That sort of "all or nothing" approach will usually get you nothing. Good governance is all about compromise and cooperation and progressives need to get with the program or else be marginalized in the next administration.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
That sort of "all or nothing" approach will usually get you nothing. Good governance is all about compromise and cooperation and progressives need to get with the program or else be marginalized in the next administration.
Found this about Trump on another board:
The article mentioned is here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppin...e-campaign-trail-with-donald-trump#.dgWKPkPmz
The article mentioned is here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppin...e-campaign-trail-with-donald-trump#.dgWKPkPmz
I agree. This is why I'm still skeptical of Sanders and would have probably voted for Clinton, if I was an American. I really like the guy, I don't like her at all. He'll get nothing done though. Which is still far better than anything that would be done from the right, but still. An idealist doesn't belong in American politics. I generally dislike highly dysfunctional politics and leaders who think they are capable of swinging a giant polity like a country very rapidly in one direction. Especially in a large, pluralistic nation like the US.
Last edited:
Er, no. Because Trump has been just as much if not more rabid in his opposition to immigration, and that video specifically mentions immigrants.
We are at a point in time after decades of dishonesty where compromise really equals surrender. We have two people in government who are willing to stand for the disenfranchised. Whether progressives are marginalised or not will depend on teh voters.
@SteveJ Seems about right to me, given this is far from the 1st time he's done this. I think Fox News became a self-reinforcing bubble over the years, spilled over into other mediums and all of a sudden this quarter to a third of especially low education Republicans are downright authoritarian, bigoted and completely deluded about the internal workings of their country and also how it interacts with the rest of the world.
Its bizarre for me watching something like the Tea Party, which has economic policy positions that I might agree with, and yet the rest is so bizarre that I question whether they actually understand the economic policy they support. My overall positions probably line up with moderate Republicans than any other other group (Republicans from NY or CA and Democrats from TX are my preferred recipe), but I must say the current state of the Republican party is downright dangerous.
Its bizarre for me watching something like the Tea Party, which has economic policy positions that I might agree with, and yet the rest is so bizarre that I question whether they actually understand the economic policy they support. My overall positions probably line up with moderate Republicans than any other other group (Republicans from NY or CA and Democrats from TX are my preferred recipe), but I must say the current state of the Republican party is downright dangerous.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christo...ama-gets-it-fracking-is-awesome/#5d9b11733bf1
Since then he's tried to establish regulations to make it safer, though I find conflicting info on how effective those measures have been, but to me fracking seems like a desperate and dangerous attempt to ensure new energy resources.
Last edited:
Sounds like Ted Cruz is your guy then.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201..._9208398.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
interesting
Bernie Sanders' Brother Larry Is Now The UK Green Party's Health Spokesman
interesting
Bernie Sanders' Brother Larry Is Now The UK Green Party's Health Spokesman
Sanders has demonstrated his ability to work with both sides of the aisle and to compromise. I'm not sure what this all-or-nothing talk is coming from. It's not as if he's changed his rhetoric.
It's one thing to claim such a thing when he is a largely ignored socialist Senator and another to think it would work as President, where his policies would threaten the existing power structure of governance. If you think gridlock under Obama has been bad, then it would be several times worse if Sanders got anywhere near the White House ( which he won't ).
Let's face it, people like yourself will oppose, sight unseen, all new energy technologies unless they're 'green'. And if they do qualify for the green stamp, you'll don your ideological blinkers and ignore all problems.
The world needs energy and, considering the weakened state of the nuclear industry, the only way to meet demand is the burning of fossil fuels. It makes sense for America, and indeed Europe, to have the capacity to meet their own future energy needs, rather than continue dependence on a region which could go up in flames at any moment.
A lot of folks believed Bush when he said Iraq had WMS's.
Colon Powell made the presentation to the UN and he seemed convinced as well. That had alot to do with the rush to war.
Now we know it was all lies.
Sanders isn´t following an "all-or-nothing" approach.
If you are running an election campaign, you want to spread your ideas and your message. You don´t promote a potential compromise. No candidate will ever be able to implement all his promises. There are only very few topics – e.g. campaign finance reform – where Sanders can´t make compromises. He can easily compromise on all his welfare-state ideas, because everything that strengthens the social welfare legislation will be okay for him.
Furthermore Obama made the mistake (intentionally or not) to disband his grass-roots campaign after his election. Sanders would probably not make the same mistake. Using such a movement after the election could be a powerful tool to get some stuff done.
Exactly. Why demonize any politician for voting in favor of it then? How much does one assume they knew?
Looking back, the MS Paint-like images of the mobile WMD facilities should have been a clue.
I am going to assume they were privy to a bit more intel that we were.
Also, shouldnt they know better?
People like myself? When did we last have tea and biscuits together? I'm not sure you can make statements like that. And I'm not some foolhardy, naive hippy who reckons we should have stopped pumping oil yesterday, I know we need to be weened. Fracking has been linked with earthquakes and requires you to pump dangerous chemicals into the geology, which is why I think it's something best left alone.
Nothing desperate about it; we've been fracking for 50+ years, and it is a much safer process now. Which is why Sanders' notions of banning it carry about as much weight as Obama's proposed $10/bbl tax on oil.
It's been opened up to the commercial market during Obama's second term, and the increase in use carries an increased risk to the environment and public health.
I don't want to come off as if I believe myself to be an authority on this in any way, so if you can point to anything to show my fears to be unfounded hysteria, I'd welcome it.
Ok Raoul
He won't , and if by some miracle he does, literally none of his policies will ever see the light of day. The same unicorn fantasists who supported Ron Paul the past few cycles seem to now have taken to Sanders this cycle. They will learn the hard way.
You very well may be correct, however Sanders has connected with the people in a way that Ron Paul could never do.
His message has real resonance. Looking forward to the debate tonight!
Doubling and tripling down on this so much... If he makes it to the White House, you'll be wanting a tagline calling you politically blinkered
Doubling and tripling down on this so much... If he makes it to the White House, you'll be wanting a tagline calling you politically blinkered
You can literally take every policy he has proposed and rationally assume they will never see the light of day. The GOP Congress will never send such legislation to him for consideration, which would leave no other route to passing things like "Wall Street reform", "Medicare for all", free University for all etc
The GOP Congress won't be much help, no. Come on, this has been said time and time again by me, others in this thread, and Sanders himself since the very outset of his campaign; the change he talks about is predicated on a popular movement shaking up Congress, and other down ticket seats.
What I'm more perplexed by is your utter repeated insistence that he has no chance getting past Hillary, and that he'd be sure to fail in the general should he somehow do that. You are backing the right horse in terms of history and the polling done so far, but Hillary is starting to look as shaky as in '08, Sanders' trend is positive, and Sanders and Trump's popularity are indicating that we may be seeing a different election than usual.
All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be so damn sure if I were you. I'd leave some room for doubt.
Well said. I'm really bored of cynics saying you can't fix things. Well feck off then if you can't be bothered.
I just don't think he can win a general election, much less beat Hillary. The primary roadmap ahead contains mostly states where she is currently massacring him in the polls. The only chance for his ideas will be if Hillary moves a bit closer to his positions due to his popularity or takes on Elizabeth Warren to get the Sanders progressive wing on board for the gen.
I see Robotio has rebooted his message quite well.
I'm sure we will see the yellow liquid coming down to the moderators when uncle Trump looks at him.
I'm sure we will see the yellow liquid coming down to the moderators when uncle Trump looks at him.
how can she take on Warren abord if she is not the nominee yet? or are you talking of an endorsement? will never happen imo.
Whats the situation supposed to be re the democrats in Nevada ?
Cannot find any real poll from this year even.
Cannot find any real poll from this year even.
Nope, last one was from the 27th December (Hillary up by 23). I'd say it's an unlikely state for him to do well in based on what we know so far (high number of minorities living there, and a closed caucus so you have to be a Democrat to get involved). But who knows, he might improve a lot with those groups before then. Nevada is a state he needs to be winning.
See, that paragraph doesn't irk me as much as talk about Hillary being a dead cert, the defacto winner, only two primaries deep.
Anyway, we'll see. Like I said earlier, there's been no polling in NV and SC since December, let alone since the past two primaries where Bernie's looked more viable than most would expect (yes, despite the whiteness of both states, and the adjacency of his home state to NH). If that happens to have sparked his momentum further, perhaps he's poised to seize NV too. Hillary's downplaying expectations there, and Bernie has just raised more money in 24 hrs than Hillary had managed in this campaign (and that's with the likes of Soris writing a check for 6 mill), and he is the most googled candidate in both primaries.
Anyway, I'll stop harping and end on this note: I have no clue what's going to happen. I feel hopeful, but am braced to find that that cynics are in fact just realists.
Nevada is a cacus state. very difficult to poll. But it sounds like Hillary was the first there to be organised. Bernie went down there later. The estmate is it will be close.
Hillary definitely has the edge in SC. Bernie is trying to make inroads. Endorsements or not. The key though is delegates. If he does not lose in a blowout, he should be able to move on.
Having said that many young black voters it seems do like his ideas.
Last edited:
Assuming the high likelihood she will be the nominee .
It was always open to the commercial market, so I'm not sure what you mean there. I know this because I've been a Petroleum Engineer for 8 years. Fracking is just a buzzword, it's actually other aspects of the oilfield like production and disposal that pose dangers and need to be cleaned up. But it would take too long to get into all that.
Back on topic, Bernie's stance on this issue is the primary reason I won't vote for him. Changing our leverage in the Middle East due to decreased reliance on the Saudi's is one of the only positive things we have going in geopolitics currently.
Should Hillary be the nominee, she will take on a Latino as a VP imo. Not another woman. And she still will not accept imo.
Warren basically said Hillary should go to jail not that long ago, I very much doubt she'll be high on Hillary's wanted list for the ticket..
yeah. Oil and water...
- Status