Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

Anyone who could possibly support Bloomberg doesn’t deserve to live.

What a terrible human

So why is Klobuchar polling well?

Only thing I know about her is she put innocent black kids in jail and ate a salad with a comb

Freeza wrote:So why is Klobuchar polling well?

Only thing I know about her is she put innocent black kids in jail and ate a salad with a comb

She is seen as the candidate that can win midwestern states.

Blue wrote:

Freeza wrote:So why is Klobuchar polling well?

Only thing I know about her is she put innocent black kids in jail and ate a salad with a comb

She is seen as the candidate that can win midwestern states.

Maybe it’s me, but I haven’t seen anything from her campaign at all. Meanwhile I’ve been trying to avoid looking at Pete’s stupid face for weeks and it’s everywhere online.

Snakiest politician I’ve seen in a long time.

Freeza wrote:Anyone who could possibly support Bloomberg doesn’t deserve to live.

What a terrible human

He's what a republican is while you called me that for supporting Biden.

Young Kaz wrote:

Freeza wrote:Anyone who could possibly support Bloomberg doesn’t deserve to live.

What a terrible human

He's what a republican is while you called me that for supporting Biden.

He’s literally the devil tbf

Adit wrote:The funny thing is in socialist countries people are tired of its inability to create enough wealth.

While capitalistic countries which became rich thanks to capitalism now wants socialism.

Life quality in The best socialist country is worse than the worst capitalist state .

Can someone tell me what socialist countries exist right now that aren't either failed states or are currently suffering strongly (Venezuela)?

This is like the most obvious statement of all time. The quality of life in the best socialist country is awful.

Unless you mean to say democratic socialist states like Scandinavian countries...? Not sure what you are referring to here

Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist or democratic socialist.

I find it weird how people in the US are using these hyperbolic terms to describe ideologies for politicians who aren’t close to these ideologies (problem with the media mainly. They completely fucked up all these terms because they want to scare people about welfare).

Sanders is closer to a Social Liberal or Social Democrat in Scandinavian terms.

We have our own model called the Nordic Model, which is still a capitalist model, but with a big welfare component so our citizens are able to sleep at night.

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed watching Bloomberg get bodied by Warren. Exposed him for the soulless husk that he is. He had no answer for the NDA questions. That man is not sorry for anything he's done. Not a damn thing.

As good as his ads were, this is all I keep thinking about when I see him now: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

Freeza wrote:Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist or democratic socialist.

I find it weird how people in the US are using these hyperbolic terms to describe ideologies for politicians who aren’t close to these ideologies (problem with the media mainly. They completely fucked up all these terms because they want to scare people about welfare).

Sanders is closer to a Social Liberal or Social Democrat in Scandinavian terms.

We have our own model called the Nordic Model, which is still a capitalist model, but with a big welfare component so our citizens are able to sleep at night.

I'm not sure where I got the idea that democratic socialism is essentially what you're describing as the "Nordic model", but I must have been mistaken based on some cursory googling.

What you're describing is essentially what I'm describing in terms of the policies of Scandinavian countries. Hence why I'm trying to draw a distinct line between socialism and what Scandinavian countries are.

They're not socialist, and just like you, I get pissed off by people constantly claiming that the policies being advocated by the left right now in American politics are socialist. Or that Scandinavian countries are socialist. Neither are true. They are, as you said, capitalist with a large welfare state.

I think technically Venezuela is not a socialist country, because not all means of production is nationalized.

Truth is virtually all countries run a mix between free and command market.

McLewis wrote:I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed watching Bloomberg get bodied by Warren. Exposed him for the soulless husk that he is. He had no answer for the NDA questions. That man is not sorry for anything he's done. Not a damn thing.

As good as his ads were, this is all I keep thinking about when I see him now: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

He got absolutely mauled. It was amazing to see.

The candidates did what everyone wanted them to, because they all have to gain when Bloomberg loses. Fuck him

Blue wrote:I think technically Venezuela is not a socialist country, because not all means of production is nationalized.

Truth is virtually all countries run a mix between free and command market.

Well such utopian economies doesn't exist.

Pure free market and pure socialist countries don't exist.

Hence we call them based on to which side of the spectrum they are leaning.

It is hence okay to call Venezuela socialist and Canada capitalist.

Freeza wrote:Scandinavian countries aren’t socialist or democratic socialist.

I find it weird how people in the US are using these hyperbolic terms to describe ideologies for politicians who aren’t close to these ideologies (problem with the media mainly. They completely fucked up all these terms because they want to scare people about welfare).

Sanders is closer to a Social Liberal or Social Democrat in Scandinavian terms.

We have our own model called the Nordic Model, which is still a capitalist model, but with a big welfare component so our citizens are able to sleep at night.

Number of people who think welfare capitalist model of Scandinavian countries is basically state control of every thing is too high.

Creating wealth through private players and taxing them to give adequate social security is welfare capitalism.

Nordic model is no where near socialism in the spectrum.

CBarca wrote:

Adit wrote:The funny thing is in socialist countries people are tired of its inability to create enough wealth.

While capitalistic countries which became rich thanks to capitalism now wants socialism.

Life quality in The best socialist country is worse than the worst capitalist state .

Can someone tell me what socialist countries exist right now that aren't either failed states or are currently suffering strongly (Venezuela)?

This is like the most obvious statement of all time. The quality of life in the best socialist country is awful.

Unless you mean to say democratic socialist states like Scandinavian countries...? Not sure what you are referring to here

There is no, and has never been a, socialist country. All governments pretending to be socialist have just used that framing to legitimize their dictatorships. Socialism isn't achieved until the means of production are controlled by the working class, the first step of which is nationalization, and all those regimes always stopped at that step, and centralized control, instead of then decentralizing control and ceding it to the workers, as demanded by the theory.

CBarca wrote:

McLewis wrote:I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed watching Bloomberg get bodied by Warren. Exposed him for the soulless husk that he is. He had no answer for the NDA questions. That man is not sorry for anything he's done. Not a damn thing.

As good as his ads were, this is all I keep thinking about when I see him now: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

He got absolutely mauled. It was amazing to see.

The candidates did what everyone wanted them to, because they all have to gain when Bloomberg loses. Fuck him

The scary thing for me is that he still might have a foothold in this primary, despite that awful performance.

If we have somehow made him our candidate to face Trump by the end of the primary, I'll consider us even more lost as a country than we are right now.

Get his ass pic.twitter.com/gpvsaQRQxC

— Tristan (@AyoTristan) February 20, 2020

Wonder if he'll go back to the Republicans after getting mauled like this.

Anyone got numbers in how many people actually watched?

None of the candidates beside Bernie believes that the person with most delegates and support should get the nominee. So basically they don't believe they can come first heading into the DNC convention. They are hoping to decide the nominee in a undemocratic process behind closed doors by superdelegates.

If they do indeed follow through this would destroy the democratic party, you simply cannot deny the voters first choice and think they would be okay with that.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Anyone got numbers in how many people actually watched?

HUGE #'s for the #DemDebate last night. Looks like 19.7 million on NBC and MSNBC combined. Final # may fluctuate a bit, but it's a new record high for a Dem debate, beating last June's.

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) February 20, 2020

@BC, I checked Nielsen's site, but it doesn't have rating for this week's shows. Will probably have numbers this weekend.

@Blue - This is essentially the route Clinton took in 2016, isn't it? It's what fueled the rage of Bernie supporters, who didn't vote, voted 3rd party or voted for Trump. This delegate rule is as stupid as the concept of a caucus. It's incredible how a self-professed democratic country like this one can have so many blatantly undemocratic processes to decide who will lead.

Yeah exactly, McLewis, most analysts (and all of public opinion) agree that this is what cost the Democrats the election. Hillary would've won both the primaries, and the presidency, if the Democrat caucus just did nothing.

Or if Comey stayed within his role, or if there were no electoral college, or if she were a likeable politician...

Yeah presumably one of the three would've been close enough. The Electoral college one is probably still the stupidest, though.

VivaStPauli wrote:

CBarca wrote:

Adit wrote:The funny thing is in socialist countries people are tired of its inability to create enough wealth.

While capitalistic countries which became rich thanks to capitalism now wants socialism.

Life quality in The best socialist country is worse than the worst capitalist state .

Can someone tell me what socialist countries exist right now that aren't either failed states or are currently suffering strongly (Venezuela)?

This is like the most obvious statement of all time. The quality of life in the best socialist country is awful.

Unless you mean to say democratic socialist states like Scandinavian countries...? Not sure what you are referring to here

There is no, and has never been a, socialist country. All governments pretending to be socialist have just used that framing to legitimize their dictatorships. Socialism isn't achieved until the means of production are controlled by the working class, the first step of which is nationalization, and all those regimes always stopped at that step, and centralized control, instead of then decentralizing control and ceding it to the workers, as demanded by the theory.

Because well, it only works in theory.

If centralized agency can't estimate the demand then how would the working class know how much to produce, what to produce and when to produce.


Marx with his utopian theory has made irreparable damage to many countries.