Now I know this site - http://usuncut.com/ - is borderline Bernie Bro satire, with headlines such as "How Hillary Clinton's Super Tuesday 'Win' Relied on Dismal Voter Turnout", but this article: http://usuncut.com/news/hillary-clinton-groundwater-pollution/ - shows why a lot of rants against Hillary should be treated with heavy doses of skepticism. It essentially alleges that she voted against phasing out a chemical used in some fuels that potentially caused cancer, because her re-election for the Senate was being funded by Exxon at the time, and this therefore shows both how corrupt she is and that she's spinning the Flint tragedy for her own gain. Basically, she's the devil. Turns out she voted against it because the amendment gave the producers of said chemical immunity against having to pay to clean it up, making the State pay instead. To top it off, another voter against the final bill in the House was a certain Bernard Sanders, esq.
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
This debate is mega tame in comparison to the Republican cat fights. Hilary is so full of shit, obviously I would prefer her to any of the Republicans, but she's not going to make much difference, if any at all.
"I will release my transcripts when the Republicans also release them" So what is the difference between her and them.
Her argument basically is "I am less evil. So vote for me".
She'll make plenty of difference (negative) in terms of foreign policy.
certainly more hawkish than Obama.
Wow Hillary actually sounds far more progressive when it comes to gun control, Bernie sounds awful when he starts on that topic. He just keeps repeating himself over and over again.
Yep, much more so. In terms of domestic policy, I'm not overly interested (not being American) -- but she'll be reasonably liberal, albeit to the right of Obama (still far left in relative terms when compared to Republicans).
yeah. but absolutely unrealistic. You cannot ban all guns. This is a rural country. Proper countrols and background checks, medical checks and ban on Assualt weapons will do the job. Heck just copy our Candian neigbours laws. We don't hear of such shootings over there.
Bernie won the first part of the debate, lost the second badly and is doing extremely well in the third. Interesting. Just a shame Hillary is ahead due to her 1000 Super Delegates. What a stupid fecking system.
Don't worry about the Super Delegates. They will vote with the candidate who gets the most delegates given by voters. But she is ahead. Even so the big states that are winner take all are still to come.
She didn't mention a total ban to be fair. And I don't think anyone would ever suggest a complete 100% ban, as you say that is unrealistic. And as you say a ban on assault rifles, decent medical and background checks would be a massive improvement. I said the same to Eboue the other day, I live in a very rural part of the UK and understand the need for rifles for farmers and hunters etc.
She's ahead by 200 pledged delegates (a bigger lead than Obama had at any point in 2008). No superdelegates involved.
No winner takes all states, just some with a minimum threshold.
Bernie is simply saying "you cannot serve two masters". He is right. It is pointless to vote for someone who takes money from these corporations.
Yeah, I know she's ahead due to results, but all the sites I have been to show the super delegates already included in her total.
Yup.
at Bernie saying when you watch the Republican debates you know why we need to invest in mental health problems. Actually she did. What she said effectively will hold all gun manufacturers directly criminally responsible. The key is obviously keeping guns in the hands of people who can be responsible with them.
They're just not important. She has a massive lead without them and they won't be in any way decisive come the convention.
I don't buy that at all. Why should participants put themselves at a disadvantage by not participating when others continue to participate.
I've always felt she was the superior debater but he's had her on the run twice now. On fracking, "no", and, "yes". On donors, she couldn't make a neat pivot ot Citizens United/Obama and away from taking fracking money. Pleasantly surprised by his performance.
Still would be scared of Trump v Sanders (though I'm not too confident with Trump v Clinton either)
Still would be scared of Trump v Sanders (though I'm not too confident with Trump v Clinton either)
It depends on what you want to be a participant of I guess. If you want to participate in the very process that has led us to deregulation and climate change denial, then fair enough. If you want to break that system, it makes sense to be outside.
Bernie hasn't had any problems fundraising, in fact.
Completely agree with Hilary. The next president of the United States should be.............
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
In all likelyhood Hillary will be the nominee. Bernie's initial goal was to move her as far left as possible. I hope through these debates and primaries that will happen. But she needs to embrace policies that will primarily benefit ordinary and poor families.
She simply needs to come clean. I believe no one is beyond redemption.
She simply needs to come clean. I believe no one is beyond redemption.
Raoul. We must simply diagree then. Bernie has proved he does not need Super Pacs.
Sanders performs better than her v Trump in so many polls. He can win.
That doesn't make him any more moral or qualified to be President.
just want to say, the moderators have been very fair and asked tough questions of both.
We actually learned about issues. At least I certainly learned.
Well done.
We actually learned about issues. At least I certainly learned.
Well done.
He does not need super PACs now. A general election campaign this cycle will cost about 1.5 billion and it could be even more expensive with a self-avowed socialist at the top of the ticket due to the sheer amount of attack ads coming his way. Try raising that money with only grassroots donors.
I kind of think that's only because the GOP don't fear him. If Trump starts attacking him and Bernie sticks to his guns and doesn't get dirty against any of the repubs he won't stand a chance. I would love Bernie ideas in the white house but they just aren't realistic, in my opinion, right now. I would love it for a tenth of his policies to even be looked at by whoever is in the white house.
It certainly does make him more moral and more qualified. He is guranteed to serve the voters not those who pay him top dollar. "you cannot serve two masters" You must love one and hate the other.
you are presuming.
Obama's reelection in 2012 cost 1.2 billion, with minimal spend on the primaries. Whether you like it or not, it's the current situation any nominee will have to contend with.
Not at all. He won't be serving anyone but himself and those who agree with his world view. He is basically in search of power like every other candidate.
No. He is in search of power for ordinary people. His world view is nothing new. It is simply being fair to all irrespective of who you are. The richest country on earth should not see any of its citizens living in poverty or near poverty.
A country or community is judged by how we treat the least of us. We are all the same. We are all connected. He is not saying anything profound. Its fundemental and it is common sense.
Let's assume that is true, and he has no morals. Let's also assume that his main topic is campaign finance. It makes sense for him to disavow corporate money because it makes him credible on that issue, especially vs Trump.
It's an important discussion to be had but Sanders isn't capable of advancing it due to his politics and the certainty that there would be complete gridlock in Washington if he ever came to power. This makes his entire campaign rather pointless. Change will come organically and over a period of time as social norms change, not by way of Sanders attempting to force it on a country that is still mulling which direction to go in.
Exactly, so how will Drumpf deal with that? He surely wont put that much of his own money up, and many say he could actually afford to anyway, but that's beside the point really.
what guff, change comes about through leadership not society just evolving by itself.
Christie already said he will raise money the traditional way once he becomes the nominee. In the SEC filings when he entered the race, Drumpf had only $400 million in liquid assets. Even more telling, he loaned the majority of the money he spent so far to his campaign, which means he can reimburse himself down the road with money raised elsewhere.
You have to fight fire with fire. There's scant comfort in a moral victory, but actual defeat.
Thanks, I knew the second part of your reply but didn't know the first, or that Christie had said that.
- Status