Time for another road trip.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Time for another road trip.
Both Trump and Sanders are still not likely to be President, and when Trump misses out, you can bet there will be a massive meltdown. Cruz is still a long shot to be President. Webb was a bust.
The rise of Sanders has been impressive but also a sign of Hillary's weakness. A stronger candidate of the Obama ilk would've sealed the deal by Super Tuesday.
The lobotomized kool aid drinkers bit was spot on. Dogmatic, self-righteous sheep who regurgitate talking points they've heard on social media and offer little in terms of a balanced debate.
Now back to your apex contribution to this thread of labelling Republicans as paedophiles.
Ouch, just tap out @Raoul. Step away from the keyboard, get in your car, and drive until you have seen enough to form a proper opinion.
I think that's your average punter, on the web and elsewhere, don't pretend like that's a Sanders supporter phenomenon.
And come on, Raoul, own up, you've been way off in a number of your firm assertions.
Btw, the balanced debate line is rich coming from someone tossing around slurs. I don't think any characterisations from the other side can rival that one.
Stupid grandstanding twat thinks this is American History X.
Hindsight is great, a lot of those were fair enough viewpoints at the time. Except Jim Webb
And let's be fair, Bernie has had an excellent campaign and STILL isn't going to win the nomination, so that's not really lol-worthy.
We all thought Bush v Clinton was the outcome. Nobody realised just how shit Jeb! would turn out to be.
This was definitely conventional wisdom. Even when things were falling apart most still expected him to turn it around (based on nothing lol)
I believe you are intentionally missing the point.
The accusation was made against the party. This guy was one of their hatchet men.
And if we are bleeding our hearts for him, how about the millions who have been denied proper health care him and his party.
Balanced debate as in, not choosing sides and trying to be a bit impartial and analytical, as opposed to being hysterical partisans with zero ability to rationally consider the opposing side, or being so rampantly delusional that they equate Republicans with Paedophiles or make reference to how people on the left are self-righteous and those on the right are somehow evil. That's the kind of nonsense that needs to be pushed back on.
No I got the point, the party should not be part of the discussion. Its the sick individual with a psychiatric disorder that is the problem, not his political affiliation.
self rightious?
woooooh
woooooh
now you are slicing and dicing to win a debate.
I gain no pleasure from what has happened to this man.
Oh please, labelling Republicans as pedophiles??? My point was it couldn´t have come as a surprise to anyone that in regard to the recent outrageous scandals of both Denny Hastert and Mark Foley, two very high up politicians, both were "family values" staunch Republicans. This Grand Old Party should be ashamed that a predatory pedophile rose to the ranks of their longest serving Speaker of the house in its history, second in line to the presidency. That´s my point. Keep that in mind. Red lights should´ve gone off when it was discovered that Hastert knew about Foley and actively covered it up and brushed it under the carpet.
And you yourself have been quite dogmatic and self righteous in dissing Bernie and his supporters, not to mention the constant repetition of right wing talking points as holy scripture without seeming to take in account the existing conflicting opinions on those matters.
We're lucky to have Raoul to tell us all how to behave properly in this thread.
The policies of Republicans, and to some extent the Democrats, could certainly be labelled as evil, but I don't see much talk on here about conservatives and Republicans in general being that, if any. And I don't see you upset about Ubik or IB parroting MSM talking points that clearly don't try to be impartial and analytical in any fair-minded way.
And I've not been keeping up too much since last night, but RD had a go at some Republican who could have the charge of paedophilia levelled at him, and all of a sudden that's a brush you want to tar the whole Bernie side of the debate with? Check yourself... You're not exactly on the higher ground, here.
right..lets all cool off a bit here.
I dont take anything back btw
I dont take anything back btw
Yup, same with Rubio, and Trump falling back. GOP has been completely unpredictable from day one. 2012 seemed crazy at the time with Cain, Santorum and Gingrich, but the predicted candidate still won pretty easily in the end.
I agree with what you're saying regarding demonization of one side or the other, it will hinder later efforts to make policy in a unified manner. Do you think calling one group of supporters lobotomised kool aid drinkers is appropriate in that case?
Logic and rationality are also paramount, of course! I think one thing you fail to understand is that different sets of people are working from different premises and towards different goals so a disagreement regarding viability and other aspects of a candidate are bound to happen. That doesn't make it okay to denigrate those supporters or their opinions as you have done on multiple occasions.
right..lets all cool off a bit here.
I dont take anything back btw
I'm just getting warmed up....
I don't have a dog in the fight. I prefer a Democrat over any Republican obviously, but I'm not in the tank with either Clinton or Sanders campaign. I've praised and criticized both, because both are deeply flawed.
So where does this lobotomised, cool aid drinker brush strokes of Sanders supporters fit in?
From the 107 billion of dollars how much profit?
Indeed.
I take @Raoul 's point that that's Trump's shtick, and that it resonates with a certain type of person, so its good for Trump and his base. And obviously there's a reasonable debate to be had about numbers/infiltration/security/long-term integration etc. I don't expect everyone to agree with me there.
But if you take the position that the vast majority of the refugees are 1) genuinely refugees and 2) genuinely fleeing desperate conditions - both of which are implicitly accepted by the cartoon - then to be so casually flippant about their fate takes a special kind of cnut.
And even if Bernie wasn't invited by the Pope himself, that is still one more invitation to the Vatican than any other candidate. He is obviously God's chosen candidate! Bite you snarky motherfeckers
Amen
You've made it quite clear that Sanders' flaws are total deal-breakers for you, and at any rate you're responding to a point I never made. I'm taking issue with how you're characterising one set of supporters, and how you give a pass for similar faults on the other side.
Anyway, you might just be getting warmed up, but I've said my piece.
First time I've noticed the left using the term "mainstream media" as a denigration, only seen it before by the right. Has this always been a thing or is it new?
It's fundamentally grounded in the belief that the things Bernie is promising will be realized if he becomes President, when in reality, most if not all will never happen. Then, constantly reinforcing the idea that they will indeed happen and that it will be facilitated by Republicans cooperating with Bernie for fear of being voted out of office. That's not realistic.
Won't happen -
- Breaking up the big banks
- Free University
- Single Payer health care
- Special Tax on Speculation
- "Reforming Wall St"
- Redistributing Wealth through Taxation
Even if you think all of the above are good ideas, you still have to have a plausible path towards implementing them and unless you think Congress will go full on progressive this cycle (0.1 percent of that) then it's all pie in the sky.
On the other hand, there are a group of things that could happen if Bernie is President, but most of them would also happen if Hillary is elected:
Will probably happen:
- Climate change reform
- Infrastructure investment
- Job creation (related to infrastructure investment)
- Gun control
- Criminal Justice Reform
There are probably more.
When you weigh the cost benefit of both, its seems that the things that are actually implementable don't require Sanders to become President.
It's nothing new. Especially in the US it is clear that the MSM is a large part of the framing of discourse. When they cater to views that are held by establishment politicians, and fail to mention the legitimacy of views held further to the left, they effectively make people who go beyond that frame seem like fringe lunatics.
I don't think you can find a single Sanders supporter in here who thinks that there will be instant wholesale changes if he makes it into office. As for your points about probable changes, I have no faith in any other candidate pushing them through. At any rate, he needs only be successful in sorting out campaign finance reform and overturning Citizens United for him to have helped out US democracy tremendously.
It's a pretty common sentiment among Sanders supporters in my experience although it isn't discussed nearly as much.
I have mentioned that multiple times, not sure how it is continuously over looked.
They aren't all deal breakers because they are bad ideas, they are deal breakers because he doesn't have a chance of implementing them, which when juxtaposed against his lack of foreign policy experience, don't make for a particularly compelling reason to vote for him. That said, I have to vote next month and I'm still undecided.
Citizens United is a Supreme Court issue, which will be overturned once Scalia's replacement begins work, irrespective of whether Hillary or Sanders are President. It would be great if Hillary would not use money gained by way of Citizens United and just stick to small donations from individuals, but she's not by any stretch a populist in the way Obama and Sanders were, and would probably run into funding issues if she did.
The pope is comunist anyway
Exactly. Amen. I think we´re only lobotomised cool aid drinkers in one man´s mind (and many tea baggers), who´s clearly given it a balanced, non dogmatic, thoughtful, non self righteous approach to discussion.
- Status