Alex Jones says Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Alex Jones says Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016

Postby Serendipper » Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:17 pm

That is what I have been saying all along; that Hillary was the only one who couldn't beat Trump, and Bernie would have wiped the floor with him. Now Alex Jones agrees with me, and as goofy as he usually is, I think it's a significant concession from a Trump cheerleader.

Hurry and watch before the video is deleted:



04:57
I agree with you that if
04:59
Hillary wouldn't have stolen it from
05:01
Bernie, even though I hate Bernie and his
05:03
policies, he would probably have beaten
05:04
Trump; America is going that way.


Yes guys, it's going that way and you'll have to cater to a new fanbase.

Peter wonders why his subscribers aren't growing. Umm, they're dying. Peter will have to make some choices: either go down with the ship as a marginalized purveyor of fake news or preach to the new choir. We will see how capitalistic he really is.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Alex Jones says Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016

Postby Venture » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:28 am

When did Alexa Jones say that in the video and what makes you think Schiff isn't a true American capitalist
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
"
User avatar
Venture
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:12 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Alex Jones says Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016

Postby Serendipper » Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:10 pm

Venture wrote:When did Alexa Jones say that in the video

What did you think the numbers 04:57 meant? I posted the relevant portion of the video transcript and those are timestamps, so simply forward to the 04:57 location in the video and listen. Sorry, I didn't realize the numbers were ambiguous.

and what makes you think Schiff isn't a true American capitalist

Nothing.

But he will either have to compromise his principles and cater to a new crowd in order to make money or or retain his principles and lose money.

Because his fans are going extinct: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten ... 52/2_8.png

So he either starts preaching socialism in order to expand his subscribers and have more investors give him money to manage, or he loses subscribers and accounts.

If he is a true capitalist, he will do whatever it takes to make capital, which means holding his nose and preaching socialism.

But if he wants to continue preaching capitalism as a free service to society (community improvement is a socialist endeavor), then he will lose capital.

In summary:

If he practices socialism by preaching capitalism, then he doesn't make capital.
If he practices capitalism by preaching socialism, then he makes capital.

I think it's funny :)

The foremost thing to remember about the talking heads is they are entertainers. They aren't necessarily there to give you the hard truth, but give fans what they want to hear.

I am the entertainer
And I know just where I stand
Another serenader
In another long haired band
Today I am your champion
I may have won your hearts
But I know the game, you'll forget my name
And I won't be here in another year
If I don't stay on the charts


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYLMN2PSI3E

I like Peter Schiff. I think he's wrong on some things and I sometimes become nauseous listening, lol, but I do like him.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Alex Jones says Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016

Postby Serendipper » Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:48 am

So I was watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 film and he said Bernie won all 55 counties in West Virginia, yet the delegates voted for Clinton. I looked it up and it's true:

Moore informs his viewers of some unsettling facts that the vast majority of Americans are unaware of. One such fact is that in the 2016 Democratic primary in West Virginia, Bernie Sanders won all 55 counties— yes, all of them; yet because of the authoritarian and corrupt Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee, Clinton ended up with more West Virginian delegates than Sanders. And Moore points out that West Virginia was not the only state where this kind of disenfranchisement occurred. http://brucelevine.net/michael-moores-f ... ing-trump/

What the heck?

Bernie also won Indiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, but the delegates voted for Clinton.

Not only that, but West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Montana voted for Trump in the election after their delegates voted for Clinton against their democratic wishes.

Bernie certainly would have defeated Trump in WV and probably IN and MI since Bernie was speaking directly to those in the Rust Belt states. I'm not sure about MT, but it only has 3 electoral votes anyway. WV = 5, IN = 11, MI = 16 for 32 extra votes for Bernie, which at 264 is 6 short of the 270 needed, but winning another Rust Belt state (highly likely) would have been plenty.

If we assume those who voted for Clinton would have also voted for Bernie instead of Trump, then Bernie would have easily defeated Trump.

Also, the polling data had Bernie on top of Trump by 10 points consistently https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20 ... -5565.html

Anyway....

This electoral college / delegate / representative republic crap provides absolutely no mechanism to dethrone whoever it is appointing our governors since the people are muzzled, neutered, and rendered completely irrelevant. If someone can win all 55 counties and still lose to someone that no one likes, then we may as well have a monarchy. What would be the difference?

What is the genesis of this major malfunction?

The electoral college came about because of slavery: they needed a constitution that both the north and the south would agree to.

Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... Background

Right... another centrist compromise.

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm


Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users