Trump Phoenix Rally Foretells of an Historic Landslide in November

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Not that 70,000 who lined up for hours to try to attend in a 10,000 seat arena, it was the people within those 70,000.

26% didn’t vote in 2016. These are either young people (usually voting Dem), and/or older people now motivated to vote.

18% of the attendees were registered Democrats. They want no part of the Komie Klown Kar this election and are looking elsewhere.

Trump campaign: At Phoenix rally, 18% attendees were Democrats and more than a quarter didn't vote in 2016

How did I know this information would once again be sourced by a Brad Parscale tweet. Isn't it interesting how he never releases his methodology to determine how he arrives at these numbers? He just posts it on Twitter and people like you automatically believe it because it's what you want to believe.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have a hypothesis that Bernie is running away because the field is so bad and only his radical socialist supporters go out and vote.

The democrat party is in serious trouble if he wins.

The Clark County Teacher's Union has endorsed him. It's not just the radical socialists in the party anymore; he's becoming mainstream within the party.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not that 70,000 who lined up for hours to try to attend in a 10,000 seat arena, it was the people within those 70,000.

26% didn’t vote in 2016. These are either young people (usually voting Dem), and/or older people now motivated to vote.

18% of the attendees were registered Democrats. They want no part of the Komie Klown Kar this election and are looking elsewhere.

Trump campaign: At Phoenix rally, 18% attendees were Democrats and more than a quarter didn't vote in 2016

Trump was having the same rallies in 2018.

Democrats got nearly 10 million more votes in 2018 than did republicans.

Stupid thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not just the radical socialists in the party anymore; he's becoming mainstream within the party.

True, because ideas like universal healthcare, cheaper tuition, and a more progressive tax structure are not actually "radical socialist ideas".

 

[theHawk]

Not that 70,000 who lined up for hours to try to attend in a 10,000 seat arena, it was the people within those 70,000.

26% didn’t vote in 2016. These are either young people (usually voting Dem), and/or older people now motivated to vote.

18% of the attendees were registered Democrats. They want no part of the Komie Klown Kar this election and are looking elsewhere.

Trump campaign: At Phoenix rally, 18% attendees were Democrats and more than a quarter didn't vote in 2016

Plus when the implosion happens and Bernie is robbed, there will be many on the radical left side that don’t vote. Even if Bernie wins, many Dems will stay home or even vote for President Trump.

Then there is the “black problem” they face. They will be nominating an old white guy, or a young white homo, or a fake Indian woman. They’ve been brainwashed by their own party to hate whites, so many blacks won’t bother voting. The Dem will not even get Hillary numbers from blacks, much less Hussein numbers.

 

[Thinker101]

It's not just the radical socialists in the party anymore; he's becoming mainstream within the party.

True, because ideas like universal healthcare, cheaper tuition, and a more progressive tax structure are not actually "radical socialist ideas".

True, Medicare-for-all, FREE college, and tax the wealthy 90% would be radical socialist ideas.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's not just the radical socialists in the party anymore; he's becoming mainstream within the party.

True, because ideas like universal healthcare, cheaper tuition, and a more progressive tax structure are not actually "radical socialist ideas".

They are when their solutions are hijacked by failed 19th century Marxist economic policies in order to appeal to the incompetent and under educated masses, which it sounds like you're on boord with, so as I said, he's not just appealing to the radical element anymore. He's becoming mainstream in the Democratic Party.

If Sanders gets the nomination is the Democratic Party going to continue to deny it's America's socialist party?

 

[theHawk]

Not that 70,000 who lined up for hours to try to attend in a 10,000 seat arena, it was the people within those 70,000.

26% didn’t vote in 2016. These are either young people (usually voting Dem), and/or older people now motivated to vote.

18% of the attendees were registered Democrats. They want no part of the Komie Klown Kar this election and are looking elsewhere.

Trump campaign: At Phoenix rally, 18% attendees were Democrats and more than a quarter didn't vote in 2016

Trump was having the same rallies in 2018.

Democrats got nearly 10 million more votes in 2018 than did republicans.

Stupid thread.

President Trump wasn’t on the ballot. Congress’s disapproval rating is in the 75% range. America has seen the idiots of the Dem House: Piglosi, AOC, Omar...a bunch of idiots and anti-Americans.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, Medicare-for-all, FREE college, and tax the wealthy 90% would be radical socialist ideas.

No they aren't. None of those ideas are "radical". Free college is no more radical than free high school. And it is even less socialist than free high school, as universities are almost all private entities. Taxing the wealthy is not a socialist ideas, and you really need a new dictionary if you think it is. Universal health insurance is also not radical, as shown by the fact that every modern developed nation on earth has it.

So no, swing and a miss, there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

President Trump wasn’t on the ballot.

And yet so many people turned out anyway. Where your logic fails is that Trump being on the ballot can have a turnout effect on those who think he is unfit, which happens to be most Americans

Sorry, that's just not a good talking point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are when their solutions are hijacked by failed 19th century Marxist economic policies in order to appeal to the incompetent and under educated

Failed? Where have these policies failed?

In every modern first world country, universal healthcare has resulted in less per capita spending and better healthoutcomes across the board. That's the opposite of failure.

In nearly every other first world country, cheap or free tuition has led to citizens with a better average level of education and less personal debt. That's the opposite of failure.

Taxing the wealthy at that rate failed in this country on the 1950s? By what measure? You will need to show your work on that one.

 

[Thinker101]

True, Medicare-for-all, FREE college, and tax the wealthy 90% would be radical socialist ideas.

No they aren't. None of those ideas are "radical". Free college is no more radical than free high school. And it is even less socialist than free high school, as universities are almost all private entities. Taxing the wealthy is not a socialist ideas, and you really need a new dictionary if you think it is. Universal health insurance is also not radical, as shown by the fact that every modern developed nation on earth has it.

So no, swing and a miss, there.

 

[Jitss617]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, Medicare-for-all, FREE college, and tax the wealthy 90% would be radical socialist ideas.

No they aren't. None of those ideas are "radical". Free college is no more radical than free high school. And it is even less socialist than free high school, as universities are almost all private entities. Taxing the wealthy is not a socialist ideas, and you really need a new dictionary if you think it is. Universal health insurance is also not radical, as shown by the fact that every modern developed nation on earth has it.

So no, swing and a miss, there.

Sorry, not relevant. What is being discussed is not a socialist economic system, top to bottom. Please try to focus and stay here in reality with us.

 

[Jitss617]

They are when their solutions are hijacked by failed 19th century Marxist economic policies in order to appeal to the incompetent and under educated

Failed? Where have these policies failed?

In every modern first world country, universal healthcare has resulted in less per capita spending and better healthoutcomes across the board. That's the opposite of failure.

In nearly every other first world country, cheap or free tuition has led to citizens with a better average level of education and less personal debt. That's the opposite of failure.

Taxing the wealthy at that rate failed in this country on the 1950s? By what measure? You will need to show your work on that one.

Doesn’t work

 

[BS Filter]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They are when their solutions are hijacked by failed 19th century Marxist economic policies in order to appeal to the incompetent and under educated

Failed? Where have these policies failed?

In every modern first world country, universal healthcare has resulted in less per capita spending and better healthoutcomes across the board. That's the opposite of failure.

Every other modern first world country doesn't have a population of 320 million people from every corner of the earth. We would literally be creating the largest bureaucratic organization on the face of the planet and if you actually believe that will end up being remotely manageable, efficient, and less costly without sacrificing health care quality and availability you're allowing your greed to get in the way of your common sense. Furthermore, many of those other nations are struggling with their systems right now, particularly the NHS in Britain and Canada.

In nearly every other first world country, cheap or free tuition has led to citizens with a better average level of education and less personal debt. That's the opposite of failure.

As Pete Buttigieg has pointed out repeatedly, you are literally advocating for a transfer of wealth from poorer people to richer people, you know, the very thing you people erroneously claim tax cuts do. The 1/3 of this country who goes to college by and large end up making a lot more money throughout their lives and generally come from families financially better off than the remaining 2/3 who don't, so you are asking lower income people to finance the tuition of upper income people. If you want to lower the cost of tuition, stop subsidizing it with government loans. We never experienced this massive tuition inflation until the government decided it had to loan tens of thousands of dollars a year to people to go to school. Additionally, it's not easy to get into college in Europe where tuition is "free." It's a far more selective process and that decision is typically made early in your high school years. At the end of the day, we provide a "free" education to every child in this country, but once you enter adulthood it's time to grow up. If you want to further your education or gain some additional skills then that's your responsibility, not society's. I have a Master's Degree and I have never expected anyone else to pay for it.

Taxing the wealthy at that rate failed in this country on the 1950s? By what measure? You will need to show your work on that one.

You know, I haven't always agreed with some of your opinions, but I really thought you were smarter than this. People who bring up the 1950s tax rates may as well have a big stamp on their forehead that says "I don't understand Economics." I'm not getting into this discussion with yet another regressive. You can figure it out for yourself, but I'll give you a little hint. The global economy of the immediate Post WWII era is nothing like the global economy of 2020. Bernie's tax rates would crash our economy, massively increase unemployment and obliterate the stock market including the pensions and 401k of the middle class, who he ironically claims to want to help.

 

[Muhammed]

Looks promising, but there is a long time to November, just imagine the shit storms the democrats and the MSM are cooking up.

Cooking up a bomb, perhaps. It's highly likely that the Democrats will attempt to assassinate Trump.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We would literally be creating the largest bureaucratic organization on the face of the planet and if you actually believe that will end up being remotely manageable, efficient, and less costly without sacrificing health care quality and availability you're allowing your greed to get in the way of your common sense.

That's not a good argument, much less an argument at all. It is an authoritative claim and an appeal to emotion.

We already have the largest bureaucratic structure on the planet, and have for 100+ years. Yet, here we are, the best economy on earth, which has also been generally true for that entire span. Also, the public health insurance crisis exists in the face of claims that privatization is better. So, when I leave your realm of emotion and scary declarations, and look at reality, I am just not compelled by your statement.

Medicare and Medicaid already provide better insurance at a lower per capita cost. They are both better than the insurance that I and my employer collectively pay $800 per month for. And they do this with a greater degree of adverse selection than is endured by private insurance companies. Why the difference? Profit motive, and a version of bureaucracy worse than what the government has to put in place for public insurance. Commissions for the selling agents? Panels of unethical doctors designed to deny claims and kick people off of the rolls, to pad shareholder dividends and financial disclosures? There's your "bad bureaucracy".

20 years ago our public school sophomores passed the graduation tests at a much higher rate than they do now. What has changed? The raping of the system and the public funds by those funneling money and resources to the charter school debacle. Again, all the evidence is against what you are saying.

 

[Flash]