.
NickFire
Member
I think the tax cuts may have been the door closing on Bernie's presidential chances. For those who needed and are now growing accustomed to that extra $50 to a $100 a week in their take home, his message is not going to sound as appealing anymore. Anyone debating him will just look at the camera and say Bernie wants to go back to your old taxes, and double them.
Similar threads
- Locked