Elections Anti-war Bernie vs. warhawk Trump

On a serious note, the US already has lots of Socialist policies. Isn't the Trump administration giving money to struggling farmers, a Socialist program.

Up here in the frozen MidWest, we appreciate our Socialist snowplows keeping the roads clear .
Well welfare is socialist program so is grants for college right?
 
2020 is off to a great start smh TDS on max volume...
 
Those countries aren't socialist.....

Also those countries are small and homogeneous, lot easier to take care of a population when you have those two things going for it.

So basically what you are saying is that the policies that Bernie calls for aren't socialist, right?

People on the right want to have it both ways... They call him a Socialist but describe the successful countries that he uses as a framework for his own policies as "not socialist", completely missing its an admission they are smearing with a label and ignoring actual policy views. Why learn about the nuances of Democratic Socialism in Nordic countries when you can just mention Venezuela or Cuba and declare victory?
 
EOCCcUUW4AA5_93.png


images
 
Seems like both sides dint want to win. Trump should be easy to beat, but the Dems are fielding losers.
I appreciate how Bernie doesn't compromise his beliefs. I just radically disagree with his beliefs. I feel like making ceos responsible and taking away their comp when thing set bad would do much more than his whacky ideas. His ideas imho would make everything meet the lowest common denominator
 
Those countries aren't socialist.....

Also those countries are small and homogeneous, lot easier to take care of a population when you have those two things going for it.
France , UK and Canada are hardly homogenous.
 
No, I will vote against liberals, no matter what. They're a cancer to middle class people like me.
You would have to be legit stupid to actually believe this given how Republicans actually vote. No, me thinks you're leaving some not so insignificant things out here and using a more acceptable excuse here.
 
@VivaRevolution I'm not convinced that people will take the position that Trump wants a war with Iran or that he's a hawk, even in contrast with Sanders. I think the argument will be that he's engaged and making things happen without escalating the violence, another 3-D chess argument basically. I don't buy it, but millions do. It will give him a great comeback on stage if he's called a warmonger: "What wars? You have to strong with these people and I'm strong, and don't get baited into wars." Etc.
 
@VivaRevolution I'm not convinced that people will take the position that Trump wants a war with Iran or that he's a hawk, even in contrast with Sanders. I think the argument will be that he's engaged and making things happen without escalating the violence, another 3-D chess argument basically. I don't buy it, but millions do. It will give him a great comeback on stage if he's called a warmonger: "What wars? You have to strong with these people and I'm strong, and don't get baited into wars." Etc.


Easy response...."I mean the act of war you committed against Iran. So let's be clear, here is your chance. Are you saying killing a sovereign nations troops isn't a act of war?"
 
Easy response...."I mean the act of war you committed against Iran. So let's be clear, here is your chance. Are you saying killing a sovereign nations troops isn't a act of war?"
And people will interpret the bottom line result - which is no war with Iran - as evidence that Trump is tough but wise.
 
Easy response...."I mean the act of war you committed against Iran. So let's be clear, here is your chance. Are you saying killing a sovereign nations troops isn't a act of war?"

Was a war started? No.

You think Trump taking out a high profile target who has been on US's kill list for over a decade, without starting a war, is a bad thing for him? It's not a winning argument for any Dem. They best just leave it alone.
 
And people will interpret the bottom line result - which is no war with Iran - as evidence that Trump is tough but wise.


No, people will be divided over the issue, and we will be able to repeat over and over that Trump is a warmonger, and market and repeat ad nauseum until it becomes truth.

That is how politics works today.
 
No, people will be divided over the issue, and we will be able to repeat over and over that Trump is a warmonger, and market and repeat ad nauseum until it becomes truth.

That is how politics works today.

It'll be about as effective as calling him racist, sexist, fascist, rapist...
 
No, people will be divided over the issue, and we will be able to repeat over and over that Trump is a warmonger, and market and repeat ad nauseum until it becomes truth.

That is how politics works today.
Of course people will be divided, but we're talking about the persuadable segment of voters. Trump has a strong answer here on the subject of fears about starting WW3 or a new huge ME conflict. North Korea (despite him completely fucking that up) and the thing with Iran (provided it doesn't escalate- which ironically makes him more likely to win re-election), he gets to claim that he projected strength without costing us a major war. It's Sanders who is in danger of looking the fool if he's not focused and careful on the subject.
 
Of course people will be divided, but we're talking about the persuadable segment of voters. Trump has a strong answer here on the subject of fears about starting WW3 or a new huge ME conflict. North Korea (despite him completely fucking that up) and the thing with Iran (provided it doesn't escalate- which ironically makes him more likely to win re-election), he gets to claim that he projected strength without costing us a major war. It's Sanders who is in danger of looking the fool if he's not focused and careful on the subject.


Stop dude, it isn't 2004 anymore.

Obama won on a anti-war platform, Trump won on a non-interventionist platform.

This is like talking about the dangers of inflation after 2008. We don't live in that world anymore.

Please stop trying to take us back to it, by repeating this non-sense.

If it was true Jeb or Hillary would have won.
 
Stop dude, it isn't 2004 anymore.

Obama won on a anti-war platform, Trump won on a non-interventionist platform.

This is like talking about the dangers of inflation after 2008. We don't live in that world anymore.

Please stop trying to take us back to it, by repeating this non-sense.

If it was true Jeb or Hillary would have won.
It's weird that you'd see my observation (which I don't even agree with) as somehow "taking us back" to 2004 or 2008 or whatever. Like you're blaming for something I have no control over. I'm not going to unsee the way people think and react just because it's unpalatable to you. You're struggling to take for granted that people will all of a sudden think differently about the middle east, even though everybody is still saying the same things they were more than 10 years ago. I see no reason to believe that undecided voters will see Trump as a warmonger given what happened in Iran (and provided it doesn't escalate, which it still could).
 
It's weird that you'd see my observation (which I don't even agree with) as somehow "taking us back" to 2004 or 2008 or whatever. Like you're blaming for something I have no control over. I'm not going to unsee the way people think and react just because it's unpalatable to you. You're struggling to take for granted that people will all of a sudden think differently about the middle east, even though everybody is still saying the same things they were more than 10 years ago. I see no reason to believe that undecided voters will see Trump as a warmonger given what happened in Iran (and provided it doesn't escalate, which it still could).


Why not?

Is Bernie a Marxist?

That doesn't seem to stop that attack.

The fact is that Trump committed a act of war, on claims he still hasn't backed up, and that some of his own party members are breaking ranks over.
 
Why not?

Is Bernie a Marxist?

That doesn't seem to stop that attack.

The fact is that Trump committed a act of war, on claims he still hasn't backed up, and that some of his own party members are breaking ranks over.
It seems kind of childish to insist that the reality is different than it is because it's not fair or consistent. That's wish-thinking and I'm not interested in it. Trump may have committed an act of war, but he didn't "go to war" with Iran. People will see that as a bottom-line result. If attitudes begin turning away from that sort of expected same-old stuff, we'll notice.
 
Back
Top