Democrats In Argentina - Group Forming

TheDonald

Registered
The average republican voter ladies and gentlemen!

The rapist-in-chief & global waming denier will be voted out. The most dangerous threat to the whole society. And after introducing a fair voting system, republicans will have to move so far to the left that you wouldn't even be able to recognize them. Won't respond anymore because its pointless, taking into consideration that you & retiredbanker got dunked on multiple times by multiple people in this thread already. Cheers!
__________________________________________________________________________

Yang calls out 'reality TV show' style elections that resulted in Trump: 'We need to be laser-focused'




Andrew Yang ripped the media and U.S. politics in general during his closing statement at Wednesday's Democratic presidential primary debate in Detroit, trashing America's "reality TV show" elections that he said contributed to President Trump's 2016 victory.

Yang remarked during his closing statement that some in the media focused on his wardrobe during the first debate rather than his policy proposals and called on voters to be "laser-focused" on dealing with pressing issues facing the country.

"We're up here with makeup on our faces and our rehearsed attack lines, playing roles in this reality TV show," Yang quipped. "It's one reason why we elected a reality TV star as our president. "We need to be laser-focused on solving the real challenges of today," he added.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455675-yang-calls-out-reality-tv-show-style-elections-that-resulted-in-trump-we
Hey Retiredbanker,

Don't you love those people (like mango) who quote and post links to mainstream media? They are so funny. They think they are intelligent and informed. They don't understand that mainstream media is for ignorant sheep.

Some of us grew bored with mainstream media in college. We graduated to trade publications, academic journals and individual research. Feel free to contact me on this issue, or any other, when you have done some research beyond mainstream media and have engaged in independent thought.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about - it involves information that you are probably incapable of understanding. You put some jab out there about climate change. Do you know who I trust when it comes to climate change? I trust people who have hundreds of billions of dollars on the line in relation to climate change. I don't trust NGO partisans, environmental do-gooders, or scientists that work in a university lab. I trust people who have an enormous economic stake in the climate change game.

Insurance and reinsurance companies risk billions of dollars every year on climatic events. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on the best scientists, meteorologists and technology, all in an effort to predict climate change. If they make mistakes, it costs the re/insurance companies, their executives and their shareholders billions of dollars.

Do you know what these insurance people say? Of course you don't. If you listen to their presentations or read their reports, they indicate that, according to their findings, there is no clear link yet between extreme weather patterns of late and climate change. They do not doubt that we are having an effect on the environment. That is indisputable. But people who risk billions of dollars every year are uncertain about the link between recent changes in weather patterns and climate change. The earth's climate has always changed - the conclusion that such changes are directly correlated to our society's activities are specious (I hope you know what "specious" means).

These people have no ax to grind, they have no dog in the fight. They are indifferent whether there is a link or not. They insure energy production and renewable energy production. They win either way. They are an excellent source of impartial information on this emotional topic which most people, such as yourself, simply follow like sheep, based on mainstream media.

Now go away mango. You bother me.
 

retiredbanker

Registered
Hey Retiredbanker,

Don't you love those people (like mango) who quote and post links to mainstream media? They are so funny. They think they are intelligent and informed. They don't understand that mainstream media is for ignorant sheep.

Some of us grew bored with mainstream media in college. We graduated to trade publications, academic journals and individual research. Feel free to contact me on this issue, or any other, when you have done some research beyond mainstream media and have engaged in independent thought.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about - it involves information that you are probably incapable of understanding. You put some jab out there about climate change. Do you know who I trust when it comes to climate change? I trust people who have hundreds of billions of dollars on the line in relation to climate change. I don't trust NGO partisans, environmental do-gooders, or scientists that work in a university lab. I trust people who have an enormous economic stake in the climate change game.

Insurance and reinsurance companies risk billions of dollars every year on climatic events. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on the best scientists, meteorologists and technology, all in an effort to predict climate change. If they make mistakes, it costs the re/insurance companies, their executives and their shareholders billions of dollars.

Do you know what these insurance people say? Of course you don't. If you listen to their presentations or read their reports, they indicate that, according to their findings, there is no clear link yet between extreme weather patterns of late and climate change. They do not doubt that we are having an effect on the environment. That is indisputable. But people who risk billions of dollars every year are uncertain about the link between recent changes in weather patterns and climate change. The earth's climate has always changed - the conclusion that such changes are directly correlated to our society's activities are specious (I hope you know what "specious" means).

These people have no ax to grind, they have no dog in the fight. They are indifferent whether there is a link or not. They insure energy production and renewable energy production. They win either way. They are an excellent source of impartial information on this emotional topic which most people, such as yourself, simply follow like sheep, based on mainstream media.

Now go away mango. You bother me.
Mango was dropped on his/her head as a baby, several times, on purpose.
 

manqo

Registered
Don't you love those people (like mango) who quote and post links to mainstream media? They are so funny. They think they are intelligent and informed. They don't understand that mainstream media is for ignorant sheep.
Woah, hit a nerve didnt I? lol. Love me some useless AGW skepticism. I bet it makes you feel different (like a snowflake maybe?) to call others "sheeps". You need that to feed your low self esteem and fragile ego, correct?

Ah, showing how out of touch you are I see. This isn't the 90s grandpa, try to keep up. Progressives dont like mainstream media at all because they generally represent the interests of the billionaires. Its just a starting point so you can further inform yourself with other sources if you want to. Not to mention that your pathetic rant makes 0 sense in this case. These aren't clips from CNN where they conveniently cut words from the orange rapist-in-chief or Bernie Sanders. And these aren't clips from fox news pundits smearing screaming vuvuzela at everyone. You need to do a better job at handling the facts that you don't like, denying reality isn't a good look.

I like how you conveniently choose who to believe. The oil companies publicly accept the man made causes of current rapid warming, and their own internal documents show that they knew about those causes and the expected effects at least 50 years ago. Its laughable how you, a random ignorant reactionary from a forum, believes he knows better than the thousands of scientists from Europe & China who are already investing billions in renewable energy.

It is quite obvious that the human impact on greenhouse gases is considerable. The last time the carbondioxide concentration was that high was in the age of the dinosaurs, and was rising since we started measuring it at an appaling rate (we can even tell how much of it was in place for millenia in the past from drilling cores in glaciers and the poles). Furthermore it is easy to tell who produces how much climate-relevant gases, as those figures are gathered on a regular basis.

The problem is that pathetic people like you try to convert simple doubts into arguments, which they aren't. That's not scientific. A reputable way of doing it would be to present facts that prove we have no impact on climate change, which you can't do. Instead proceed to try to cast doubts or dress them up as facts/arguments, which are two whole different stories. Reputable scientist are working with a theory, climate change is actually a theory, like quantum physics or relativity. Nobody denies they might be wrong, but these theories alltogether provide the best explanation of current events, either in the atom, in outer space or in our atmosphere. All facts and figures so far indicate the theory of human induced climate change is working and our database is good enough to prove that with simulations.

In the end there will be adjustments to the extent of impact humanity had, sure, but that there is human influence at work for more than 150 years already, is pretty much indisputable. And the most important part is that these type of useless reactionary short-sighted talking points that you throw fail to see all the upsides from transitioning to renewable energy.

Now go away mango. You bother me.
You probably didn't noticed it since you are pretty slow, but one of the reasons I post here is because I love to trigger simpleton reactionaries who lose their minds watching AOC and it has been working as a charm. I got you and retiredbanker commenting and following me like lap dogs. Im gonna follow the path of those who already dunked on you multiple times too: which is ignoring you. Cya, will be back with the news shortly!
 

TheDonald

Registered
Woah, hit a nerve didnt I? lol. Love me some useless AGW skepticism. I bet it makes you feel different (like a snowflake maybe?) to call others "sheeps". You need that to feed your low self esteem and fragile ego, correct?

Ah, showing how out of touch you are I see. This isn't the 90s grandpa, try to keep up. Progressives dont like mainstream media at all because they generally represent the interests of the billionaires. Its just a starting point so you can further inform yourself with other sources if you want to. Not to mention that your pathetic rant makes 0 sense in this case. These aren't clips from CNN where they conveniently cut words from the orange rapist-in-chief or Bernie Sanders. And these aren't clips from fox news pundits smearing screaming vuvuzela at everyone. You need to do a better job at handling the facts that you don't like, denying reality isn't a good look.

I like how you conveniently choose who to believe. The oil companies publicly accept the man made causes of current rapid warming, and their own internal documents show that they knew about those causes and the expected effects at least 50 years ago. Its laughable how you, a random ignorant reactionary from a forum, believes he knows better than the thousands of scientists from Europe & China who are already investing billions in renewable energy.

It is quite obvious that the human impact on greenhouse gases is considerable. The last time the carbondioxide concentration was that high was in the age of the dinosaurs, and was rising since we started measuring it at an appaling rate (we can even tell how much of it was in place for millenia in the past from drilling cores in glaciers and the poles). Furthermore it is easy to tell who produces how much climate-relevant gases, as those figures are gathered on a regular basis.

The problem is that pathetic people like you try to convert simple doubts into arguments, which they aren't. That's not scientific. A reputable way of doing it would be to present facts that prove we have no impact on climate change, which you can't do. Instead proceed to try to cast doubts or dress them up as facts/arguments, which are two whole different stories. Reputable scientist are working with a theory, climate change is actually a theory, like quantum physics or relativity. Nobody denies they might be wrong, but these theories alltogether provide the best explanation of current events, either in the atom, in outer space or in our atmosphere. All facts and figures so far indicate the theory of human induced climate change is working and our database is good enough to prove that with simulations.

In the end there will be adjustments to the extent of impact humanity had, sure, but that there is human influence at work for more than 150 years already, is pretty much indisputable. And the most important part is that these type of useless reactionary short-sighted talking points that you throw fail to see all the upsides from transitioning to renewable energy.



You probably didn't noticed it since you are pretty slow, but one of the reasons I post here is because I love to trigger simpleton reactionaries who lose their minds watching AOC and it has been working as a charm. I got you and retiredbanker commenting and following me like lap dogs. Im gonna follow the path of those who already dunked on you multiple times too: which is ignoring you. Cya, will be back with the news shortly!
Hi Mango,

I told myself I would give you a chance - I would respond in kind if you produced something substantial. But you have fallen short. Your response is devoid of substance and independent thought. I deem it unworthy of any more of my time.
 

manqo

Registered

_______________________________________________________

Bernie Sanders Dominates as Analyses of Fundraising Data Show Vermont Senator With Widespread Support Across Nation

The data "contradicts both the mainstream narrative and some national polling data that suggest that only a centrist Democrat could succeed in this political environment."



The New York Times, in a map produced by the paper's reporters, found that Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, dominates most of the country as the primary or secondary recipient of nearly all donations from Americans in all states—though his support is strongest in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, the eastern Great Plains, and the West.

Sanders' donor advantage was so overwhelming in the Times data that the paper "had to make two maps—one excluding Bernie Sanders—because Bernie had too many donors to show other candidates donation patterns,"




The breadth of Sanders' appeal, especially through the middle of the country, spurred the senator's Iowa communications director to challenge the conventional wisdom that "the Midwest doesn't want or support progressive policies."

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/02/bernie-sanders-dominates-analyses-fundraising-data-show-vermont-senator-widespread
 

retiredbanker

Registered
Woah, hit a nerve didnt I? lol. Love me some useless AGW skepticism. I bet it makes you feel different (like a snowflake maybe?) to call others "sheeps". You need that to feed your low self esteem and fragile ego, correct?

Ah, showing how out of touch you are I see. This isn't the 90s grandpa, try to keep up. Progressives dont like mainstream media at all because they generally represent the interests of the billionaires. Its just a starting point so you can further inform yourself with other sources if you want to. Not to mention that your pathetic rant makes 0 sense in this case. These aren't clips from CNN where they conveniently cut words from the orange rapist-in-chief or Bernie Sanders. And these aren't clips from fox news pundits smearing screaming vuvuzela at everyone. You need to do a better job at handling the facts that you don't like, denying reality isn't a good look.

I like how you conveniently choose who to believe. The oil companies publicly accept the man made causes of current rapid warming, and their own internal documents show that they knew about those causes and the expected effects at least 50 years ago. Its laughable how you, a random ignorant reactionary from a forum, believes he knows better than the thousands of scientists from Europe & China who are already investing billions in renewable energy.

It is quite obvious that the human impact on greenhouse gases is considerable. The last time the carbondioxide concentration was that high was in the age of the dinosaurs, and was rising since we started measuring it at an appaling rate (we can even tell how much of it was in place for millenia in the past from drilling cores in glaciers and the poles). Furthermore it is easy to tell who produces how much climate-relevant gases, as those figures are gathered on a regular basis.

The problem is that pathetic people like you try to convert simple doubts into arguments, which they aren't. That's not scientific. A reputable way of doing it would be to present facts that prove we have no impact on climate change, which you can't do. Instead proceed to try to cast doubts or dress them up as facts/arguments, which are two whole different stories. Reputable scientist are working with a theory, climate change is actually a theory, like quantum physics or relativity. Nobody denies they might be wrong, but these theories alltogether provide the best explanation of current events, either in the atom, in outer space or in our atmosphere. All facts and figures so far indicate the theory of human induced climate change is working and our database is good enough to prove that with simulations.

In the end there will be adjustments to the extent of impact humanity had, sure, but that there is human influence at work for more than 150 years already, is pretty much indisputable. And the most important part is that these type of useless reactionary short-sighted talking points that you throw fail to see all the upsides from transitioning to renewable energy.



You probably didn't noticed it since you are pretty slow, but one of the reasons I post here is because I love to trigger simpleton reactionaries who lose their minds watching AOC and it has been working as a charm. I got you and retiredbanker commenting and following me like lap dogs. Im gonna follow the path of those who already dunked on you multiple times too: which is ignoring you. Cya, will be back with the news shortly!
I hate to wake the Donald up but he and I are on the same side. I even worked for Barry Goldwater in 1964. These posts are at times difficulty to decipher as to who a particular comment is directed. I'll take it as that for why the Donald thinks I support mango! Mango is a few cents short of a dollar.

_______________________________________________________

Bernie Sanders Dominates as Analyses of Fundraising Data Show Vermont Senator With Widespread Support Across Nation

The data "contradicts both the mainstream narrative and some national polling data that suggest that only a centrist Democrat could succeed in this political environment."



The New York Times, in a map produced by the paper's reporters, found that Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, dominates most of the country as the primary or secondary recipient of nearly all donations from Americans in all states—though his support is strongest in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, the eastern Great Plains, and the West.

Sanders' donor advantage was so overwhelming in the Times data that the paper "had to make two maps—one excluding Bernie Sanders—because Bernie had too many donors to show other candidates donation patterns,"




The breadth of Sanders' appeal, especially through the middle of the country, spurred the senator's Iowa communications director to challenge the conventional wisdom that "the Midwest doesn't want or support progressive policies."

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/02/bernie-sanders-dominates-analyses-fundraising-data-show-vermont-senator-widespread
Only thing uncle bernie will be running for in 2020 is the nearest toilet...
It Depends.
 

manqo

Registered
Bernie Sanders 'Acing the Electability Test' as Another Poll Shows Senator Crushing Trump in General

This is the fifteenth straight poll that shows Bernie defeating Trump.


Bolstered by strong support from independent and young voters, Sen. Bernie Sanders would roundly defeat President Donald Trump in a 2020 general election match-up, according to a SurveyUSA poll.

The poll (pdf) showed Sanders, a senator from Vermont and 2020 Democratic presidential contender, beating Trump by eight percentage points—50-42—in a hypothetical head-to-head contest.

The survey also showed former Vice President Joe Biden defeating Trump by the same margin. "Candidates such as senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris edged out Trump in potential runoffs, but their leads weren't wide enough to overcome the margin of error," Newsweek reported. "South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg was measured at 42 percent, two points behind Trump in a potential matchup."

According to the SurveyUSA poll, Sanders—the 2020 candidate viewed most favorably by Democratic voters—would defeat Trump by 10 percentage points among independents. The survey showed Biden defeating Trump among independents by a smaller margin of six percent.

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/12/bernie-sanders-acing-electability-test-another-poll-shows-senator-crushing-trump
____________________________________________________________________

Texas: Republican powerhouse could shift to Democrats as demographics change



The GOP has dominated the state for 30 years, but a slew of retirements and a rise in Hispanic voters means Texas becomes a battleground again.

The state’s Hispanic population is predicted to outnumber white residents as soon as 2022. Given the current administrations’ position on immigration and President Trump’s most recent racist attacks on politicians of color the rise in the number of Hispanics voters may well favour Democratic candidates. The El Paso killings will hasten the process of non-white communities in Texas mobilizing to exert greater political influence, said Antonio Arellano, interim executive director of Jolt, a Texas-based not-for-profit group that aims to boost political engagement among Latino people.

“Latinos are coming out to vote like never before because our lives genuinely depend on it. We are being attacked not just all the way at the top in the highest office in the land, but that hatred and discriminatory rhetoric is spewing into our communities and now what we’re seeing is bloodshed in our streets,” Arellano said.

Trump won Texas by nine points in 2016, but he is relatively unpopular in the state. A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll conducted in June found that 50% of respondents plan to vote for Trump in 2020 – and 50% do not.
 

retiredbanker

Registered
Bernie Sanders 'Acing the Electability Test' as Another Poll Shows Senator Crushing Trump in General

This is the fifteenth straight poll that shows Bernie defeating Trump.

Bolstered by strong support from independent and young voters, Sen. Bernie Sanders would roundly defeat President Donald Trump in a 2020 general election match-up, according to a SurveyUSA poll.

The poll (pdf) showed Sanders, a senator from Vermont and 2020 Democratic presidential contender, beating Trump by eight percentage points—50-42—in a hypothetical head-to-head contest.

The survey also showed former Vice President Joe Biden defeating Trump by the same margin. "Candidates such as senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris edged out Trump in potential runoffs, but their leads weren't wide enough to overcome the margin of error," Newsweek reported. "South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg was measured at 42 percent, two points behind Trump in a potential matchup."

According to the SurveyUSA poll, Sanders—the 2020 candidate viewed most favorably by Democratic voters—would defeat Trump by 10 percentage points among independents. The survey showed Biden defeating Trump among independents by a smaller margin of six percent.

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/12/bernie-sanders-acing-electability-test-another-poll-shows-senator-crushing-trump
____________________________________________________________________

Texas: Republican powerhouse could shift to Democrats as demographics change



The GOP has dominated the state for 30 years, but a slew of retirements and a rise in Hispanic voters means Texas becomes a battleground again.

The state’s Hispanic population is predicted to outnumber white residents as soon as 2022. Given the current administrations’ position on immigration and President Trump’s most recent racist attacks on politicians of color the rise in the number of Hispanics voters may well favour Democratic candidates. The El Paso killings will hasten the process of non-white communities in Texas mobilizing to exert greater political influence, said Antonio Arellano, interim executive director of Jolt, a Texas-based not-for-profit group that aims to boost political engagement among Latino people.

“Latinos are coming out to vote like never before because our lives genuinely depend on it. We are being attacked not just all the way at the top in the highest office in the land, but that hatred and discriminatory rhetoric is spewing into our communities and now what we’re seeing is bloodshed in our streets,” Arellano said.

Trump won Texas by nine points in 2016, but he is relatively unpopular in the state. A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll conducted in June found that 50% of respondents plan to vote for Trump in 2020 – and 50% do not.
Is that a poll like hilLIARy clinton +9 on Nov 7, 2016 or another poll in 2016 saying Trump had a 5% chance of winning? I'm just asking for a friend.
 

TheDonald

Registered
You would think the socialists expats on this forum would be smart enough to learn from yesterday's experience. The response of the peso and financial markets show what intelligent people think of socialism. But many socialists on this forum aren't smart enough. They are people who are unhappy and want free stuff, paid for by those who have worked.
 

retiredbanker

Registered
You would think the socialists expats on this forum would be smart enough to learn from yesterday's experience. The response of the peso and financial markets show what intelligent people think of socialism. But many socialists on this forum aren't smart enough. They are people who are unhappy and want free stuff, paid for by those who have worked.
There is no such thing as a smart socialist!
 
Top