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's interesting, and I don't want to get into a debate about it. But personally I'm as far right as anyone I know when it comes to economic policies.
Going the Sanders route of raising money is impossible for Hillary from the start, let's be clear about it.
She's a battered, scandals ridden politician and public figure, every household in America knows about her. 30 years in national spotlight has done its damage, and even if she's lily white, there's no way to muster the enthusiasm for sustained fundings throughout the primaries and general. Sanders has about 3 millions personal donors now. The GE will cost an approximate 1.5 bn, maybe more, coupled with the primary process and you are asking those 3 millions for 600 dollars a head. It might well be possible for him, but I doubt that every single one of them would be as involved to invest throughout the process.
Sanders, on the other hand, is unknown to the public at large. He starts with a clean slate, his populist ideas resonate with people, and he doesn't need to concern himself with winning the general at the moment, only the primaries. Without much public scrutiny, he has a free hand to promote his ideas and avoid by and large attacks on his records and character, particularly from the GOP. For example, he's demanded cuts on the Pentagon, criticized the armament companies, yet at the same time lobbied for the most expensive fighter plane project to be built in his home state. A pragmatic, rational person can see that he's doing things in the interest of his electorate, and it ought to be commended, but it doesn't hold up well with the high minded rhetorics, does it? Or his gun record, how can he say he represents the interest of the Dem base at large when he's vote against anti-gun bills to protect the interest of his home state?
Another thing is the comparison to Obama, and that's the million dollar question. What gave Obama such an electoral advantage is African Americans. When a third of the country can be consistently counted on in the general, it opens a multitude of paths to victory. Sanders's base at the moment is young, white and liberal, consists of many first time voters, likely one time voters. That's not how you win elections or set up the party for future electoral successes. People from the left like to bitch about Obama not doing enough in office, but if they hadn't been too lazy to go to the ballot box in '10 and '14, maybe, just maybe he would have a lot more leeway to carry out their mandate. It's all fine and dandy now to claim political revolution with large crowds, in a presidential election year, but it doesn't change the fact that the voters Sanders is counting on to make his plan a reality are fickle, easily swayed and likely to be disenchanted.
She's a battered, scandals ridden politician and public figure, every household in America knows about her. 30 years in national spotlight has done its damage, and even if she's lily white, there's no way to muster the enthusiasm for sustained fundings throughout the primaries and general. Sanders has about 3 millions personal donors now. The GE will cost an approximate 1.5 bn, maybe more, coupled with the primary process and you are asking those 3 millions for 600 dollars a head. It might well be possible for him, but I doubt that every single one of them would be as involved to invest throughout the process.
Sanders, on the other hand, is unknown to the public at large. He starts with a clean slate, his populist ideas resonate with people, and he doesn't need to concern himself with winning the general at the moment, only the primaries. Without much public scrutiny, he has a free hand to promote his ideas and avoid by and large attacks on his records and character, particularly from the GOP. For example, he's demanded cuts on the Pentagon, criticized the armament companies, yet at the same time lobbied for the most expensive fighter plane project to be built in his home state. A pragmatic, rational person can see that he's doing things in the interest of his electorate, and it ought to be commended, but it doesn't hold up well with the high minded rhetorics, does it? Or his gun record, how can he say he represents the interest of the Dem base at large when he's vote against anti-gun bills to protect the interest of his home state?
Another thing is the comparison to Obama, and that's the million dollar question. What gave Obama such an electoral advantage is African Americans. When a third of the country can be consistently counted on in the general, it opens a multitude of paths to victory. Sanders's base at the moment is young, white and liberal, consists of many first time voters, likely one time voters. That's not how you win elections or set up the party for future electoral successes. People from the left like to bitch about Obama not doing enough in office, but if they hadn't been too lazy to go to the ballot box in '10 and '14, maybe, just maybe he would have a lot more leeway to carry out their mandate. It's all fine and dandy now to claim political revolution with large crowds, in a presidential election year, but it doesn't change the fact that the voters Sanders is counting on to make his plan a reality are fickle, easily swayed and likely to be disenchanted.
You've been invested for 8 months when he didn't even seem serious contender but wanna leave now when he's close though behind ? Makes little sense.
And yet you have no problems on voting Trump, who you admit that he doesn't believe his policies despite that he shouts the 24/7.
Isn't that a bit contradictory?
Best post on this thread.
I think her platform is evolution not revolution. I think she wants to take the country to the left but more organically. Basically continue to do what Obama's been doing.
The problem is this doesn't exactly sell well with voters especially younger ones.
He is not a politician is he? I'm not even sure he can believe he is winning. There are no 'policies' as such in his crazy rehtoric.
Of course he is. He wouldn't be running for president if he wasn't.
meant a career politician. His entire candidancey is about being anti-establishment.
@InfiniteBoredom
Firstly Sanders has been around for decades. But agree he has not been well known. Nothing wrong with him fighting for his electorate. There is no contradiction. The fighter jets have been aproved. He wants them to be built in his home state. so what? and his gun rights stance is no biggie. He has a poor rating from the NRA.Hillary is a battered candidate because she has been on all sides of issues. She is a calculating untrustworthy candidate. We can agree to disagree if you like.
Obama and the DNC did nothing in 2010 to motivate voters. So the GOP took over. Now we have the T party crazies. The AA vote. But honestly what will she do for them? Minimum wage? Health care? College?
The reason people get disenchanted is after each election and all the promises, they still get shat on.
Firstly Sanders has been around for decades. But agree he has not been well known. Nothing wrong with him fighting for his electorate. There is no contradiction. The fighter jets have been aproved. He wants them to be built in his home state. so what? and his gun rights stance is no biggie. He has a poor rating from the NRA.Hillary is a battered candidate because she has been on all sides of issues. She is a calculating untrustworthy candidate. We can agree to disagree if you like.
Obama and the DNC did nothing in 2010 to motivate voters. So the GOP took over. Now we have the T party crazies. The AA vote. But honestly what will she do for them? Minimum wage? Health care? College?
The reason people get disenchanted is after each election and all the promises, they still get shat on.
Last edited:
There is a contradiction, whether you want to admit it or not. He espouses high minded ideals in his speech, but when it comes to a choice between the people at large and his state, he chose his state. That's why other Dems in Congress resent his current rhetorics. He's been no different to most of them when it comes to prioritizing conflicting interests, but to hear him say it they are all establishment and he's the lone justice ranger.
I've never defended Hillary's trustworthiness or lack thereof. To be honest, I couldn't give a damn if a candidate bang his/her family in private, as long as the policies and platform they espouse are feasible and beneficent. Let's examine her policies then, she proposed a $12/hour minimum wage, as opposed to Sander's $15. I believe this is fair, given the diverse nature of the US. I've worked since I was 18, all the while studying, and while I have a good paying job now, in the early days, I've worked in various small businesses that can't afford the minimum $16.87 in Australia. Contrary to the belief that they are simply mistreating their employees, small businesses face a lot of regulations, fees, are targeted for minor violations with hefty fines and very vulnerable to new competition. A blanket minimum wage that's too high can make them cutting staff or close down altogether, so no one wins.
On healthcare, she wants to protect Obamacare and expand it to give Medicare and Medicaid coverage to the currently uninsured. Now, I do agree with you it's farcical that there are insurance companies that exist to take money from people for their medical treatment, and the price of medicine in the US is a joke. However, whatever Kennedy said about why and why not, the fact of the matter is that the current US House of Representatives and 31/50 states governorship are Republican. In that current climate, whoever the Dem can get elected will start with vastly inferior political capital compare to Obama 8 years ago, and that's assuming they get the Senate back. Do you want to risk a fight for Universal Healthcare that will go nowhere, diminish your party standing and lower your chance at re-election, or do you want to focus on something more short term, but more achievable and tangible to ensure a progressive agenda is on the move, like student loans reform, financial reform, campaign reform, voting right protection etc..? Hillary's first national struggle was her proposed healthcare reform, so I doubt that she doesn't value it.
Now this is just bizarre. There's a pattern of Democratic voters consistently neglecting mid term elections going back all the way to Carter, so for you to pin it on Obama and the DNC is just strange. Fact of the matter is for whatever reason, the Dems just didn't turn out to give their party the clout it needs to carry out the mandate they demand. The reason the people get disenchanted is because they are impatient, emotional creatures. All of us are. Whatever you want to say about Obama, the country he will leave behind next February is a hell of a lot better than the one he inherited from Dubya, and that goes from top to bottom. It stands to reason that if he has actually enjoyed the support from his Congress consistently, he could've gotten a lot more done. It's on the people who didn't bother to take a day out of 365 to perform their civic duty rather than the one having his hands tied in the most toxic gridlock in living memory.
As for the AA, I've already outlined several things above. 90 millions people is not a monolithic block, they have different concerns and priorities. I'd say what they want the most now is a Democratic president who will tackle systemic racial prejudices, protect their voting rights and pass criminal justice system reform, and they are very uncomfortable with the fact that Sanders pin it all on economic inequality, rightly or wrongly.
@InfiniteBoredom. Fair points. but basically you are saying lets 'accept' we cannot get everything we want so lets take small steps. Very poor bargaining starting point. Ask for 100 and get 75 or 50. Ask for 10 and get 5? The other Dems don't like him because he does not play politics as usual. There is no contradiction between his ideals while still serving his state. You are just trying to find contradictions when there are none. Of course you are defending Hillary. That is your choice. So you say $12.00 is a good living wage? Once again if you ask for less, you get even less. The reason businesses strugle and relating it all directly to minimum wage is a poor argument. Businesses will simply pass on costs like they do for all other costs. On health care, education and all the other issues, it comes back to the same issue. Expect less, get less. We are living in a rigged economy and we need to get that sorted. It will not overnight of course. But it needs to get sorted. The problem with someone like Hillary is she has 'history'...very bad history. That is why she is not trusted. Obama did do a lot. He could have done an awful lot more. I am not going to repost all that.
Look simply, for the moderates , Hillary will be a good enough choice. For those on the left, she has too much history to be trusted. Even so she may well win and hopefully surprise us in a good way. As I said, she or anyone else will have to earn my vote.
btw I think I will not debate this endlessly. I believe what I do and have reasons to do so.
The needs of many far far outweighs the needs of the few.
I believe we must keep fighting the good fight and we can only do that if we have honest leaders.
Look simply, for the moderates , Hillary will be a good enough choice. For those on the left, she has too much history to be trusted. Even so she may well win and hopefully surprise us in a good way. As I said, she or anyone else will have to earn my vote.
btw I think I will not debate this endlessly. I believe what I do and have reasons to do so.
The needs of many far far outweighs the needs of the few.
I believe we must keep fighting the good fight and we can only do that if we have honest leaders.
It isn't, nor is 15. In truth, all these incremental wage increases do is help people become more comfortable in poverty as opposed to incentivize them to move up to the middle class and hurt the small businesses that employ a large chunk of the labor force, all the while allowing politicians to get their votes as if a minimal wage increase is the solution.
I agree with that. However, if Sanders is the nominee, Bloombergvwill run as an independent.
Is there any chance if Clinton wind the nomination that Sanders will run as an independent After all, most of his political career has been spent as an independent.
$12 is a fair enough wage to cover all of your basic necessities with 40 hours work week. You won't get a house, have a car or send your kids to college on that wage, but if you expect to do all that while busting tables or washing a car daily, there's something wrong with your expectation in life.
Sanders is not bargaining by proposing the things he does. In the financial industry eyes, as well as the GOP, he's demanding their house and threatening to put them out of business/in prison. Good luck bargaining with that. There's no good in fighting a fight you know you will lose.
Sanders is not bargaining by proposing the things he does. In the financial industry eyes, as well as the GOP, he's demanding their house and threatening to put them out of business/in prison. Good luck bargaining with that. There's no good in fighting a fight you know you will lose.
no way Sanders will run as an independent. I believe his entire candidacy was to bring awarness to how badly rigged our economy is. He must be as suprised as anyone in how well he has done. I am certain he will try and unite the Democrats. But many who voted for him especially young people will not be showing up.
Don't think Trump will run as a independent unless he's screwed badly in a brokered convention or something of the sort. It's just a scare tactic.
Bloomberg might but think it's also a scare tactic to help hillary and add another obstacle to the Sanders can't win national feeling.
There's little to no chance Bernie will though even if he's screwed badly and only loses with super delegates. He's been way too kind to hillary anyway despite DNC and others working for her. Infact, if anything she personally has attacked him more directly than other way round Where he has even strangely defended her on issues.
What do you mean by, "in truth." Where did you get this theory, or do you have links? Just curious, as I have never heard this argument before.
There's plenty of research on the topic - raising the minimum wage by certain increments will only result in businesses raising prices for their products to offset their losses, thereby hurting both business and their minimum wage employees as there would be layoffs in the way of businesses reducing costs or small businesses completely shutting down. It would also not incentivize low wage earners to seek the education and labor skills necessary to break out of low wage jobs as we move into an era where automation is gradually pushing humans out of low skilled work.
So how should we take Ikea´s success?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/ikea-minimum-wage_n_7648804.html
There´s this as well:
http://mic.com/articles/92983/here-...t-increased-minimum-wage-this-year#.EvCm2WkH3
IKEA is not a small business.
Big corps and franchises like Macca, Wal Mart etc... absolutely should pay their share, but a wage hike all across the board negatively affect small businesses, mostly those in retail and hospitality industry.
I'm sure you can cherry pick examples by scampering off to Google - my point is that it's generally regressive for all participants, especially small businesses. It basically incentivizes poor people to remain slightly less poor and smalls businesses to cut costs and lay off workers to offset their losses.
So can you cherry pick some examples how these people are incentivized to remain slightly less poor or an example of these incremental rise in wages hurting small business and laying off workers? I keep hearing these right wing talking points passed off as gospel but really haven´t seen anything concrete. The second link I provided certainly does´t seem like cherry picking. How was this working back in the 50s and 60s when minimum wage was so much higher relatively?
From the department of Labor:
http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."
Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.
Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."
http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster
Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."
Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.
Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."
You laugh but this is already happening. I see it all around me on a daily basis. People denigrating democracy specifically because of Trump.
Trump is the anti-democrat's dream. He's already given a lot of strength to illiberal forces in, for example, China - "Westerners with their democracy can feck off, if democracy means people like that can win, then we don't want any of that."
Whether Americans realize it or not, American world influence and soft power - the power of their ideals - has already been significantly damaged by Trump. Obama must be incredibly frustrated.
He is an old-fashioned leftist. Which means for him all issues are an offshoot of economic issues. Which is why (IMO) he has a more relaxed attitude to guns than most other Dems, and why, even though he has been arrested for civil rights, and was an early fighter for gay rights, his stump speech even when speaking to minorities is, and always has been, on economics.
Good Morning Bernie fans - good news in Mass....your man is tied with Hillary in today's poll and is up by 7 in another.
Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary Emerson Sanders 46, Clinton 46 Tie
Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary Emerson Sanders 46, Clinton 46 Tie
That's good to hear. States like Massachusetts are must-win for Sanders. If he can't win there, then his chances are non-existent.
I live and work in the US. Your location tells me you are in the Bay Area. I lived in San Mateo for a year. Love the Bay.
A Berkeley resident myself for a while. I'd go back in a heartbeat.
bit of humor - though the issue is anything but....
This kid knows....
that's his daughter - she's just disgusted to be associated with him 
Last edited:
wtf
What the feck that's horrible
This kid knows....
that's his daughter - she's just disgusted to be associated with him
Can't a single politician keep their lips to themselves for more than 10 minutes?
That's genuinely distressing, what's wrong with him?
Cruz is such a creep. His poor daughter.
- Status