155 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

Well the merry go around will eventually crash into Trump going solo-slim, atleast thats my prediction.

 

 

J'espere.

 
J'espère
 
 
darn it, I am correct french

[Duderonomy]

Pretty sure that everyone who is going to support Trump already has supported Trump. He continues to alienate portions of the Republican base that isn't a white male through his mockery of women (as if looks had anything to do with leading the country) and Latinos. As the other candidates drop off, one (Carson most likely) will get that support. He's an outsider, but the question is who ends up being his minder. Watch his VP nomination closely. That will tell you his real stance on issues.

[Duke Nukem]

Pretty sure that everyone who is going to support Trump already has supported Trump. He continues to alienate portions of the Republican base that isn't a white male through his mockery of women (as if looks had anything to do with leading the country) and Latinos. As the other candidates drop off, one (Carson most likely) will get that support. He's an outsider, but the question is who ends up being his minder. Watch his VP nomination closely. That will tell you his real stance on issues.

Trump makes headlines and already has great name recognition, his rise in the polls is nothing but a drop in the water and will not translate to electoral success.

This article shows why a republican victory in 2016 is unlikely, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/a-hard-look-at-the-big-bl_b_7029602.html.

If we accept that the big blue wall exists, then it is easy to see why nominating Trump would do wonders for the Democratic party, swing states like Florida and Ohio, who are rather moderate, will not vote for an extremist for president.

[Lysistrata]

 

Pretty sure that everyone who is going to support Trump already has supported Trump. He continues to alienate portions of the Republican base that isn't a white male through his mockery of women (as if looks had anything to do with leading the country) and Latinos. As the other candidates drop off, one (Carson most likely) will get that support. He's an outsider, but the question is who ends up being his minder. Watch his VP nomination closely. That will tell you his real stance on issues.

Trump makes headlines and already has great name recognition, his rise in the polls is nothing but a drop in the water and will not translate to electoral success.

This article shows why a republican victory in 2016 is unlikely, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/a-hard-look-at-the-big-bl_b_7029602.html.

If we accept that the big blue wall exists, then it is easy to see why nominating Trump would do wonders for the Democratic party, swing states like Florida and Ohio, who are rather moderate, will not vote for an extremist for president.

 

I will repeat myself... I don't know what is going to happen. We are sailing on uncharted waters. Donald Trump is filling stadiums, and the only other time I have seen that happen was in 2008, when an unqualified junior Senator from Illinois, with lofty reading skills, excited low information voters into believing he could "stop the rise of the oceans and heal the planet"... an incredible barrel of horseshit that only true sheep would follow... right over the cliff. Because of that experience, I will never underestimate the power of popularity ever again.

 

You posted a link to a liberal blogger from the Huffington Post... you should have just gone full propaganda on us and went straight for Media Matters. It was written in April, when Democrats were still believing that Hillary was the second coming of Bill. That dog isn't gonna hunt.

 

Now, I do not deny that the West Coast and the Northeast make things very difficult for Republicans to cobble together enough Electoral Votes to win a general election, but those calculations only consider past trends and generic D vs. R candidates. It does not take in consideration a failed Presidency, extremely flawed and hated candidates, and the fact that one party earning 3 terms is highly improbable.

 

Please run Hillary. She will lose because half the country hates her, and half of the rest don't trust her. Please run Bernie. He's a Socialist and will be massacred, similar to Michael Dukakis, or more like a Wes Craven film. Please run Joe. He has never inspired anyone his entire career, except maybe husbands that just want him to keep his hands off their wives.

[Duke Nukem]

I'm not a Hillary supporter, not by a long shot, but the point of the article remains the same, the Big Blue Wall will be hard to overcome for the Republicans, especially for a candidate so fond of extreme positions and insulting others.

I think you're wrong about Bernie, though. He's a populist who was drawing similar sized crowds before Trump even announced. I look at his policy positions, and I find it hard to make an argument against many of them, though I don't love his position on gun control.

[Lysistrata]

I'm not wrong about Bernie Sanders. He's a Socialist. He can go to Seattle, Berkeley, Woodstock, San Francisco, or any other liberal bastion where entire tribes of Socialists live and yes, they will all come out with their tents, Grateful Dead tie dyes, bongs, and their environmentally friendly port-a-potties and cheer his dreams of free healthcare, free college, and 90% tax brackets... but that's as far as it goes. When he comes to Las Vegas and fills the MGM Grand, then I will worry. Please run Bernie!

[Duderonomy]

Funny thing about that word. The more you use it the less power it has. Eisenhower created the U.S. Interstate System with federal dollars at the start of the Cold War. So I suppose you would say that the Cold War was started between Socialists and Communists?

 

Some things the government just does better, and society is better off if it does it. You can argue that pure capitalism does healthcare better, but a mix is actually more fiscally sound and better for society as a whole. We're headed for a Swiss system, not pure socialism (link below), which I think is one of the better options. EVERYONE gets basic health insurance so you don't have people going bankrupt over medical bills and everyone must pay some sort of premium for it (subsidized for low-income earners) so hospitals still get some money back. Employers and insurance companies can still offer platinum options for non-lethal/handicapped service.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

 

I'm a little more leery about higher education given the current issues with the U.S. system and the luxury education that most colleges sell as investment education. I think the feds should encourage local schools to go to a more vocational-focused system rather than the current academia-focused system we have now. Student loans definitely need to be better policed. What we need is 18-year-olds thinking in terms of the job market, rather than social status or an expensive excuse for unemployment. Sure, a $50,000 degree in literature might make you feel better, but everyone would be better off if you got a $15,000 associates in welding. You'd get more money, be less of a burden, and could save up for a retirement spent writing (which is what most "pro" writers do).

 

I again espouse the current German system, which ensures that people get training to get jobs, not training to faff about for four years. I had a college roommate who wore a shirt that said "Liberal arts-we do less all day than most people do by 8 AM". Yeah, it's that blatant.

[Lysistrata]

I know exactly what you're talking about. One of my daughters earned a degree, and it cost a small fortune. I remember the talk, you know that talk you have with them on their course of study. I was wanting her to pursue a business degree, but no, she had to go with an Anthropology major... now she's working at T-Mobile. So now I am the proud papa of the most highly educated cell phone saleswoman in the country! Go Team!

[onbekende]

wait, the germans are selling phone's in the US? lol

 

Something I forgot the mention before, about Biden. Do you guys actually "see" that fellow from time to time? To an outsider like me, your vice president looks like a rather expensive "I shall wait here until he drops dead" position. This doesn't get helped as Biden to me gives off the air of old-man-with-no-presence.

 

He reminds me of our "governor's", you only see them in the news on 2 occations: disasters where they stroll around in boots and weirdest local festivity imaginable.

[Duderonomy]

wait, the germans are selling phone's in the US? lol

 

Something I forgot the mention before, about Biden. Do you guys actually "see" that fellow from time to time? To an outsider like me, your vice president looks like a rather expensive "I shall wait here until he drops dead" position. This doesn't get helped as Biden to me gives off the air of old-man-with-no-presence.

 

He reminds me of our "governor's", you only see them in the news on 2 occations: disasters where they stroll around in boots and weirdest local festivity imaginable.

It depends on the man. VP's don't have a lot of direct responsibilities, which can lead to a dead end position. Or they can use that extra time to wrangle support for the president. The modern-day role is to serve as a bridge between the President and Congress. Cheney had enough connections with lobbying groups that he was effective at pulling together congressional support. Biden and Al Gore have connections directly to Congress.

 

That's probably why Clinton got so much legislation passed. He was a former governor with executive experience, while Al Gore knew Capitol Hill and who to talk to for things to get done.

 

So any president/vice president dream team should be an executive who can govern with a politician/bureaucrat who can work the wheels of Congress. A president cannot trust the House Leaders for this role over the vice president, because the House Leaders are not beholden to him and have no consequences for being uncooperative. So their interests won't always align with the president.

 

A dirty secret of any office in the executive branch is that an undated resignation letter often is a requirement of the office. So if a vice president goes against the president, that letter gets dated and distributed while the VP goes into "retirement". At the same time, the VP has the ear of the president or he wouldn't be in office. He goes to a lot of the same meetings, and the president has some trust in his opinion. That's a powerful thing.

 

Yes, the office can be a stepping stone and can be a useful apprenticeship for legislators to learn about executive power. But otherwise, they're better off serving and advising the president than pushing their own agenda.

 

I know exactly what you're talking about. One of my daughters earned a degree, and it cost a small fortune. I remember the talk, you know that talk you have with them on their course of study. I was wanting her to pursue a business degree, but no, she had to go with an Anthropology major... now she's working at T-Mobile. So now I am the proud papa of the most highly educated cell phone saleswoman in the country! Go Team!

At the same time, I'm sure you'd like her to receive medical treatment if she was injured, even if she doesn't get paid well, and it'd be better if she paid what she could into the system. True, she made her choice, but society needs phone saleswomen as well as HR reps. Not as badly, of course, or they'd be paid better. However, it's still better for me and any other self-supporting individual to allow the misguided or unlucky basic medical care so we can continue to have people sell us phones (or bus tables or mow lawns).

 

To paraphrase and twist a parable from HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy: a society where public phone sanitizers can't afford to live is destined to die of a plague spread by those phones. Don't underestimate the value of the people at the bottom. It'd be nice if everyone could be a chief at a chief's salary, but let's make sure the Indians can live, too.

[Lysistrata]

Once again Hillary show us all she cannot say anything without lying.

 

When questioned about her sudden flip-flop on Obama's Pacific-Nation trade deal during the Democrat debate... I mean Democrat Clinton Coronation... she said "after looking at it" she decided it was wrong. The White House is scratching their heads, wondering how she was able to "look at it"... when it has not been made public yet.

 

She acknowledged she once called it the "gold standard", but added, "it was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards... my standards for more now, good jobs for Americans".

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/clinton-says-flipped-on-trade-deal-after-seeing-it-but-its-not-public/?intcmp=hpbt1

 

Proving once again... if her mouth is moving... she's lying.

[onbekende]

She was foreighn secretary for 4 years, "her faction" still runs the white house. You think secrets are everywhere don't ya?

[Lysistrata]

She was foreighn secretary for 4 years, "her faction" still runs the white house. You think secrets are everywhere don't ya?

You don't get it do you? She supported this trade deal, called it the "gold standard" when she was Sec. of State and employed by Obama... she now opposes a trade deal when it helps her politically with the far left, and embellishes about her knowledge of a deal she had nothing to do with, and knows nothing about. It's John Kerry's State Department now... not hers, and now she's opposing Obama. If this deal was popular with the far left... she would be in favor of it, just like Keystone. She lies all the time.

 

I don't know if I support this trade deal... because I don't know what it is yet. Obama made some big decision on Afghanistan today, and I don't think it's enough. I don't think we should have a small presence anywhere... it's too dangerous. Go big or go home. I bet Hillary goes against Obama again... but it's all politics.

[Shahenshah]

Bernie is taking her down. All the 'pundits' (guys paid to say whatever shit that suits the agenda of their bosses on that given day) said she did good in debate but grass root indicators suggest otherwise. 

[Lysistrata]

Bernie is taking her down. All the 'pundits' (guys paid to say whatever shit that suits the agenda of their bosses on that given day) said she did good in debate but grass root indicators suggest otherwise. 

You are correct Sir. CNN was caught suppressing their own poll that showed Bernie won that debate with like 75% of the vote. All the lefties were going nuts because their posts on social media were being mass deleted. All the focus groups I saw praised Bernie all the way. The DNC and poodle head Wasserman-Shultz have the fix in for Clinton. It's nuts...

[onbekende]

 

She was foreighn secretary for 4 years, "her faction" still runs the white house. You think secrets are everywhere don't ya?

You don't get it do you? She supported this trade deal, called it the "gold standard" when she was Sec. of State and employed by Obama... she now opposes a trade deal when it helps her politically with the far left, and embellishes about her knowledge of a deal she had nothing to do with, and knows nothing about. It's John Kerry's State Department now... not hers, and now she's opposing Obama. If this deal was popular with the far left... she would be in favor of it, just like Keystone. She lies all the time.

 

pffft, like there never was a politicians who didn't sway with the wind. Bad politicians roll with the punches, the ruling ones blow on the wind.

 

As for that TTIP thing, what it should be, streamlining trade and standards, is being butchered (as always) into streamlining the standards to the lowest shared demoninator. And last I heared you don't like all our standards *cough*VW*cough* , not withstanding we don't like all of yours either >_>

[Lysistrata]

Betsy... the point is Hillary Clinton lied in order to make people believe she knows more about the trade deal than she possibly can. Even the White House has acknowledged this. It has nothing to do with VW, or anyone liking anyone's standards. It's quite alright for anyone to support someone that has changing political views, it happens all the time, but everyone needs to know.

 

Her views on many issues are complete opposite what they were in 2008 when she ran for President the first time, and it brings focus to her total lack of core strength to be a world leader. If people want to vote for that, that's fine, but they need to understand who she really is. Hillary Clinton has been buried in scandal since she was a Saul Alinsky sock-puppet in the 60's. Hillary, and her husband, have bullied, blackmailed, bribed, destroyed evidence, careers, and murdered their way through life, for decades. Only Obama's story, and abuse of power, can even compare. There needs to be an atonement.

[onbekende]

HA, so in one side we have the evil manipulative democrats, on the other the religious zealots of republicans. What is that saying, choose between pest or cholera.

 

as I said before, the US isn't a democracy, so deal with it

[Lysistrata]

HA, so in one side we have the evil manipulative democrats, on the other the religious zealots of republicans. What is that saying, choose between pest or cholera.

 

as I said before, the US isn't a democracy, so deal with it

Not all Democrats are Socialists, and not all Republicans are Bible thumpers. I believe the Jews vote 70% Democrat. Your stereotypes, and dividing people into categories, is the one thing that angers me the most about political commentary. I despise labeling people and assuming they think or believe one way because of some personal trait.

 

You are correct... the US is not a Democracy... it's a Republic, so deal with it.

[onbekende]

labeling is fine up until said "label" is used to differentiate said group from the general public, both in positive or negative light. Anyone highlighting there "own label" while acting with ill-will towards another "label" has lost what seems to have been sidetracked from humanity in general. EMPATHY.

 

Sure not all democrats are socialists, heck I doubt even a portion of the US that could be marked as "statistically relevant" could be marked as being socialist. I wouldn't even call any nation on this earth a socialist nation. They could have varying degree's of "social policy" however. Same way around with religious zealotery, sure not all republicans are that.

 

Why the Jews got pulled into this I don't know, why I would need to be surprised by the "70% are democrat voters" even more, good for them, they may vote for what they like to vote for. Just remember that not every voice should be acted upon, but it should be allowed to be heared before casting decisions.

 

Stereotyping is a basic biological trait (wonder if they ever tried seeing if apes or other close-intelligence-to-humans have it, probably do up till some point) which is the basis of "labels". For your information, calling someone a socialist is a label, it just depends on the nature of your demeanor while making such a label if it is meant as a benign or rather ill-meant statement.

 

Not many people "label" people's personal opinions solely on "raw physical data" (aka ethnicity, skincolor, gender, #children, ...), but they do label when confronted with said person, its a survival tactic. You scope out what you think you can expect of your new "friend" in a split second, on which you then act for the proceeding time in which you can refine and fine-tune the "label" placed previously. Such an act is ever-evolving, largely dependant on the person itself but also on outside input (if suddenly everyone starts hating blond people, you'd be surprised how quick you wuld jump the bandwagon).

 

 

it aint a "democratic" country, better?

 

 

also, many words were typed, why did you make me do this?

 

 

edit: this isn't rascism to me tbh, but it sure is being about "labels" and "stereotyping", no? Also this is a tweet I just found, wasn't even looking for it.