I didnt take it way. I meant to imply that your remark was funny, i am still laughing. I can see the way I worded it might make you thing I was upset. No problems here on that matter.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I didnt take it way. I meant to imply that your remark was funny, i am still laughing. I can see the way I worded it might make you thing I was upset. No problems here on that matter.
Not for the guy behind billions in provincial liberal party waste, that's for sure! Ford did a decent job anyway. No more garbage strikes is a real plus for this town.
Squeaky bum time in Nevada. If Clinton doesn't win clearly there, her campaign is in deep shit.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/free-beacon-poll-clinton-and-sanders-tied-in-nevada/
Seems like they're tied in Nevada. Clinton's campaign just tried to downplay expectations there by saying Nevada is, like Iowa, a majority white state. Which is absolute horseshit, as "Nevada’s Hispanic population is about 27 percent. African-Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders make up almost 10 percent each. That is, nearly half of the state’s population is made up of minorities."
https://t.co/xzXnfd5jM4
Seems like the Clinton campaign is really getting worried now.
Seems like they're tied in Nevada. Clinton's campaign just tried to downplay expectations there by saying Nevada is, like Iowa, a majority white state. Which is absolute horseshit, as "Nevada’s Hispanic population is about 27 percent. African-Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders make up almost 10 percent each. That is, nearly half of the state’s population is made up of minorities."
https://t.co/xzXnfd5jM4
Seems like the Clinton campaign is really getting worried now.
I have just seen Sanders' vicious attack on Henry Kissinger.
OMG, Henry Kissinger is one of the brightest brain of the 20th and 21st century. He is one of the most recognized statesmen ever. He did achieve so much, respectable across the aisle and the whole world. His achievements are undisputed and the world was lucky to have such a person in those difficult times. His writings are so eloquent, his books are fantastic and insightful.
Yet people use arguments from super idiotic sources such as a book which started as series of articles in renowned scholarly publication Vanity Fair. It had 12 primary sources ffs.
Let me use words of other US Senator: "Get out of here you low life scum". Sanders that is. He deserves nothing less.
OMG, Henry Kissinger is one of the brightest brain of the 20th and 21st century. He is one of the most recognized statesmen ever. He did achieve so much, respectable across the aisle and the whole world. His achievements are undisputed and the world was lucky to have such a person in those difficult times. His writings are so eloquent, his books are fantastic and insightful.
Yet people use arguments from super idiotic sources such as a book which started as series of articles in renowned scholarly publication Vanity Fair. It had 12 primary sources ffs.
Let me use words of other US Senator: "Get out of here you low life scum". Sanders that is. He deserves nothing less.
He's mostly recognised as a cartoon villain though.
Bernie has been specific about how he pays for his programs. Hillary said his numbers did not make sense and he dismissed her. In fact it is she who has no specifics because she offers nothing. All she is saying she is going to preserve Obama's achievements. The question is are voters happy with his achievements? The answer is no. Neither Republicans nor Democrats. People are still hurting. The only people who have prospered are the super rich. This goes to the heart of money in politics. Bernie has not been too direct about accusing her. But his point about her Super Pacs, which she laughingly said was Obama's was cringeworthy.
On the economic issues, Sanders policies have broad appeal. This is getting support in SC among younger voters including blacks. They have no connection to the Clintons. btw when I say younger voters I mean those in 50s and younger.
To address the main points of your post. Can Bernie beat Hillary. Hillary's 'firewall' is minority voters. He is already closing the gap. His ground game is better both in Nevada and SC. Endorsements mean nothing.
Kissinger can go and feck off.
Not sure what source you need after the tapes released for his and Nixon's role in 1971 slaughter/Genocide in Bangladesh which still leaves scars there. Also laid seeds of mess in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Bangladesh_TOHK.html
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/looking-away-from-genocide
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/nixon-and-kissingers-forgotten-shame.html?_r=0
http://www.indiatoday.com.au/yourstory-bastardindians.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/henry-kissinger-iran_b_8206790.html?section=india
Anyway, Bernie should have made his point clearer that he was attacking Hillary for being a Interventionist hawk indirectly.
Hillary is an opportunist. I can see why she would have taken advice from Kissinger. Both have blood on their hands.
The Bern is strong with me today....
Loved this from Hitchens....doing a bit of trolling from beyond the grave.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vada_democratic_presidential_caucus-5337.html
big sample size. still a Caucus state is hard to poll. But it IS Close.
Strong enough to vote for him? Is he swaying you that much? (I know there is a bloody long way to go, though)
Not a chance. He's rabidly for the one only issue i care about because it directly affects me.
Which one? Big money in politics, financial regulation or social healthcare/education?
Hitchens was a brilliant mind.
As for Hillary and her 'qualifications' for being Secretery of State. She had zero qualifications. Obama cut the deal with her after it was obvious he was going to win, so he could get her and Bill Clinton's support for the general election. So she could run on that for 2016.
Raising the capital gains rate, which by the way Hillary wants to raise as well.
There must be two kissingers then.
Knowing what you know, but looking at if from outside your shoes, if you didn't do what you do and were a fireman, a truck driver or a child care worker instead, what would be your concerns on that idea?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html
Trump looks strong in SC.
Trump looks strong in SC.
Its hard to look at things from a different view other than your own as its you who would have to live with the policy. I don't think Sanders policies would ever see the light of day even if he were elected, but the concern about supporting him is that the US isn't ready for his policies, and as such, him being the nominee would just invite the likes of Trump or Cruz to be the next President.
shhhh....haven't you heard, his achievements are undisputed.
I know a little bit about American politics but is there some site that explains how American politics - and especially these Republican and Democrat primaries - in layman terms? I've tried Wiki but it isn't so great (maybe I'm reading the wrong article).
I'm sure Hitler and Stalin could have given advice too......
I think this is the key thing for Americans. It's easy to listen to Bernie and agree with his main arguments but voters need to think long and hard if they're willing to take on the responsibility of actually voting for him. Not because he can't win, but because he can and what that means for them.
He's not hiding from the fact that getting elected is only half the battle. By voting for him people are signing into an agreement that they will put as much energy as they put into the election, towards pressurizing their senators and congressmen to make his ideas reality. If Americans come out in the numbers required to elect him, but then lose interest and energy once he's in office, they'll have no one to blame but themselves if he doesn't get anything done.
As an outsider looking in, I find it hard to agree with you that the US isn't ready for his policies. They look for all the world like exactly what the US needs, and many would argue are well overdue. I do agree though, that the risk of him being elected upon a wave of well meant indignation, only to be abandoned by a lazy or disinterested public once in office is all too real.
There's two very distinct opinions of Kissinger.
Culturally it isn't. People who support Sanders often overlook how conservative the US is outside most urban centers. There are a lot of people who take to Trump and Cruz style politics.
Exactly the same as Margret Thatcher, two very distinct opinions of her too.
What is it you'd like to know? How the primary process works and how the nominee is chosen?
I agree with you about Hilary's " firewall" being minority voters and I am not surprised the gap between them is narrowing among minorities. Progressives have realised that Sanders is the true progressive and and I expect African Americans will figure out that while she talks the talk on minority issues, she is not Obama when it comes to walking the walk.
I just think he should defend himself against her attacks more strongly. If as you say he does have specifics about his economic plans, when she questions those plans in a debate , he has to provide the specifics. He maybe saying more in the town hall meetings, but we aren't getting the details in the debates. Most people never meet the candidate, they get their infro from the debates or the main stream media's take on the debate. I don't think the details of Sanders plan comes out in either of those cases.
Same goes for Clinton saying he is no different than the Rebulicans for his criticism of Obama. Sanders has to defend that more vigorously. I am not saying he should go negative, but he should at least point out she is not Obama's love child and there are areas where she differs with Obama.
Yeah. I imagine it's similar to the national election? But also how some states are caucuses?? How does it work in these and other states - who actually gets to vote? Sorry I realise this probably isn't the thread for such basic questions
You can feck off, sincerely.
Go to the Indochina and witness the legacy of your idol. Look into the eyes of deformed children still affected by Agent Orange generations later, of women still living who lost all the men in their lives for a war prolonged by that fecker.
And do you know who said that sentence you used in your last paragraph? A certain John 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' McCain. Compare to Sanders, he's the low life scum.
Indeed, I've heard people say that she crippled the UK. Which just made me
. To express how I feel about her, I'll just share that we recently got two cats and I convinced my wife that they should be named Maggie and Winston.I come from a fairly remote and rural area of Ireland where people would be almost as conservative as the portrayal of a stereotypical Republican. I find it hard to imagine that many of those people don't find resonance in much of what Sanders has to say. In particular about big business and money in politics.
The hardest part for me to get my head around, is with this huge animosity towards the idea of a tyrannical or unjust government that we always hear about during the gun argument, how so many republicans seem content to support a regime dictated by corrupt and manipulative big business?
Are people really looking at Trump or Cruz and seeing someone they think cares more about their interests than he does his own. If I know one thing about rural people, it's that they can't stand bullshit - and Bernie is the only candidate left standing with a shred of authenticity about him.
These people are more suspicious of government the further it is from them. They're not usually as suspicious about their County and sometimes State officials, in part because they personally know some of them (if they don't trust them, at least they know where to go knocking to find them). They're suspicious about the Federal government above all, and in Sander's government no doubt the role of the Federal government would increase to new highs.
I do find that modern socialist discourse around the world, and Sanders included does have this contradiction: government is corrupt, but we need more of it. I know he'll insist that its good because his government won't be. Even if he can ensure that, 4 or 8 years later someone else we be in office. Because I agree government is corruptible, I generally look for there to be less of it so that possible corruption's impact. If you want to see what happens to a country when government becomes both immense (to help the poor allegedly) and corrupt, just read on up Brazil in the last year.
My brain isn't working enough for a proper response now, but I'll say this: "government" means many things. The libertarian view that equates spending on F-22s, medicare, and regulations on gas companies all as "government" oversimplifies.
Indeed, I've heard people say that she crippled the UK. Which just made me
Thatcher was brilliant; probably one of the best politicians in the 20th century. Kissinger on the other hand......I´d call it justice if he would be shot in the open street
Depends how you phrase the question. The ethos and culture of much of the US are still driven by individualism and independence where more government is seen as a impinging on that.
I get that and even agree with it to an extent. But the current system is corrupt on a scale that even the vastest government would struggle to match. At least with a corrupt government, there are faces to put to crimes and theoretically be held accountable. But this is unknown faces behind the scenes, rigging the game via the electoral system, to corrupt from a safe haven behind their lobbyists and tv networks.
Lessening governance and regulation doesn't always lessen the impact on the small people either. Especially when the livelihoods or personal finances of those people can be wiped out by mistakes made by the bigger players enjoying the freedoms of such policy.
All my life, I have heard that America is supposed to be this beacon of democratic progress and opportunity. Yet all I see when I look at it is a mess.
If someone like Sanders could come in, even without achieving anything else in 4 years, and manage to fix the broken electoral system, I think history would look back at him as a man who did a great service. Even if he was seen as a failure in the short term.
If him and the electorate managed to muster and maintain enough enthusiasm to force through the rest of his policies, then America could finally call itself that icon of democratic progress we keep hearing about.
- Status