My favourite ad of the election so far. More than any other evidence, it means he could win.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Forget principles, I know centrists hate the concept.
Even pragmatically it's a shit move.
I can guarantee a loss for the Dems if the superdelegates win it for her.
My favourite ad of the election so far. More than any other evidence, it means he could win.
Based only on value, it shouldn't be even a choice. Sanders has a plan, Clinton is just a careerist who wants to become a president.
No need to be a dick. Wasn't referring to this race specifically, as I think they'll switch over to Sanders if it's clear he's winning. But they're a good check and balance if, like with Trump and the GOP, a horrific candidate is leading. What they'd do for them right now.
It kind of hollows out the notion of democracy. Even if Trump gets the nomination, that's the will of the people. If we're supposed to trust anointed people to veto that, then how much is left of the democratic principle?
The UK could do with a Corbyn with actual clout.
Could be a problem for the Democrats if Hilary edges out Sanders for the nomination and the only reason is becuase of the superdelegates. Though it should be said the superdelegates are not locked in and can change their minds if it looks like voters prefer Sanders.
Its all the networks. Even MSNBC the so called 'liberal' network is in the tank for 'not my Super -Pac' Hillary. I'm waiting to see her transcripts btw...do you think we will get them. Sounds like Romney's tax returns.
If the Super delegates overturn the delegate count obtained by the votes, the dems will give the GOP the Whitehouse by default. Do you think Sanders voters will flock to vote for Shillary? In our home our children will not vote for anyone other than Sanders atm. My wife will vote if it ends up it is Hillary. As for me I will wait for teh GE debates between Trump and Hillary before I decide. Trump imo is a lot more honest than Hillary.
Which unfortunately we'll never get, look what happened to Corbyn from the start.
In reality that pretty much explains this whole emails BS she herself caught up with. I'm more interested in this State dept subpeona on the Clinton Foundation.
This is correct. They would not want to destroy the party even if Hillary and Bill would not mind a pyric victory.
They're elected representatives for the most part, including the very people chosen to put their votes across in congress on actual policy issues. If representative democracy is seen as legitimate on the one hand, I'm not sure why it diminishes when the question surrounds selection of another representative. They shouldn't have the whole say, or the majority of it, and they should be strongly influenced by the party at large, but as I said, they can work as a check and balance.
The UK doesn't want Corbyn, clout or no.
...and the Sec of State creds she pulls out so often was only a deal Obama cut with her to unite the party after he beat her soundly. Based on her Iraq 'calculated' vote she should never have got the position. At teh least..lack of judgement. At worst a calculated political vote that cost lives.
RD, this is straight up crazy. You're willing to vote for someone who race-baits, discriminates on the basis of religion, calls people from your neighbouring state rapists and murderers, all because you don't like Hillary? Some of this hate is reaching crazy levels, a few pages ago someone even said something like "even Bill's going down in my estimation", Bill, the guy who literally lied publicly about cheating on his wife in the White House! And he's the one people still like.
I don't get this, Republicans in Congress are elected representatives too.
In this particular case, there is a pretty open election to determine the party's nominee for president. Why do these representatives get a say equal to 10,000 people?
Also, about not being a dick, I think hoping for "one person, 10,000 votes" to continue is a pretty dickish thing.
I've posted about what I think about Trump's antics here before. Trump does not believe in the race baiting garbage he spouts. He knows his base love it. Should he become President, he would not implement any of those nonsense. But I find some of his economic policies are Ok. Health Care. taxes even. Not taking money from Super-Pacs. Shows his head is in the right place.
Hillary has blood on her hands. I stand by saying that. She is a calculative, manupalitive dishonest shrill who has done nothing. Her every act is about what 'she can get'. As for Bill. I don't care one bit about his affairs. That is between him and his wife. Frankly seeing her I don't blame him...
seriously though why moralise about such stuff. Sex? No one's business. But I do hold him partly responsible for 2008 crash. He removed Glas Segal.The Repubs took advantage. He undid any good he did during the Presidency. NAFTA?Hillary is bought and paid for. Complete corrupt and dishonest woman. Trump is just an arrogant bully.
Is that not to be determined by an election?
Fwiw, I'm firmly in this camp:
Sanders >>>> Clinton >>>>Kasich >Bush>Rubio>>>Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cruz
Not that I have a vote!
Sanders >>>> Clinton >>>>Kasich >Bush>Rubio>>>Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cruz
Not that I have a vote!
Trump is a Republican in name only. The party hate him...though they hate the Canadian more.
Don't get your point.
So vote for him in the hope he's just pretending to be a massive racist. Gotcha.I've posted about what I think about Trump's antics here before. Trump does not believe in the race baiting garbage he spouts. He knows his base love it. Should he become President, he would not implement any of those nonsense. But I find some of his economic policies are Ok. Health Care. taxes even. Not taking money from Super-Pacs. Shows his head is in the right place.
Hillary has blood on her hands. I stand by saying that. She is a calculative, manupalitive dishonest shrill who has done nothing. Her every act is about what 'she can get'. As for Bill. I don't care one bit about his affairs. That is between him and his wife. Frankly seeing her I don't blame him...
Hillary is bought and paid for. Complete corrupt and dishonest woman. Trump is just an arrogant bully.
Pretty clear cut at this point, his public popularity is at Gordon Brown levels and we've only had a few months.
RD, that's a worse backing up of someone not being racist than "he has a black friend". I should add that he's also a raging sexist too.
And I suppose it is a forecast, much in the same way as me saying United won't win the league this year is also a forecast.
I'm bored. To Oddschecker...
Corbyn to be next PM 8-1. United to win title this year 100-1.
poor example. He is a businesman. There have been no record of racists rants by him before this.
Throwing money away.
Pfft.
Tell that to the people who backed Leicester at the beginning of the season... *puts a tenner on Alex Salmond at 250-1*
Thank god for another Ferguson from Glasgow. Showing how incompetent, simplistic, openly lying, manipulative B. Sanders is. Hopefully he will be forgotten very soon.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-provided-strategic-vision-in-dangerous-times
Henry Kissinger Provided Strategic Vision in Dangerous Times
Niall Ferguson is the Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution. He is the author of "Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist." He is on Twitter.
February 13, 2016
For Bernie Sanders to call Henry Kissinger “one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country,” is a reminder that, for all his appeal to younger Democrats, Sanders is a throwback to a bygone era.
No secretary of state leaves office as a saint and nearly all strategic choices in the cold war were likely to be between evils.
Sanders’s gratuitous broadside against the 92-year-old statesman was calculated to hurt his rival Hillary Clinton, who has made no secret of her respect for Kissinger (not least in her recent review of his book "World Order").
But its historical content suggests that Sanders has not read anything published on the subject since the late Christopher Hitchens’s polemic, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger," which appeared 15 years ago — or perhaps since William Shawcross’s "Sideshow" (1979), the first book to blame Kissinger for the descent of Cambodia into the catastrophe of Pol Pot’s murderous tyranny.
Such works had a striking tendency to play down the roles of North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China in the maelstrom of violence that engulfed Southeast Asia in the 1970s. Anyone who wants to pass judgment on the foreign secretaries of the cold war needs to bear in mind that the Communist states were ruthless aggressors on multiple occasions. Indeed, at the time Kissinger was appointed national security adviser at the end of 1968, the Soviets had reason to believe the Third World was going their way.
Hillary Clinton’s rejoinder to Sanders was that Kissinger’s “opening up China” and his “ongoing relationships with the leaders of China” had been and are “incredibly useful.” Certainly, any modern history of the Cold War today devotes significant space to the Nixon administration’s engagement with Mao’s regime, beginning with Kissinger’s secret visit to Beijing in 1971. Though fiercely criticized — by conservatives — at the time, it was one of the pivotal moments not just of the Cold War but of modern world history, exploiting the Sino-Soviet split, and laying the foundation for what I have called “Chimerica,” the key economic partnership of modern times.
Clinton could have countered with a longer list of Kissinger’s major achievements: the first strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union; the exclusion of the Soviets from the Middle East in 1973; the first steps toward peace between Israel and Egypt; not to mention the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, ignominious though it ultimately was. Above all, she might have reminded Sanders of the ultimate success of Kissinger’s policy of détente with Moscow, repudiated by Ronald Reagan only to be adopted by him at Reykjavík in 1986. Was Sanders against détente?
In another sally, Sanders sought to associate Kissinger with the “domino theory” during the Vietnam era. “Not everybody remembers that,” he declared. “The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da [sic].” However, the reason not everybody remembers this is because it is fiction. As I have shown, Kissinger had doubts about the Kennedy administration’s policy in Vietnam as early as 1963. He grasped the disastrous nature of the U.S. military effort in the course of a visit there in 1965. He spent much of 1967 trying vainly to initiate peace talks with Hanoi, despite his lack of sympathy with the Johnson administration, some members of which had indeed invoked the domino theory to justify their escalation of U.S. involvement.
No secretary of state leaves office with the record of a saint. As Kissinger himself observed before entering government, nearly all strategic choices in the Cold War were likely to be between evils. The moral challenge was to try to choose the lesser evil. That remains true in our time, which is presumably why Bernie Sanders would not discontinue the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. Nor would he terminate military aid to the Egyptian dictatorship of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
Writing in 1968, Kissinger warned Americans against voting for leaders with “a high capacity to get … elected but no very great conception” of what to do in office. There is more than one of those around this year, unfortunately. They are not my kind of guys.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-provided-strategic-vision-in-dangerous-times
Well I would consider his constant harassment of Obama about his name and origin of birth as racist, but I suppose that's just me.
Obama's mockery of him at the Correspondents' Dinner is still one of my favourite things.
Yup, that was hilarious. Trump didn't know where to look or what to do, you could tell he was seething with rage
Romney pushed the birther theory last election. Do you think he is a racist?
as for Hillary...hmmmm
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/...led-that-trump-might-think-obama-is-a-muslim/
do you think she was a racist?
So, not a single defence of any of the charges made? Alright then.
It's good that people don't contest Cambodia or Laos, which the airforce used as target practice. It's good that people accept his actions in Bangladesh which aided massacres, pushed India towards the USSR, and resulted in the worst defeat of his ally Pakistan. It's great the people appreciate that he carried out a coup within the Chilean military to carry out a coup in Chile where thousands were disappeared.
It's good that people don't contest this and then call him a hero; it proves that psychopathy has many fans.
It's a tragedy that children get cancer but this man hasn't.
http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-most-inhuman-henry-kissinger-quotes
Maybe you wouldn't support him if "everything that flies and everything that moves" in your country became a bombing target.
Romney pushed it because he saw Trump was getting massive support with it from many Republicans, but Romney certainly didn't push it as much or as vociferously as Trump did. As for the article you linked about Hillary, it clearly says the Clintons campaign asked two of it's employees to resign after spreading rumours that Obama was a Muslim.
That wasn't really the point though was it? It was in reply to you saying there wasn't any prior evidence of Trump being a racist or bigot. There are literally hundreds of examples of Trump being racist, extremely sexist, perverted, bigoted, a bully, or just completely out of order and disrespectful. For instance, the way he mocked the New York Times reporter for being disabled, it's just appalling behaviour.
Channel 4 (in the UK) showed a documentary last month called "The mad world of Donald Trump" I seriously recommend anyone to watch it. It wasn't ground-breaking or Earth shattering and only really covered what many people already knew and what is already out there, but it did show up many of his nasty traits and showed him for the hypocrite he is. The most striking part of the show was how he completely dismissed the veteran vendors on Wall Street and how he tried many times to get them removed because they made the place untidy. So much for loving the Vets. He must have meant the ones who look after animals, or the ones he can't see near his tower.
It showed how he nearly came close to losing everything at least twice, but on each occasion he got out with his personal fortune but his investors lost millions. And it also showed a fair bit about how he duped Scotland over false and extremely exaggerated promises about his golf course, it then also showed how disgustingly he behaved to people who owned properties on or around the land where his course was built. Funnily enough the eminent domain he is so lovingly talking about at the moment came up there as he simply wanted to bulldoze people's houses, and when he heard he couldn't and they refused to sell to him he just built massive walls and sand-dunes around their houses so people couldn't see them when playing on his course.
If you watch him on Celebrity Apprentice, you can clearly see how often he is out of line. He quite often makes extremely awkward and out of order remarks towards the female contestants, and quite often in a very sleazy or unsettling and uncomfortable manner. Like any bully he is always asking for back up before he goes in on someone, and it's always someone who is unpopular in the group, which shows he is afraid to upset the public that are watching or the other contestants. He is always asking for confirmation of what he says too, a sure sign of someone who deep down is extremely insecure, like many bullies, he always needs reassurance. "I'm a great guy, everyone will tell you that" "I'm a great guy aren't I?" "I've done this blah blah blah, haven't I?" it's never straight forward, he constantly tried to get reassurance and it's clear he knows he is talking shite.
You only have to look at his cowardly actions by skipping the recent FOX debate because Megyn Kelly had the audacity to ask him questions about things he himself had said or tweeted. He knew he would get tougher questions than that hence why he skipped it. It just backfired on him, and obviously he didn't like that either. But the way he attacked Megyn afterwards was disgraceful especially as he was so complementary about her in the previous election, again proving how much of a hypocrite he is. He's also a massive hypocrite about American jobs when all his "Trump" shit is manufactured overseas, and again about presidential candidates who skip debates. 8 years ago he was calling Huckabee and others out for missing a debate
Let's not forget you also have the numerous comments about his own daughter, and the recent picture that was released. None of that is acceptable, certainly not for someone running to be President. And let's not forget his ex wife accused him of beating and raping her, and then backtracked and apparently accepted a settlement as long as she retracted the statement and not discuss it again. Then the tweets about females being raped or sexually assaulted in the military blaming "PC idiots" for wanting women in the military in the first place and "what did they expect to happen?". He said Mike Tyson should pay his victim and could do so with the purse of another fight rather than spend time in jail for rape, and he also infamously said "husbands can't rape their spouses"
All that is only just scratching the surface and mainly from memory, there are countless other examples only a google away. The bloke is a fecking idiot, rich, powerful, maybe, but still a fecking idiot and someone who should not even be being considered for President, let alone leading the Republican race.
- Status