Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Biden Bankrupt!! LOL
s0m | 
Iran BlackInfiniteFan 
Biden Campaign is officially bankrupt. All political pundits expect him to drop out of the race at any point now. cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/joe-biden-fu.. Another big win for Trump
2019-10-16 21:47
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
Iran loves trump dont listen to the media
2019-10-16 21:52
We all do men)))
2019-10-16 23:05
who?
2019-10-16 21:53
Ok.
2019-10-16 21:53
#4
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Biden was never going to last anyway. He needs to drop out. Same goes for that question dodging scumbag and literal moron named Elizabeth Warren.
2019-10-16 21:54
What’s so bad about Warren?
2019-10-16 23:14
#51
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
She's a question dodger and her ideas and views are atrocious. Denying automation and proposing a wealth tax when it failed in Europe??? Christ sake.
2019-10-16 23:18
Taxing the rich worked fine after ww ii USA. And no one was calling that socialism back then :)
2019-10-17 12:48
This is no longer the past bud.
2019-10-17 16:34
So the rich pay 70-90% tax now too? How much did a billionaire pay in 1950:s and how much does he one pay now?
2019-10-17 16:54
Elizabeth Warren: I will fight for students in America. The price of education is too high. Also Elizabeth Warren: I'm gonna pretend to be Indian and charge 400,000$ USD to teach 1 class at Harvard. Fucking hypocrite scum
2019-10-17 04:18
THIS Fucking whore
2019-10-17 13:02
#74
ZywOo | 
Europe vacban 
doesnt really matter, trump wins from all the democratic candidates.
2019-10-17 01:10
#5
 | 
Germany Neckarstadion 
great news for everyone involved, there are much better candidates in the ranks of the democrats
2019-10-16 21:56
#6
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
he should never have joined in anyway. His answers to questions are ridiculous, shown signs of health problems like how he literally had a bloody eye during a townhall for climate change, I could go on.
2019-10-16 21:58
interested which ones u like? i dont see any strong ones at all
2019-10-16 22:07
He probably likes the socialist Bernie judging by his flag or the Native American Elizabeth Warren
2019-10-16 22:09
#27
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Warren got trashed in last night's debate :d
2019-10-16 22:54
yanggang
2019-10-16 22:44
#25
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
ez for Yang
2019-10-16 22:51
#54
 | 
United States YANGGANG2020 
yang/tulsi or pete ez
2019-10-16 23:54
#76
ZywOo | 
Europe vacban 
expected from socialism country
2019-10-17 01:10
true but not true
2019-10-17 08:09
yeah but that's not what the news says. He isn't "bankrupt", just isn't doing well in raising money.
2019-10-17 01:09
#75
 | 
Germany Neckarstadion 
Isn't the inability to raise money equivalent to dying a political death if you are running for president in the US?
2019-10-17 01:10
I mean it's not looking too good for him but he is a big name and pretty influential, so he can probably find more cash. Best is usually to look at betting odds and polls: electionbettingodds.com/ projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primar..
2019-10-17 01:13
he did raise money, good money, but for some reason (read: the president bribing leaders of foreign nations to start bad press about biden) he had to have higher expenses than anticipated.
2019-10-17 05:33
idk nothing about all this shit in democrat party, Tulsi or Yang has any chance?
2019-10-16 22:10
to fuck? maybe 50/50. to win the primary? like 1 mil to 1
2019-10-16 22:14
So who do you think will? I hope not Warren atleast, she acts like some internet cringe-troll
2019-10-16 22:15
Clinton Warren Ticket. Its already booked. They met 3 weeks ago right before the Ukraine whistleblower was weaponized against Biden and Trump.
2019-10-16 22:17
wtf
2019-10-16 23:01
wut? grow some balls and go fight for hong kong
2019-10-17 02:12
#89
 | 
Denmark GenericPilot 
if dems want to beat trump they need to fight fire with fire and pick a populist e.g sanders
2019-10-17 02:26
ummmmmm the dude just had a major heart attack and hes a communist. gl winning with him
2019-10-17 03:58
#107
 | 
Denmark GenericPilot 
congrats you just got bait BINGO! please punch your computer screen to claim your prize.
2019-10-17 12:42
Those are the current betting odds: electionbettingodds.com/
2019-10-17 01:10
What is that uber shit site? I went ahead and checked some reputable sites and they are mostly giving the edge to a democrat candidate wining the presidency. Yet here i see 70%+ for Trump yeah ok lol.
2019-10-17 02:22
This is a pretty well recognized website. Also I don't think you understand statistics. It's says 41% for Trump and all other candidates are broken up, so it adds up to 60% for democrats. 77% is Trump being the Republican candidate.
2019-10-17 02:27
I do understand, i did 3 years to be an accountable. I just didn't pay attention because the site design looks like something from the 2000's. My bad, it's actually in line with other bookies. And given the fact the primary democrat winner will garner most of the dems vote that is normal. There is no spread for repub. They still fucked up like most on brexit ^^.
2019-10-17 12:56
He will just take more money from insurance companies
2019-10-16 22:10
#11
 | 
Finland Tusku 
damn :(
2019-10-16 22:12
#15
 | 
United States jay_320 
Obama told him he didn't need to do it. Biden should have listened. His legacy as a moderately good VP is still intact though and his son may inadvertently get Trump impeached. So whatever. I get the need a lot of people have to go back to the Obama years but that isn't happening.
2019-10-16 22:19
with moderatly good you mean war criminal good ?
2019-10-17 00:39
#58
 | 
United States jay_320 
That's a silly thing to say.
2019-10-17 00:40
how is that silly ? It is the truth
2019-10-17 00:40
#61
 | 
United States jay_320 
Example?
2019-10-17 00:43
Example ??????????????????????????????? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Iraq war, Afghanistan war, lybia, saudi arabia, drone strikes .............. all committed or/and continued by the obama administration, all illegal offensive wars against the international laws of the United Nations therefore obama is a war criminal and I would like to believe that a VP should leave if he wouldnt agree with the war crimes the president does. Of cause many actions are crimes against humanity which shouldnt be rewarded with a nobel prize I always thought
2019-10-17 00:48
#16
 | 
Guatemala KlassiKer 
who?
2019-10-16 22:20
I'm not political but none of those dems can beat Trump anyway, so it's useless no matter who gets the nom. Tulsi is the only decent one they got and they can't stand her and the media refuses to give her much coverage. She's well spoken, anti-war which most Americans like, a vet, and easy on the eyes. She would have been the perfect dem candidate but those moronic leaders of the dem party can't see past their pride. Tulsi would have a real shot at beating Trump but they don't want her so they will lose again.
2019-10-16 22:21
#19
koosta | 
United States yghj 
i do not agree. msot people feel as though anything is better than trump. only reason it was so close when trump was elected was because the democrats assumed that trump wouldnt be elected so they didnt go out and vote. retart trump voters really wanted trump to win and thought it would be close so they DID go out and vote.
2019-10-16 22:23
I guess it all depends on where you live. I live in Southeast Virginia which is mostly 'conservative' and it's rare I meet democrats in RL. Of course, Virginia has a large black population who vote democrat pretty much no matter what but it seems Trump is getting more black support than Republicans have since the 1960 and 70's. But, even with that and the fact that Northern Virginia is hugely democrat the State as a whole is still slightly Republican even though it's considered a purple State. I just think the democrats have a very weak set of candidates and the only one who is appealing at all is Tulsi. I don't support her policies because I don't support either side and consider both corrupt, and always only catering to the lowest of society, and neither have cared much about keeping their oath to the Constitution for more than 150 years. This is why I don't vote or get involved in politics. The whole thing is corrupt and scripted. Real ideas and principles are forbidden to be touched. I also do not support democracy and consider it a sham. Only intelligent and responsible people should be allowed to vote. The more people who are allowed to vote the worse off society becomes. All mass democracies commit suicide eventually.
2019-10-16 22:55
#26
koosta | 
United States yghj 
sick fake flag mens
2019-10-16 22:52
Yes, I love the Swiss flag and consider my true spiritual ancestors to have lived there in times past. I have my own reasons for not using the US flag, but it's certainly not to deceive or bait anyone on HLTV. The Swiss flag actually has personal meaning to me.
2019-10-16 22:54
"Only intelligent and responsible people should be allowed to vote" I know there are points that can be amde to limit who is allowed to vote, but how exactly are we gonna define who will be allowed to do so?
2019-10-16 23:14
There are many ways to go about this. The easiest would be that you must pass a test and meet certain qualifications which grants you access to voting. Society requires licenses and tests for all sorts of things which aren't near as important as voting. The fact that the majority of the masses can easily be led by corrupt demagogues (history has proven this) it's quite easy for the worst in society to rise to the top. All they have to do is make appealing promises to the masses to garner their votes. Also, the idea that social science (societies scientific governance) should be open to everyone of a certain age is a dangerous path. The laws and rules which are necessary to govern a society have been known and practiced for thousands of years. Our nature and lives are not so ever-changing that we need 'lawmakers' to constantly figure out new ways of controlling us. The world is governed by specific laws in every regard, yet in this one very important case of how a society should be governed -- it's ever changing? I reject this idea, and after about 20 years of study based on scientific reasoning I have concluded democracy is a sham. The best government to have existed in modern times (post 1600) was the early American Constitutional Federal Republic of Sovereign States. But that was overthrown by demagogues in the 1860's and has not existed since. Not that it was a perfect system but it's been the best humans have created in modern times. I mention it because it was not a mass democracy and produced a high level of freedom, opportunity, and wealth. I find no logical reasoning that makes a sound argument in favor of democracy. To allow the most ignorant and selfish of society have a say in what direct society goes is mad. No other area of life works this way. Experts, and men of reason and knowledge who are trained in their respective arts make everything work which enhances and makes our lives comfortable. This should also be how society works. Another dangerous trend of democracy is the oppression of the majority. Minority rights are always overthrown eventually in democracies and history is ripe with examples. PS. I know the other side of things as well and much tyranny has grown out of other systems. But to answer all this would requires volumes.
2019-10-16 23:46
"Society requires licenses and tests for all sorts of things" Sure, but lets take for example a drivers license. There is set rules for driving a car and the mechanical skill. Both can easily be tested. But how do we test if someone is allowed to vote? I mean what kind of questions/tasks would such a test include? You cant just ask things you need a high education for, as you would exclude poor people, that wont be able to get a good education to pass that test. You immediately create lower chances for poor people to be able to vote. This would work, if the intelligent people would actually take into account what you need to do to help poor people, but thats not gonna happen. Regardless of if you past the test or not, many people still are into identity politics and will vote for whats best for THEM. I mean thats the big problem with a test for being allowed to vote and Im very surprised you didnt adress this at all. "The best government to have existed in modern times (post 1600) was the early American Constitutional Federal Republic of Sovereign States. " Wherent those the once that started their country by a genocide on the native peopl? Im sorry, I can hardly take that serious. Its a perfect example of why you should probably allow everyone to vote. "To allow the most ignorant and selfish of society have a say in what direct society goes is mad." But to find out who is ignorant and selfish we would have to make those tests, that you didnt specify would actually test. Again, I dont see a test, that is non-biased, but as I said, feel free to give me a few examples of what they should ask in that test. "No other area of life works this way. Experts, and men of reason and knowledge who are trained in their respective arts" Yes, and you can also use experts and men of reason to make laws that prevent the uprising of ingorance. Look at germany at the moment. The AfD is getting more votes and the other parties are doing a good job at exposing them and they have alot more tools to prevent them from getting into the government. That the USA isnt clever enough to have a proper democracy, doenst mean democrazy is bad. You cant make a state without regulations anyways so obviously you can regulate what a party can do and cant do to prevent control going into wrong hands. "Another dangerous trend of democracy is the oppression of the majority. " Again, thre are many ways to deal with that and in countries such as germany and sweden, minorities still can get alot of power. "But to answer all this would requires volumes." Im fine if we leave it at a short conversation :D Each reply will take a pretty long time to make and I guess we would spent ALOT of time doing so :D
2019-10-17 00:01
I'm going to respond to this in detail but I have to start over. I was typing a response to you for like 30 minutes and then my power went out and I lost everything. :'(
2019-10-17 00:37
#83
 | 
United States gtmaniacmda 
damn same lol where in SE Virginia you live again? my power went out at around 3pm
2019-10-17 02:17
I'm in King and Queen County between Richmond and Williamsburg. You're in Chesapeake right? My power went out because the breaker tripped due to being overloaded. I have so much power running in my room if the vacuum gets plugged into the same circuit my room runs on it causes it to trip. Unfortunately, this happened because I wasn't aware someone forgot which outlet to use while vacuuming.
2019-10-17 04:07
#99
 | 
United States gtmaniacmda 
yes, chesapeake I thought you were closer, the storm that came through made part of tree nearby fall and hit a power line, was thinking maybe the same happened to you
2019-10-17 04:10
We got some heavy rain but nothing too bad. Definitely needed the rain though. It's been so dry this summer. I have a pretty large pond on my property and it's been completely dry for almost a month now. I probably mentioned being from Williamsburg in the past and perhaps you thought I currently live there. I think a couple years ago I may have mentioned to you that I have dated a few girls over your way including one from your city off Indian River Road.
2019-10-17 04:13
I'm sorry this turned out to be so long but I hope you read it and try to understand each point I make. I left much out I wanted to say so if you have more questions I certainly can expound upon each point. You - "how do we test if someone is allowed to vote?" This is hard to answer briefly and I'm going to avoid giving specific examples because without building a proper foundation for them they will seem baseless and perhaps even oppressive. I have absolute uncompromising principles which teach me that the proper role of government is merely to provide ones safety in their person and property, and the prosecution of wrong doing. I see no reasonable or moral role outside of this. This would mean no one can vote themselves wealth and benefits from the public treasury. The majority have no right to tell the minority or even a single person they must forfeit part of their labor to fund programs, institutions, and agenda's they might disagree with. If a majority wish to effect some change by whatever means, they should come together between themselves and do the thing. But to force others into their schemes, whatever they may be for or claimed to do, is a moral wrong and crime. Whether one man robs and oppresses another, or a million men rob and oppress one, both are equally wrong. So my 'test', or standard for voting automatically restricts the possibility for people to vote themselves benefits from the public, or for those to promise that they will do such. A republic where people only elect those to administer the government's functions is what is needed. Not a democracy where demagogues can use the ignorant masses to overthrow the foundations of everything in the name of some righteous or moral cause. This sort of society would teach its youth these principles from an early age and it would create a responsible and respectable people who cherish their countries institutions because they work well for them, and all know that the laws which govern peoples relations with each other, and also govern the governments relation to their respective members. I hope what I said above can sort of give you a better idea of what the standards to vote would be like. Since the people are taught from youth these principles, a test could simply show whether or not they understand what it is they are voting for, and how and when a representative should be recalled or prosecuted for abusing the powers delegated to them. You - "I mean what kind of questions/tasks would such a test include?" What I said above answers this. "You cant just ask things you need a high education for, as you would exclude poor people, that wont be able to get a good education to pass that test. You immediately create lower chances for poor people to be able to vote." This would occur, yes. Not that a test would consist of complex questions about things unrelated to society and its governance, but, so long as the poor are not being directly oppressed by the ruling class they will not have much need to vote. It's actually wise for an orderly and just society to restrict the poor from voting as much as possible because the poor do tend to be the most irresponsible, the most gullible, and the most easily controlled by the promises of demagogues. But the poor in all nations always have a vote stronger than the rich or those who may seek to oppress them. They have numbers. The ruling class has been overthrown many times in history in societies where during peace the poor had next to no power or say in government, but because the ruling class got too lifted up with power and pride they forgot that true strength is in numbers and a mass of people with a feeling of nothing to lose. This is a mighty vote that the poor almost always have and a strong deterrent against oppression because those in power do not want to lose their dignified and comfortable positions. In reality, the poor have always allowed the rich to live as they do. You - "This would work, if the intelligent people would actually take into account what you need to do to help poor people, but thats not gonna happen." This actually has happened in the past under Aristocratic and Monarchical governments. We haven't exactly been told the full truth about our past and how the cultures and societies of our ancestors functioned. All we are taught is about the oppression, war, and suffering. Most know next to nothing about the societies themselves and especially are ignorant of the social institutions and manners of the people. A cursory study of history often leads one to have a false view because it neglects to study the details of the cultures and social institutions and only learn of the tyrants, wars, and misery. But think of all the time that is ignored and skipped over in general history courses. What were the times like then? Were all governments of the past oppressive and wicked? To have a sound view of where we are and why things are how they are, we need a detailed and accurate understanding of the past. There are many holes in peoples understanding about things which causes them to come to false conclusions. Today, the masses ignorance is exploited for the benefit of the modern Aristocracies disguising themselves as democracies. I know you might ask for examples in this regard. I would recommend reading the historical fiction written in whatever time you are seeking to understand. Also, the nonfiction books written at the time you are studying are excellent sources for learning about peoples and societies of the past and if it was always just the rich ruling over the poor with wicked oppression. But you must seek out all sides and read everything you can so you don't end up becoming propagandised by one view. One of my favorite examples is the history of my own people from the 1750's- 1860. William Gilmore Simms would be an excellent one to read. Time on the Cross by Robert Fogel is an excellent read. Eugene Genovese is a modern historian who I have many disagreements with but has many excellent works on the old South in America (and he wasn't a Southerner). Saint George Tucker's work on the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's Note's on Virginia, Virginia's Convention Debates of 1788, The Speeches of Jefferson Davis in Congress in the years leading up to the war in the 1860's, and the two books of John C. Calhoun published in 1850. All this would need to be well understood to know where I'm coming from. And this would be only one example of a system which produced high amounts of freedom (even for the slave laboring class when compared to the free labor classes of the North in America and Europe), wealth, fiscal government, a charitable society, and protection of property -- all while having very strict limits on democracy. I'm not saying it was a perfect because nothing human is, but the foundations which were established are essential to good government and fall outside of the will of the majority to change things at their own will (unless done violently). Democracy has constantly created convulsions in society as one majority takes control and oppresses the minority, and then their abuse causes a shift the other way and they are in turn oppressed. The French revolution is an example of mob rule democracy which ultimately ended up producing Napoleon. Another important part of history to study to gain a fuller understanding of the dangers of democracy are the revolutions which took place throughout much of Europe during the mid 1800's. Granted, democracy didn't lead to the wars, but the wars or the one side were fought in the name of democracy and much injustice and suffering occurred because of it. It's important to note here that history can't be studied in the context of modern thinking and understanding because we will force views and ideas on those of the past which were completely foreign to the views of the time. This will cause us to judge, rather than observe and learn from history. When we play judge, jury, and executioner with history we do those of the past, and ourselves a tremendous wrong. You - "Regardless of if you past the test or not, many people still are into identity politics and will vote for whats best for THEM." Sadly, this is true, which is why I said my system is not practical in today's world -- except maybe in the societies which haven't accepted the modern ideas of progressivism. But even in these it's probably too late to try and limit democracy. Today people equate democracy with freedom which is a modern idea. People used to view democracy as dangerous to liberty and the order of the State. Progressives are now using democracy to change the fabric and foundations of society. They are seeing problems where none existed before. They aren't completely to blame though since the so-called conservatives and moderates are doing the same things just for different ends. Rather than people recognising that unchangeable principles and laws govern mankind, we've been reduced to being governed by the latest thoughts, opinions, and ideas of the masses which could shift and go a different way at any moment. This will lead to civil war if it continues because you have a section of society who want to hold to traditions and customs which humans have lived by for thousands of years, and others who are claiming new light and revelation about how things should be and that we must change now. If this doesn't end in war I'll be surprised. This is where democracy will always lead, it's inevitable. You - "I mean thats the big problem with a test for being allowed to vote and Im very surprised you didnt adress this at all." I didn't address it on purpose. I was general because to expound anymore would require far too many words. You see all I've already typed above and this doesn't even begin to truly cover this topic. I'm trying to be a brief as possible, but even with what I've typed thus far I know it's not adequate to fully explain and articulate my thoughts and ideas. And if I try to be more specific it will only cause more questions and you and I will end up writing a book. "The best government to have existed in modern times (post 1600) was the early American Constitutional Federal Republic of Sovereign States. " "Wherent those the once that started their country by a genocide on the native peopl?" Not really. This is not really on topic but since you touched on it I must address it since I have a lot of knowledge on this subject. It's important to know that history can be written and taught in a way to make people believe just about anything whether it's true or not. It's all in what is focused on and how things are spun by those recording things for posterity. The early settlers had some problems with the Indians but they also had a lot of friendly relations with certain tribes. The relationship between the early white settlers and the natives is very complicated and multi-layered. The natives were not one large society but thousands of small tribes who often times were enemies of each other. Some tribes were war-like and very confrontational, while others were very friendly and made peace with the settlers. Their were also regional differences in how the natives were treated. The Puritans in the North were very harsh towards them in general, while the settlers in Virginia were more willing to work with them and be at peace. The main fault the whites committed as far as I can tell was to assume all Indians as barbaric savages. Not all white men believed such at the time, but certain Indians were very brutal towards peaceful whites and would kill women and children. The reaction to these occurrences were often vicious and without mercy. Over time many whites began to have a strong feeling of hostility towards the Indians and overreacted in their ignorance. Rather than following the great law of love towards others including their enemies (as their religion commanded them) they responded in a human way which demands self-preservation and defense of ones friends and family. We can judge them now and say this and that was wrong because we have hindsight and live in a much less harsh time and environment. But not many of us know what it's like to find a village of 100 peaceful people and everyone of them slaughtered and tortured in horrible ways. We don't know what our reaction to living in such times would be. Imagine making it out alive of a situation like that but having seen your friends and family get slaughtered. When the whites settled NA they didn't get here and confront a large society and civilization. They got here and saw a vast untouched wilderness. The natives had formed no large societies of their own and many were nomadic. Those who weren't nomadic still didn't occupy a lot of territory relative to what is here. The point here is they wouldn't have viewed themselves as stealing anything from the natives because the natives weren't using much of what was available. Even Columbus never did what people claim he did. It's popular today for people to claim he committed atrocities against the natives, yet no evidence for that exists. He wrote in his diary about some other explorers who had come after him who were committing horrors against the natives and that he attempted to intervene to stop it but it proved futile. He did write to the Queen of Spain that he thought the natives could be made slaves quite easy but that's about the worst of it. His theory in that regard later proved false because the natives never made good slaves and the white man gave up on trying. For the first 230 years whites in NA never waged an all out war against the natives whose policy was genocide. I could teach history to make it appear that there was, but it's simply not true. When the founders of the 1770's and 1780's established their States independence and formed a union between themselves, they actually had a general policy of peace with the natives and formed many treaties with them which were respected for decades. During the 1830's you had the Trail of Tears where many natives were moved out of Georgia and relocated to the Oklahoma territory and during this process many died on the journey and it's considered a horrible blight on the US government. But even during this time most of the treaties with the Indians in the West were being respected. By this time not many were left in the east but not only because they were forced out but because many relocated themselves to get away from white mans society which was expanding at a fast rate. The worst of the atrocities which were committed against the Indians occurred in the late 1800's (100 years after the US gov was created). The US government violated all the treaties their fathers had made with the Indians and committed many heinous crimes against them. And the case can be made that the US gov was trying to kill as many Indians as they could during this time. (General Sherman, one of the most evil men in American history, wrote in his biography near the end of his life that he regretted he wasn't able to kill all the Indians.) But ultimately peace was made and large plots of land was allocated for the natives and they were provided exemption from taxes and allowed to govern their own territory. My reason for bringing up the US Federal Republic was not to point to examples of wrong doing in regard to how it was run by individuals at certain times, but to use its fundamental design and operation at the administrative level as the best example of good government in modern times where the majority weren't able to use the government to oppress the minority because the Constitution limited it's powers in an extreme way and allowed for the free citizens of society to flourish if they wished to and nothing in society could stand in their way and forbid them to use their own labor and intellect to make for themselves a happy life. Today, with mass democracy, such freedom is not possible without going through much trouble and compromising. As America became more democratic, the government became more oppressive and irresponsible. You - "But to find out who is ignorant and selfish we would have to make those tests, that you didnt specify would actually test. Again, I dont see a test, that is non-biased, but as I said, feel free to give me a few examples of what they should ask in that test." I admit this would be hard to test because it would mostly depend on ones honesty. I don't see how this could be tested accurately other than by a court hearing which is not practical, expensive, time consuming, and a waste of State resources, but my point wasn't that it could be tested. I was only making mention of this because it's a natural result of mass democracy and unavoidable. Me - "No other area of life works this way. Experts, and men of reason and knowledge who are trained in their respective arts" You - "Yes, and you can also use experts and men of reason to make laws that prevent the uprising of ingorance." Yes, this is my point. But ignorant people often do not know what is best for them but only want what is easy and comfortable. Many of the old Aristocracies understood it was dangerous to give the masses too much say in the direction societies goes while at the same time doing what they could to help the poor through the churches and public charities. You - "Look at germany at the moment. The AfD is getting more votes and the other parties are doing a good job at exposing them and they have alot more tools to prevent them from getting into the government." I don't know anything about this situation. I don't follow modern politics hardly at all. I gain nothing positive and beneficial from it so just ignore it altogether. You - "That the USA isnt clever enough to have a proper democracy, doenst mean democrazy is bad." I don't think the American democratic process is any worse or better than Europes. In this, we are dealing with so many different cultures and mindsets that of course there will be differences in their results. The worst part about the American system in its current state is it spends way too much money on the military to maintain control of all their interests around the world. If the US stopped spending about a trillion a year on the military the US would have more social services and public institutions for the needy of society than the best countries in Europe have, but the US is a military State even though most Americans do not like it. 'Democrazy' (as you fittingly spelled it) has failed America in the sense that even though most people here admit the government is corrupt and wastes too much money and shouldn't worry about the rest of the world -- people still vote the same liars into office year after year. And the new people who do get elected just play along with what is already established while promising newer and even better things to come if people just keep voting for them. "You cant make a state without regulations anyways so obviously you can regulate what a party can do and cant do to prevent control going into wrong hands." I agree and this is exactly why I brought up the US system as the best example of government in the past 400 years. Its Constitution put extreme limits on what the government could do because those who founded it were fearful of a system with the ability to grant itself unlimited power. This ultimately happened in the 1860's anyway, but the fundamentals of the principles which established it were sound and good. Evil men got control though and used it for their own ends while instigating a war against the section that was trying to stop their abuse of power. But they were a minority at this time and couldn't resist the physical force which ultimately conquered and subjugated them. For over 3 decades leading up to the war in 1861 the minority were trying to stop the corruption and progress towards democratic tyranny but it always proved futile as they were continually outvoted. So, the democratic process ended in war where approximately 10% of the people in the minority States died, and the population of their poorest and most needy class (the slaves) reduced by about 20% over a 10 year period. Whereas, before it was increasing on par with the whites for over 200 years. Frictions all over the world are currently being instigated on purpose and democracy is the tool being used to cause it.
2019-10-17 04:03
what the fuck too long dnd rd
2019-10-17 13:11
I tried to keep it short :/ Just think, I had to type it, and then proofread it to get rid of the typos, Etc. Took me almost 3 hours to make that post.
2019-10-17 13:21
3/8
2019-10-17 13:21
No worries, I will read it when Im come back home!
2019-10-17 14:47
#18
koosta | 
United States yghj 
actually this is a bad thing for trump and a good thing for democrats. biden was a shite candidate that only old people were voting for. it was for old people who did not like trump. now they will vote for a different democratic candidate, maybe bernie, probably not warren because old people are sexist. this is good thing because bernie is a step in the right direction, though he is not the god that some of his supporters make him out to be. imo andrew yang is my #1. intelligent and progressive agenda
2019-10-16 22:22
ya but who is better than biden that trump needs to be scared about? Hillary warren ticket?
2019-10-16 22:49
#23
koosta | 
United States yghj 
bernie warren Yang in that order
2019-10-16 22:50
#30
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Trump would easily beat Warren. In addition she's proving herself to be unfit to be president and complete garbage. Last night's debate is only proving that point even more when she got trashed on the wealth tax and automation. And she cant even answer simple questions either.
2019-10-16 22:57
#32
koosta | 
United States yghj 
warren is idiot but both bernie and yang are far better than trump. trump is incompetent and corrupt.
2019-10-16 22:57
#36
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
ofc Bernie and Yang are far better (tho I greatly prefer Yang). Trump ofc is just an absolute fool. Tho I do understand why people especially those in the Rust Belt voted for him in the first place.
2019-10-16 23:00
#39
koosta | 
United States yghj 
Yang Gang all the way. trump only fooled the idiots in the rust belt to thinking he was good for them. in reality both bernie and yang would be better, they are both against billionares and the 1%
2019-10-16 23:02
#43
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
And plus, the fact that Hillary got nominated was ridiculous. Glad trump got elected. As much as I hate to say it but Bernie isnt going to last long and his recent heart attack isnt helping at all. From my POV, only Yang can truly beat Trump without issue. Only issue for him is winning the primaries.
2019-10-16 23:06
#45
koosta | 
United States yghj 
hillary was chosen because it was rigged. money changed hands. as much as it pains me to say it, trump was right when he was calling her crooked hillary. it shoulda been trump vs bernie. i dont think Yang has a good chance in the primaries because democrats are not open to changing their canidates. warren = womens vote\ biden = old people and retards yang = young and educated bernie = young and educated and urban yang and bernie have large overlap
2019-10-16 23:09
#46
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
only one way to find out. And also, there's been a trend of underdog candidates that were polling low or someone coming out of nowhere but then go on to getting nominated. Some examples were Jimmy Carter (which really was a fluke in all honesty) , Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and even Obama. Democratic frontrunners that get nominated, almost always lose.
2019-10-16 23:12
#47
koosta | 
United States yghj 
i hope but i do not think this will happen
2019-10-16 23:12
#31
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Biggest threat to trump is actually Yang.
2019-10-16 22:55
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA 1% yang ????? He will just like aoc endorse sanders very soon or just quietly withdraw
2019-10-17 00:51
#68
gla1ve | 
Denmark flapdur 
I think you´re mostly right, hope Biden leaves, but I can´t see Sanders staying in the running either, after his health issues. Nobody will vote for him, at that age and with poor health. He should get out quick, and team up with a moderate candidate, to keep him/her "honest". I heard a lot of young people like Yang. Why? What´s his deal?
2019-10-17 01:02
#126
koosta | 
United States yghj 
yang is planning for the future. a lot of his platform has to do with Universal Basic income because people will be losing jobs to AI. he has a lot of progressive ideas. i would look into him, very interesting candidate
2019-10-17 17:19
Thank you. I´m not american, but heard a bit of that. The idea of universal basic income has been floating around in Denmark for decades, called "Borgerløn"= "Citizens Pay" , but it never had more than 10-20% backing in parliament. It´s too big a leap, to allow a lot of people to live comfortably without working. Because not enough people would care to work then. One must remember that a similar idea was applied in the communist countries, where you would get more or less the same pay, regardless of the quality of your work, or how much effort you had put into your education. People in the communist countries couldn´t be bothered to put their heart into their work, and with apathy productivity suffered. Yangs idea is not relevant now, at a time when populations are getting older and there is a shortage of skilled labour. His idea will be relevant in a future with mass unemployment as only alternative.
2019-10-18 00:28
"All political pundits expect him to drop out of the race at any point now." Bullshit, even the article you posted disagrees. I dont like Biden at all, but if you link a source, maybe read it. Its a bad situation but he isnt done. Compare the numbers from your article with: "Through August 2016, Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's main super PAC, Priorities USA Action, had raised more than $700 million, while Trump had brought in $400 million." Just to give you a figure of how much more can and will be spent until the whole election is over.
2019-10-16 22:27
#28
 | 
United States EmperorTrump 
Just a reminder: Trump won with the lowest money raised & spent. Efficient and professional.
2019-10-16 22:59
media never talks about this
2019-10-16 23:00
#110
 | 
United States AproximateCS 
To be fair he got billions worth of news coverage from them
2019-10-17 12:54
his campaign is bankrupt, not him, he probably pocketed that shit
2019-10-16 22:57
russian mafia best mafia for a reason.
2019-10-16 23:53
2019-10-16 23:00
lmao hate the dude and dont consider him a potential trump-beater at all, but that is one dank picture
2019-10-16 23:02
I am. Seems like a guy that can bring stability to your country.
2019-10-16 23:07
Thb Biden dropping out would be the worst thing that can happen to Trump.
2019-10-16 22:58
Indeed it would, Sanders or even Warren would murder Trump in an election
2019-10-17 00:49
literally wHo? we support hillary and taylor
2019-10-16 23:15
flag
2019-10-17 12:45
#60
 | 
Europe INFO_WARRIOR 
he is the choice of democratic establishment, it doesnt matter, he will be nominated regardless of any circumstances.
2019-10-17 00:41
#111
 | 
United States AproximateCS 
Tbh at this point they are moving to warren
2019-10-17 12:56
You are talking crap btw Most of the people here are not even reading the article HE IS NOT BANKRUPT and he will also not drop out of the race
2019-10-17 00:50
running at a 2 million dollar deficit per quarter. no wonder u dumbasses voted merkel in
2019-10-17 04:00
(x) another big win for Trump (o) another big lose for Trump
2019-10-17 00:51
Well even if it is the case. it has nothing to do with Trump and is not his win.. Cant remember him ever have a win to be fair.. And its not like he is one in control of money.. he have been bankrupt more than once. There is a reason he dont want to show his finances.
2019-10-17 00:53
9 million $ left in the bank. Man I wish I was as broke as Biden.
2019-10-17 01:03
Operating at a net loss of 8 million per year which means if they raise 8 million, they spend 16. No wonder your dumb ass elected merkel.
2019-10-17 02:14
Retard US trumpster shithead with a fake flag. He spend money that he had. He's not a business, idiot.
2019-10-17 13:06
#70
United States koth 
This is news to get him more supporters. They will now donate to him knowing he needs money.
2019-10-17 01:06
#78
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
can I bet that it wont happen? :d
2019-10-17 01:20
#79
United States koth 
I hope it doesn't. I just think this might be a last ditch effort for him.
2019-10-17 01:32
#80
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Idk why Biden even bothered. Hes a ticking time bomb cause of his rampant health issues like literally having a bloody eye during a townhall for climate change and the whole ukraine gibberish. Not even Obama wanted him to run.
2019-10-17 01:34
2019-10-17 01:06
#85
 | 
United States DiabIo 
even obama isn't backing this hack
2019-10-17 02:21
#90
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
He'd be a fool if he did. Glad he didnt.
2019-10-17 02:34
#91
 | 
United States DiabIo 
obama just endorsed justin trudeau LOL
2019-10-17 02:37
#92
 | 
United States PsychoLogical 
Oh right I forgot, Our friend up north is having its elections next monday.
2019-10-17 02:44
#94
 | 
United States gtmaniacmda 
presidental-ly approved blackface???
2019-10-17 03:59
LOOL
2019-10-17 04:20
2019-10-17 02:26
This is a CNN slander article and is completely fake Biden isn't going to win the election but he isn't bankrupt because he hasn't declared bankruptcy the article is evasive crap
2019-10-17 02:26
CNN slander article against democrat?
2019-10-17 04:01
not all dems are equal
2019-10-17 04:20
#113
 | 
United States AproximateCS 
Normally they supported biden
2019-10-17 12:58
#104
 | 
United States _ATaXiA_ 
It isn't slander if it is true, we usually just call it reporting or you know the news. This also really doesn't mean shit other than his campaign is "out" of money for now.
2019-10-17 04:21
Doesn’t matter Trump will rek anyone kek
2019-10-17 13:03
underage child toucher is gone yay :)
2019-10-17 13:05
#120
 | 
Italy thechef 
bernie 2020
2019-10-17 13:14
Wow whoever created this thread had incredible foresight.
2019-10-28 02:42
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.