A pretty meaningless diagram. Jeb is conservative but he's clearly not a neocon, in fact he's very close to his Dad's multi-lateral coalition building approach than to the Cheney/Rumsfeld shitshow.
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
Is there a risk that if Sanders got the Democratic nomination it would pave the way for whoever the Republicans put forward?
As in, if it was Trump against Clinton, the mainstream would go for Clinton as the more moderate candidate. But if it was Trump against Sanders, the mainstream would see both as "loony" candidates and feel more comfortable with "loony right" than "loony left"?
As in, if it was Trump against Clinton, the mainstream would go for Clinton as the more moderate candidate. But if it was Trump against Sanders, the mainstream would see both as "loony" candidates and feel more comfortable with "loony right" than "loony left"?
That's even less likely than Sanders coming anywhere near the nomination. Rest assured if it were Jeb vs The Bern, the GOP would win in a landslide.
There's certainly that risk. Particularly if Bloomberg sees an opening.
Yes. There's a reason why Republicans are intent on tearing down Hillary and salivating at the thought of Sanders getting the nomination. They know that such a scenario represents the highest probability of them cruising to the White House. A vote for Sanders now is basically tantamount to a vote for Trump or Cruz in November.
Hillary looks to be safe, though I will be caucusing for Sanders on Super Tuesday.
And yet it seems Democrats dont want to hear that logic. Seems like a similar thing to what we have seen in the UK with Corbyn, only more extreme, because the US is even less likely to jump left than we are. There seems to be a mood in both countries of putting ideological purity above pragmatism, of voting for something radical and different, rather than "more of the same".
I hope it doesnt come to that. It terrifies me that Trump could end up as President because of this ideological brinksmanship.
I hope it doesnt come to that. It terrifies me that Trump could end up as President because of this ideological brinksmanship.
Bloomberg's connection to Wall Street and anti-gun stance leave him zero hope in a presidential race. Somebody should let him know.
Trump is actually less dangerous than the other GOP candidates.
Not sure that is a sure thing. It certainly is something Hillary's camp would like the Dem base to believe. But any republican nominee will carry his own baggage that will hurt him in a general election.
If I was a Republican I'd vote for him over the rest.
Well,
1. Hillary has higher unfavourables than most other candidates barring Trump and Cruz. Sanders is the only candidate across both parties with positive ratings. Favourables have been a reliable indicator of the winner of the presidential election for 30+ years.
2. Sanders does substantially better than Hillary, in both polling numbers and favourables, among independents.
3. Every single general election matchup (Sanders v Trump, Clinton v Trump, S v Rubio, C v Rubio, S v Cruz, etc) has Sanders outperforming Hillary. He beats Trump by bigger margins than she does, and he beats Cruz while she is trailing to that obnoxious piece of shit.
Now, this argument has gone on for many pages, and all of Raoul's and my points can be refuted, but there are 2 sides to this. And the current polling data, rather than gut feel, is on Sanders' side.
Heard from several people now that people attending Bern's events are really fired up and very emotional whereas at Hilary's they are basically along for the ride. Sounds familiar to 8 years ago. We may be in for a surprise.
I don't see why it's so clear-cut.
I was 10 years old in 2002 so don't know most of those but I remember Paul Wolfowitz was part of the daily (nightly in India) press conferences as the drumbeat of war got louder. I have no confidence in the foreign policy team that concluded that: Sunnis and Shias won't fight and that the US would be welcomed as liberators to have learnt a lesson; their ringleaders (Cheney, Rumsfeld) certainly haven't.
Corbyn is substantially further to the left. In Europe a candidacy like Sanders wouldn´t be anything special. He is fairly similar to classic social-democrats (not Blairites). When it comes to foreign policy his course would be more or less similar to Obama. He´d do alright against most GOP candidates.
Last edited:
Christ, that really says it all about the Republicans. I wouldn't want Trump in charge of my cat, let alone the United States.
Its become the anti-reality campaign. The narrative is that nothing that ever happened before is any good, what's going on now is awful (5% unemployment... oh the horror), no one who ever accomplished anything in Washington is worthy because they had to compromise to get it done. Sanders sells the government-funded everything dream, Trump sells the no Mexicans, no Arabs, no Chinese products dream. The left doesn't trust government, the right doesn't trust government... only me and a few other people are left in the center thinking that government isn't great, but it could certainly be worse (I'm from Brazil... US government scores a solid B for me compared to Brazil's E).
I'd also like to see Mr. Wolfowitz as far away from any position of authority as possible. But the point about Jeb is that there is still a bit of a question mark regarding foreign policy. Diagram just shows that he hasn't throw in his chips with any particular group.
That's the entire point. They have different foreign policy teams. The diagram was just a silly attempt at trying to link people who have little in commen together.
I don't agree Sanders is not electable. Should he get the nomination it would be most likely against Trump. imo Trump and Cruz are unelectable.
But it will be difficult for Sanders to beat Hillary, even if he should win IA and NH. Hillary will be a good President.
But it will be difficult for Sanders to beat Hillary, even if he should win IA and NH. Hillary will be a good President.
RD, you really are on a rollercoaster lately
RD, you really are on a rollercoaster lately
I have always maintained she would be a good President. I simply agree 90% with what Sanders believes. I will do what is right and caucus for him. But will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee.
Is that one of his adverts?
The vast majority of his advisors are carry-overs from his brother's time. There are a few from his dad's and Reagen's. Unfrtunately that was before I was born, but from what I've read...
Forgive me for thinking that arming the Taliban wasn't a great strategy either!
I'm not sure where you are going with this. 18 of 21 on his team were on the W or HW Bush teams.
This is not a good idea.
The feck is going on with that picture too
Trump is in NH today, while all his rivals are running around in IA...cocky bastard.
I disagree with that. The same thing was said about Obama in '08.
Im not saying it wouldn't be difficult, but Bernie definitely has a shot.
Hillary wouldn't be "good", she just wouldn't cause complete chaos like any of GOP candidate would.
She is the lesser of two evils at that point.
Not remotely the same, Hillary actually had the more liberal voting record of the two back in 08.
She probably will be at worst an Obama 3rd term. By moving left because of Bernie, hopefully she will do more for Students and the Middle Class, though I have not heard any specifics. I also hope whe will not commit troops overseas.
If he beats Hillary, Bernie will be our next President.
Yeah that's how I see it. Any progress under her would be minimal and I would only vote for her because she would be a better choice than any of the GOP candidates.
There's a reason America, after modest beginnings, became, and remains, the 'land of opportunity', and has prospered beyond all other nations for the last 200 years. That reason is unrestricted market capitalism.
Sanders socialistic ideas are opposed to everything that made the US the world's economic, cultural and political superpower. It's hard to see Americans turning their backs on history and voting to become East Germany.
No it isn't, they got lucky with Europe destroying itself, allowing them to take advantage of what remained. And then that the USSR went bankrupt first. And it doesn't remain the land of opportunity, standards of living are on a downward trend and their middle class is becoming ever-smaller. The unrestricted market capitalism is a recent phenomenon and is the single biggest reason America is slowly going down the shitter.
Last edited:
true
None of that is true.
It is. Even the last century has barely been about unrestricted market capitalism, during the cold war taxes were sky high and every decision taken was about defeating the USSR. The unrestricted market capitalism, as you call it, it's really closer to outright theft, began afterwards and has seen millions of America jobs being exported. The only opportunities left are for mega corporations to close factories and open cheaper ones in countries where slave labour still exists. The average American is saddled with massive debt and underpaid jobs. And is constantly getting screwed over by the aforementioned corporations. The people you're railing against on the other hand, are doing things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-proposal-cable-tv-boxes_us_56aa781ae4b05e4e3703b26e
Which society do you really want to live in? One where corporations can charge you through the nose for something that's actually quite cheap, or one where rules ensure you get a fair deal?
Last edited:
Job losses in the US can be traced to NAFTA in a lot of cases (auto industry, manufacturing, etc). Those jobs went to Mexico where the labour is a lot cheaper. This has-been a great thing for many Mexicans who earn a lot more than they used to, even if it's not much to you or I.
Where the US failed was not re-engineering their education system to produce skilled people who can work in professional and service industries.
Where the US failed was not re-engineering their education system to produce skilled people who can work in professional and service industries.
- Status