Lincoln didn't say that. Good ol' Bill tricked you.
And you haven't answered my question.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
Lincoln didn't say that. Good ol' Bill tricked you.
And you haven't answered my question.
Isn't it an injustice that there is poverty in the world while most Americans live lives of relative comfort. Are you also in favor of mass wealth redistribution out of the US into the third world?
Political revolution has to be from the ground up, not top down. Bernie talks a good game about this but the simple fact is that even if he wins, he will only have a very small window before the GOP regain their footings. I can't help but feel that he's overestimated the strength of his campaign. It's one thing getting people riled up in a presidential circle, another thing entirely when politics no longer dominate the airwaves and TV. People will return to the mundane tasks of their daily routine, get disheartened when nothing changes and stay home the next time.
The presidency should be the ultimate goal for progressive grassroots movements. Win the states legislature, governorships, house, senate first, then get a Bernie Sanders into the WH.
grow up
I don't understand your problem with an honest question? If wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor is justified inside a country, then surely the same principle applies internationally as well?trump polls 41%
at this rate he is going to walk the nomination
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-polling/index.html
and considering how much of a joke he was considered even six months ago the fact that he is polling as a credible challenger to either of the two front runners in the democratic nomination process makes me think that he is going to tweet, insult and attack his way to become president trump
Murica... F Yeah.
at this rate he is going to walk the nomination
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-polling/index.html
and considering how much of a joke he was considered even six months ago the fact that he is polling as a credible challenger to either of the two front runners in the democratic nomination process makes me think that he is going to tweet, insult and attack his way to become president trump
President Trump... just let that sink in!
Murica... F Yeah.
Sanders reminds me of someone who makes good points and introduces good ideas but never gets elected, although his success results in others like Hillary incorporating parts of his ideas and platform.
I think he would do poorly against Hillary, which increasingly looks like the match up we will see. He doesn't have sufficient establishment support on the GOP side to turn out the masses against a decent Dem opponent. He would probably pick Rubio or the like as his running mate to take Florida, but in the end, he wont fare well because his support is limited to pockets of the loud Republican/Tea Party masses.
in your orderley little world. get serious.
If he helps her find her cause, good.
possibly - but you were pretty adamant he wouldnt be in the running for the republican nomination by the time the first elections came around so dont rule out his ability to control and spin the news agenda and make a very close contest of it
Yes we were wrong about that bit, but its a massive leap to extrapolate his success during the primaries with connecting with the 70 % of the country who don't like him during the Gen.
Its not such an appealing concept when you put it that way.
Its not such an appealing concept when you put it that way.
Logical steps can get you into a lot of hot water. Murder is wrong... Well, shit, we shouldn't be looking to eradicate illnesses then, which are life forms in their own right.
The US can implement wealth distribution...except we don't govern all those other countries. Mind you if the citizens of those countries took some responsibility to elect people who would implement such policies....
I don't think it's the electorate in those countries that's the problem.
people elect their leaders?
Poorer countries tend not to have advanced democracies. And countries who have elected highly redistributive governments haven't always got better for it (see Venezuela, whose socialist government was also highly corrupt).
I went on a Jon Stewart marathon yesterday and by the end realised why I hate the right wing in general and Republicans in particular so much. Then, again I wondered how they could convince a majority to vote for them.
But there's something that I realised about their positions. Earlier, if the public mood changed, they would eventually (at least on the surface) change with it.
Now, post Citizens United, they don't. Global warming scepticism was low for quite long. Yet they continued their denialist nonsense. It is because donors are as if not more important than swing voters.
That is the tragedy of democracy. Not that people decide things, but that it an be subverted by money.
Now you are stating the issues. The system is not at fault. Socialism works as I have pointed out. It will work in the US. But just because in some of these other countries people have surrendered to corruption, it does not mean the US needs to send their money to them. Ok. perhaps he was not serious..or more than likely he is incapable of thinking things through.
I missed last nights debate. Sounds like they all made a good showing of themselves. The early primaries are coming up. The sparks are flying on the GOP side. I like Bernie, But I think Hillary will edge him in IA and he will win NH comfortably. If that happens, she will have the nomination.
Despite their huge problems (his authoritarian tendencies, corruption, crime) that is a staggering achievement.
Socialist policies can work, a socialist system is another matter.
I'd agree broadly that sending aid to highly corrupt countries can often be counter-productive, I was just questioning your idea that it's the fault of the people in those countries for electing the wrong people.
People implement policies. There will never be perfection. Waste, corruption like you say. The key is there are free elctions.
People have power. If they accept corruption as a given, it is their fault. There is always revolution. You cannot accept poverty...injustice as I said. You need to fight for it.
You don't have to send the aid through the government. There are plenty of NGOs that do solid work on the ground the American taxpayer could contribute towards. Also, alleging that all third world countries cannot be helped financially due to corruption is really turning a blind eye to the many problems in those countries that can be solved financially. You think there's no corruption involved in domestic wealth redistribution?
It's called the real world.
Seriously, no need to be defensive. I have no horse in the race.
not defensive at all. just saying I disagree with you.
There's your problem. Doesn't tally with what I wrote.
Naw, I didn't mean to point the finger at you as such. Just felt that was the pervading opinion in the thread. Sorry if it came across wrong.
My bad
It's all very complicated for the reasons you mention, knowing where to fund, who to trust, which bad governments to work with as the benefits outweigh the negatives etc. Good governance is the key driver, but revolutions don't always work out well in delivering that (look at Egypt and Syria).ok. I thought you were being an arse in your orginal question to me. Thus my response. You are confusing economics with charity. I quoted Ghandi as an example. He was no begger. btw Americans do so much charity directly and through organisations.
You've been watching a lot of Star Trek
Well, yes, but that's not what's taught me how to take logical steps and arrive at ludicrous conclusions
and no Star Trek crew that I know of would insist that they lay down and let viral diseases run their course ;PLads. Sorry if I have come across too direct. think my stress about van Gaal being still here is bleeding over into this thread too
Lads. Sorry if I have come across too direct. think my stress about van Gaal being still here is bleeding over into this thread too
Hah, no worries. I think we can all relate.
think I will be stressed out until he leaves....so it will be 2017 when I am myself again.
looks like finally Trump is coming apart at the seems. His latest interview is bizzare. Cruz is not eligible. So Rubio the 'moderate' guy may well have his chance. And he comes out well v Hillary.
What's all this Megyn Kelly biznis all about? I guess she refused to let him bang her
never heard that. Is this about her asking him all questions about his behaviour towards women? He won that big time. Probabaly helped him with the poll numbers.- Status