Yes, you are playing the "you´re not an American" card as an arguement as a way to bolster your opinions and to criticise and belittle other posters who you disagree with. You have been totally wrong on fundamental issues in this presidential race, so maybe you should focus on that instead of playing the "you´re-not-a-real-American card. I don´t think an immigrant should play that card.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Yes, you are playing the "you´re not an American" card as an arguement as a way to bolster your opinions and to criticise and belittle other posters who you disagree with. You have been totally wrong on fundamental issues in this presidential race, so maybe you should focus on that instead of playing the "you´re-not-a-real-American card. I don´t think an immigrant should play that card.
Its a legitimate position to take given the fundemental reasons I just listed - If you're not a citizen, don't pay taxes, or aren't affected by domestic policy positions - then why are you so interested in candidate A or B.
It's as bollocks as Mancs moaning here about supporters of other football teams being posters on a Manc board.
Edit: I mean 'real' Mancs.
You can´t separate the domestic and international in a candidate, you are going to get both sides. And plus, everyone has the same right on this board to post on American domestic policy. For whatever reason. People care about politics and love to comment. You pay taxes, you can vote, they can´t. Otherwise it´s fair game. I can totally sympathise with people who don´t want to see Americans having to put up with a Trump presidency, or who sympathise with minorities or the inequality etc etc etc.
I generally agree in that opposition posters have every right to be here, but i don't agree that sport and politics are remotely in the same category for the reasons listed in my other post.
Once again, no one is limiting the right to post or share an opinion. Nor do people like me who think it is weird have any obligation to hold back their thoughts either. Its a two way street.
Yes, it is a two way street, so stop criticising (or as you mask it - thinking it´s weird) that non Americans are concerned and posting their thoughts on domestic American policy. You seem to big yourself up with your "American righteousness" and it´s really offputting, especially considering you yourself are an immigrant.
You obviously need a refresher on how this works. If you say something, I have a right to criticize it. If you don't like what I say, then you can criticize it as well, to which I will reply and we engage in a discussion. - ad infinitum. Is it clear ?
No, what´s clear is that you are criticising (thinking it´s weird, and somehow making your opinion more right) posters because they are not from the US yet feel bright and learned and concerned enough to comment on American domestic policy. I am criticising that opinion . . . and like you say, I have a right to. It´s obvious you are bothering other posters with that stance, and have in the past when you pull that card out.
You are the champion on here that America is the greatest country on earth, which as I see it, is a very strong comment on every other country, many of which you no nothing about. I find that really weird.
@Raoul
I agree with what @ravi2 said - a few hundred votes in the US affects the world (Al gore 2000), possibly for centuries, but there's no "right" answer to your question. People have the right to opinions, this is a place to air them. End of matter. We are anonymous nobodies behind insane usernames on a football forum, not representatives of our nations.
I agree with what @ravi2 said - a few hundred votes in the US affects the world (Al gore 2000), possibly for centuries, but there's no "right" answer to your question. People have the right to opinions, this is a place to air them. End of matter. We are anonymous nobodies behind insane usernames on a football forum, not representatives of our nations.
Look I just laid out the way things are done here - you can take it or leave it.
Fair play. I agree with your sentiment, especially the bit about the 2000 elections.
What am I taking or leaving??? It seems that you don´t and are not taking criticism very well.
I'm in the Westminster thread a lot. Used to post a lot more in policy/issue specific threads like the Scottish Referendum one amongst others. Personally I find the political system of other countries, along with their unique challenges, fascinating, and it's great I can obtain that sort of insight on the same forum I discuss 22 men chasing a ball.
You may have some people invested superficially into the easy going aspects of the campaign (feel the Bern/build a wall) but it's a safe assumption that anyone who's made it this far into this thread is really interested in the election and it's ugly details; enough for their opinions to be worth something.
You're not arguing about a discursive point in this thread - you're arguing about protocol about what can be discussed, which is a mod matter. I'll do the modding, you do the posting.
Can we just get along and back to the issue?
Drumpf has a new moniker for Sanders
Drumpf has a new moniker for Sanders
I´m not arguing about protocol. I´m criticising your "American" opinion and argument, and so are others.
Yeah I can see that. I don't venture into threads like Westminster, Aussie politics etc, as I really don't have a dog in the fight and would feel weird getting into lengthy debates about how other people's domestic politics are conducted.
Can we just get along and back to the issue?
Drumpf has a new moniker for Sanders
I think Trump is overplaying his hand on branding his opponents...although sadly, I am starting to call her crooked Hillary in my head so it must be working.
Basically you're wumming.
Can we just get along and back to the issue?
Drumpf has a new moniker for Sanders
I wonder if this will become a recurring feature of US politics. Then to counter the politicians will start to preemtively advance their own, positive nicknames. Soon every US politician will have a nickname, like boxers and fighters.
If you define wumming as two people engaging in a debate then yes.
No, you are derailing the thread and doing your best to wind others up. You're also doing it in the Bill Maher one. Then you pull out your mod card and act the Charlie big-potatoes.
Mind your own business. Or alternatively, try modding a bit to justify actually being one.
It only works when you have an unorthodox, asymmetrical shit stirrer like Trump, who isn't held to conventional standards. Another thing that doesn't seem to work that well any more are political ads, in that Trump seems to be the first candidate who has used social media to dominate narratives that are usually driven by TV ads.
Not debating. More offering my point of view and asking stupid questions.
Divine intervention? Indian Hindus ask gods to help Trump
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hindu-group-india-asks-gods-help-trump-win-094533349.html
Help is on the way....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hindu-group-india-asks-gods-help-trump-win-094533349.html
I can see Clinton (H1b/h2b visas) and Trump (anti-Islam) being the favoured candidates of most Indians.
Yeah I know, was just commenting. What do you mean regarding WV exits?
Yeah good point there. With that being said I wouldn't be surprised if the gap were around 10 based on demographics.
Edit - Maybe 10 is a bit high but we'll see.
Last edited:
Apparently the Hillary campaign has bought a bunch of ad time in for upcoming primary(ies), because of Bernie's recent surge. She was trying hard to pivot to the Gen and keep the narrative on Trump, but Bernie is siphoning away far too much support to where she would look like she's limping into the finish.
Looking more and more like it will be a contested convention. The media were all over that when it was a possibility for the repubs but they haven't said much regarding the possibility in the dem race. Just an observation.
The contested convention comment is assuming the superdelegates end up at about the same proportion between the candidates as the pledged delegates. As of right now Sanders has about 45% pledged and only 7% of superdelegates that have made a commitment, bit of a disparity there but would assume that will change a bit come convention time.
Last edited:
Didn't Obama limp to the finish? Hardly stopped him.
Yeah he won it late, but the dynamics this time are a bit different. Trump is completely capable of making Hillary look like a weak, mildly corrupt loser, which could turn the race on its head. Demographically and in terms of swing states, she should win handily, but nothing is conventional this cycle, so pretty much anything can happen.
I see Warren and Trump have been having a back and forth the last few days.
Wonder if the Dems plan to use her as a means to win over the Sanders voters.
Can't see Hillary picking Warren as a Veep, but perhaps an influential cabinet position could sweeten things.
Wonder if the Dems plan to use her as a means to win over the Sanders voters.
Can't see Hillary picking Warren as a Veep, but perhaps an influential cabinet position could sweeten things.
It'll be contested in name, given that pledged delegates alone can't win it, but she'll be well over the mark when including the already-supportive supers. With the Repubs it was different because there aren't any such supers and it would've all gone down to where previously pledged delegates would've moved on the second ballot and after. With the Dems it'll be sorted after the first ballot, if it gets to that point.
Russia's broke and is time to tell Japan to go back to be a regional power, after all China would shit all over if Japan decides to rebuild their defense for real.
- Status