2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm clearly talking about the exchanges of money and favours. But I'm looking at it from a swedish ''socialist'' perspective. What alternatives do people in a country with a two party system have when the left alternative let an investment bank dictate terms?
 
Grinner said:
People just lose their shit when they hear "Goldman Sachs"

So HRC is a pragmatist...great!
Click to expand...
What she did she do that was pragmatic ? So the countless taking of money from Goldman Sachs for decades was actually just a plot, so that in 2008 she could force to have employ more women. It seems the push for women CEO's was a great PR move for both Hilary and Goldman Sachs at a time when both needed it. Which I guess is sort of pragmatic, in a saving your own skin sort of way. But it's also worth getting annoyed about.

What's concerning about the piece is that it seem Hilary Clinton thinks the best possible way to improve the lives of Americans is to get paid by the very rich(That's works out nicely for her)and then beg them to throw something to the poor.

Although she is a Clinton after all, so that most likely counts as pragmatism.
 
Last edited:
unchanged_lineup said:
Blaming you for a jinx if it all goes wrong. All on you.

Edit: Actually, would love if someone could threadmark that post so that we can all come back to see who was responsible for nuclear armageddon....
Click to expand...

Yeah, because there will still be internet and somebody left to use it, right?
 
unchanged_lineup said:
It's going to be an ugly debate, isn't it? I think I might be better getting loads of lovely sleep and catching the highlights in the morning :D
Click to expand...

I am not sure that it gets ugly. I wouldn´t be surprised if Hillary tries to play it save and just takes the gamble that her slight lead is enough to win in it. I am curious how Trump is going to behave. He really should try to act like a normal human being, yet he has such a petty and erratic character that he might struggle to keep his shit together.
 
PedroMendez said:
I am not sure that it gets ugly. I wouldn´t be surprised if Hillary tries to play it save and just takes the gamble that her slight lead is enough to win in it. I am curious how Trump is going to behave. He really should try to act like a normal human being, yet he has such a petty and erratic character that he might struggle to keep his shit together.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with Don muttering something at some stage, not realising the mic is picking it up. Fingers crossed.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
In those 8 minutes after The Don hits the launch button, I know what I'll be wasting precious run-to-shelter time checking.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like th....actually screw that. I think it is completely feasible he orders a big red button installed in the middle of his desk in the oval, on his first day .
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Edit: Actually, would love if someone could threadmark that post so that we can all come back to see who was responsible for nuclear armageddon....
Click to expand...

Feck it! I like JAF, he's a good guy, not fair to blame the end of the world on him. Can't we get a mod to change it so it looks like Americano or barros posted it instead? White text lol!
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Blaming you for a jinx if it all goes wrong. All on you.

Edit: Actually, would love if someone could threadmark that post so that we can all come back to see who was responsible for nuclear armageddon....
Click to expand...
That will be Hillary when in a post menopausal meltdown she decides to nuke some shitty island nation.
 
IF Hillary loses she goes down in history as one of the worst campaigners ever. In 2008 she was the favorite going in and given the countries mood whoever the Dem nominee was, they were almost a shoe-in to win. Then in 2016 she gets the present of running against Drumpf. Her campaign Vs Obama was a mess. If she fecks up vs Trump well she can only be judged accordingly.
 
JustAFan said:
IF Hillary loses she goes down in history as one of the worst campaigners ever. In 2008 she was the favorite going in and given the countries mood whoever the Dem nominee was, they were almost a shoe-in to win. Then in 2016 she gets the present of running against Drumpf. Her campaign Vs Obama was a mess. If she fecks up vs Trump well she can only be judged accordingly.
Click to expand...

A big, huge, massive YUP.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Are you kidding? With The Donald's ego, he'll probably be live-streaming on Trump TV as he pushes it...
Click to expand...
I found a picture of him practising to push the button.


Trump-Youre-Fired-300x300.jpg
 
Sweet Square said:
What she did she do that was pragmatic ? So the countless taking of money from Goldman Sachs for decades was actually just a plot, so that in 2008 she could force to have employ more women. It seems the push for women CEO's was a great PR move for both Hilary and Goldman Sachs at a time when both needed it. Which I guess is sort of pragmatic, in a saving your own skin sort of way. But it's also worth getting annoyed about.

What's concerning about the piece is that it seem Hilary Clinton thinks the best possible way to improve the lives of Americans is to get paid by the very rich(That's works out nicely for her)and then beg them to throw something to the poor.

Although she is a Clinton after all, so that most likely counts as pragmatism.
Click to expand...

She understands that capitalism requires institutions like investment banks and that you can use them to your advantage to get things done. Bernie is too rigidly idealistic about Wall Street and would possibly have caused a financial shitstorm. The repubs are obviously too far the other way.

As for her getting paid for speeches. So fecking what? If you can show me that she has done nothing but corrupt things when it comes to Wall street then I'd be concerned. I'd take every cnuts money too and use it to get into power and then make the changes that I wanted to. That's the nature of US politics. If you don't have money then you're getting nowhere.
 
Why Trump should not be President, just in case anyone was unsure....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/o...ould-not-be-president.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I particularly like this bit....

Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.

:lol: Ffs.
 
Grinner said:
If you don't play then they just fund your rivals. Moaning at individual pols instead of the system is naive and foolish.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last line...and which is why I disagree with your characterisation of Bernie. He was, in a limited way, running against the system. That was made explicit by his donations and no Super PACs. Also with the line about him being too hard on banks: he was proposing a return to older methods of regulation not something untried, and he hinted that it was an initial bargaining position not his final stand (he criticised her for going in having already made a compromise with the GOP instead of demanding they meet halfway). There was a nice quote from a Republican in the 90s about Clinton's stands on welfare and crime outflanking them: they realised he would go as far right as they went, and they had a deal on social security privatisation which was scuttled only by Lewinsky becoming public.
 
berbatrick said:
I agree with the last line...and which is why I disagree with your characterisation of Bernie. He was, in a limited way, running against the system. That was made explicit by his donations and no Super PACs. Also with the line about him being too hard on banks: he was proposing a return to older methods of regulation not something untried, and he hinted that it was an initial bargaining position not his final stand (he criticised her for going in having already made a compromise with the GOP instead of demanding they meet halfway). There was a nice quote from a Republican in the 90s about Clinton's stands on welfare and crime outflanking them: they realised he would go as far right as they went, and they had a deal on social security privatisation which was scuttled only by Lewinsky becoming public.
Click to expand...


I would have voted Bernie but he's still too much. Systemic change has to be incremental when you're changing how the democracy functions. he was too much too soon.
 
Grinner said:
She understands that capitalism requires institutions like investment banks and that you can use them to your advantage to get things done. Bernie is too rigidly idealistic about Wall Street and would possibly have caused a financial shitstorm. The repubs are obviously too far the other way.

As for her getting paid for speeches. So fecking what? If you can show me that she has done nothing but corrupt things when it comes to Wall street then I'd be concerned. I'd take every cnuts money too and use it to get into power and then make the changes that I wanted to. That's the nature of US politics. If you don't have money then you're getting nowhere.
Click to expand...
But get what done ?

You have implied that if Wall Street are in anyway pushed that they will actively cause a financial shitstorm, essentially holding the country and it's people to ransom. So with that in mind, how can we believe Hilary used them to her advantage. The 10,000 jobs seemed nothing more than good PR for both Hilary and Goldman Sachs when they both needed it(If you've both partly been responsible for the biggest crash since the great depression, your going to need so good PR).
 
Who The Don will launch against?

Which hypothetical war could be enough to devastate the whole Earth? USA v Russia,....USA v China? Good to see that Trump seems chummy with Putin, so he might not aim there. :cool:
 
Its beginning to look pretty good for Trump - getting closer in Colorado and PA which is Hillary's wall of protection. If that is breached she will be in trouble - as in, she will absolutely have to win Florida to compensate for the lost 29 EVs. I'll wait and see what happens in the polls 4-5 days after tonight's debate, but as it stands you just get the impression that a decent debate performance and the dam could break on some of the states Hillary is barely holding on to.
 
Raoul said:
Its beginning to look pretty good for Trump - getting closer in Colorado and PA which is Hillary's wall of protection. If that is breached she will be in trouble - as in, she will absolutely have to win Florida to compensate for the lost 29 EVs. I'll wait and see what happens in the polls 4-5 days after tonight's debate, but as it stands you just get the impression that a decent debate performance and the dam could break on some of the states Hillary is barely holding on to.
Click to expand...

:eek: What am I reading here? Did someone hack your account or is there some new data/poll that I am not aware off?
 
PedroMendez said:
:eek: What am I reading here? Did someone hack your account or is there some new data/poll that I am not aware off?
Click to expand...

There's new data out every day. Trump is surging in CO and PA at the moment which are two of her most important states to hold serve in. She may still win those two states but FiveThrityEight's now cast has Trump at 55% probability to win right now. A decent debate performance could break the dam and send things decisively into Trump's direction.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.