|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 17:00:41 GMT
Hilary Clinton is a self-serving liar. Donald Trump is a self serving liar, AND a racist narcissistic psychopathic demagogue. I prefer the former. Her actions are rational and predictable. The latter is so unpredictable, we'll all have sleepless nights if he wins. I prefer someone who is neither. Jill Stein for President. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 17:02:08 GMT
If the Democrats were to take part in an election in Europe as they are, they'd be considered centre-right, and the Republicans far right. If one of our European left/centre-left parties were to compete in an election in the US, they'd be decried as socialist or even communist. That is true. Bernie Sanders is an exception though. He is on the left, even by our standards. He only joined the Democrats officially last year, having been a socialist independent for years previously. Not really. Almost all the things he is proposing are policies that have been in effect in Western European countries for years. He'd be a centrist here. |
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 24, 2016 17:29:39 GMT
Hilary really needs to get that speech voice sorted out. It's beyond ugly and offputting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 18:38:02 GMT
Hilary really needs to get that speech voice sorted out. It's beyond ugly and offputting. More importantly she needs to get the contents of those speeches sorted out |
|
5,120 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 24, 2016 19:27:21 GMT
More importantly she needs a complete face lift to go with the voice and the content of the speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 21:21:25 GMT
So Debbie Wasserman Schultz just resigned as chair of the DNC after emails leaked by WikiLeaks showed that she and the DNC hadn't been impartial and have tried to sabotage Sanders' campaign, in which they succeeded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 21:51:30 GMT
His campaign was already over by that point; he was never a Democrat anyway, so it's hardly surprising. The story here is that Russia is interfering with the election though, don't lose sight of that.
People who voted for Nader in 2000 still haven't been forgiven for letting Bush win then, especially given how he managed to screw things up after that (with Blair in tow). Just imagine what will be thrown at those who let in a President Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 23:02:14 GMT
His campaign was already over by that point; he was never a Democrat anyway, so it's hardly surprising. The story here is that Russia is interfering with the election though, don't lose sight of that. People who voted for Nader in 2000 still haven't been forgiven for letting Bush win then, especially given how he managed to screw things up after that (with Blair in tow). Just imagine what will be thrown at those who let in a President Trump. His campaign wasn't over until 7 June, when there were still 676 pledged delegates to be distributed with Clinton having a lead of I think only roughly 200. However, the media suddenly called the race for Clinton the night before, based on the undemocratic super delegates, who actually don't vote until next week! And no one has any right to judge people for voting Nader. People should vote FOR something they want, not AGAINST something they don't want. The democrats lost because they had a sh*tty candidate, because they couldn't attract enough voters and because of election fraud. Votes have to be earned. If Clinton loses, it's because people don't like her and don't trust her, and because she hasn't done enough to earn people's votes. Are you really going to tell people they can't vote for a third party candidate they like, especially now that it's been proven that the system was rigged from the start. If Trump wins, the only people who are to blame are the corrupt Clinton campaign and the corrupt DNC! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 23:38:07 GMT
The greatest danger to liberal democracy is myopic puritanism from the left. Without it, populist demagoguery does not prosper. Voting is not a responsibility free act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 0:23:16 GMT
The greatest danger to liberal democracy is myopic puritanism from the left. Without it, populist demagoguery does not prosper. Voting is not a responsibility free act. The greatest danger to liberal democracy is scaring people into voting for someone or something they don't like and/or don't agree with. Do you really think it's okay and makes sense to blame people who didn't vote for the person who got elected for the fact that that person got elected? By the way, you can't call it puritanism from the left if neither of the 2 major candidates is even remotely left wing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 2:06:39 GMT
Compromise is not a dirty word, it ensures that the greatest practical good is achieved; people who refuse to do so should shoulder blame.
Clinton is soft left in any case; barely distinguishable from Blair/Brown/Balls/Miliband etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 9:24:18 GMT
Compromise is not a dirty word, it ensures that the greatest practical good is achieved; people who refuse to do so should shoulder blame. Clinton is soft left in any case; barely distinguishable from Blair/Brown/Balls/Miliband etc. The thing is, what Clinton stands for is something many Bernie supporters don't want AT ALL. It's not like they don't quite like it, but can live with it. She has hardly made any compromises. And now she also picked a running mate who is very pro 2 things which Bernie and his supporters hate. Fracking and the TPP. He's the prototype corporatist sellout, just like Clinton. She hasn't made any real compromises in her policy ideas either. She has repeatedly offended Bernie supporters. And now they expect them to just fall in line. Do you think it's logical that if there's a candidate you agree with on 90% of the issues, you vote for someone who you only agree with on 30% of the issues (and who you don't trust either)? And by the way, voters are not to blame for the outcome of an election, the candidates and their respective parties are. Like I said, if you want a vote you have to earn it; If you don't get it, then that's your fault and your fault alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 9:32:20 GMT
More importantly she needs a complete face lift to go with the voice and the content of the speech. Wow, classy(!) |
|
1,330 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jul 25, 2016 9:39:09 GMT
More importantly she needs a complete face lift to go with the voice and the content of the speech. Wow, classy(!) I saw that last night, sighed deeply and closed my ipad before I responded. BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB please, regardless of race, sex, creed, age or looks. Surely!?! So many of my American friends are distressed about this election. Don't trust Clinton, can't stand Trump. I've always thought Obama was a class act; he looks like a blooming superstar against these two. A nod to my West Wing obsession, WWJD - (what would Jed do). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 9:51:06 GMT
So instead of getting 30% you are happy with 0% from the biggest corporatist out there? I'm presuming you have a vote and would be happy with a President Trump, so go ahead and see what happens. Take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others though. if you think that voters aren't responsible for election results then you really don't understand the concept of representative democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 9:56:01 GMT
So instead of getting 30% you are happy with 0% from the biggest corporatist out there? I'm presuming you have a vote and would be happy with a President Trump, so go ahead and see what happens. Take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others though. if you think that voters aren't responsible for election results then you really don't understand the concept of representative democracy. What I meant is that voters who didn't vote for the person who got elected should not be blamed for it. Like you said yourself, don't blame others. If your candidate can't win, it's their fault, especially if they offend their potential supporters multiple times and then expect them to get in line without making any concessions. If you don't think voters should vote for the person they want to be president, you don't understand the concept of democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 10:16:39 GMT
So instead of getting 30% you are happy with 0% from the biggest corporatist out there? I'm presuming you have a vote and would be happy with a President Trump, so go ahead and see what happens. Take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others though. if you think that voters aren't responsible for election results then you really don't understand the concept of representative democracy. What I meant is that voters who didn't vote for the person who got elected should not be blamed for it. Like you said yourself, don't blame others. If your candidate can't win, it's their fault, especially if they offend their potential supporters multiple times and then expect them to get in line without making any concessions. If you don't think voters should vote for the person they want to be president, you don't understand the concept of democracy. Democracy is tempered by what is possible, you don't appear to understand that or the nature of elections. Historical perspective teaches you this; Margaret Thatcher was assisted by a labour split because of supposed socialist purity and so labour supporters shared the blame. On the other side, Blair was assisted by a conservative party riven with splits over Europe and so conservative supporters shared the blame. You don't get to stand aside and say 'nothing to do with me'. You also don't seem to understand that 'don't blame others', means 'take your own share of the blame'. |
|
5,120 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 25, 2016 10:37:39 GMT
I saw that last night, sighed deeply and closed my ipad before I responded. BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB please, regardless of race, sex, creed, age or looks. Surely!?! So many of my American friends are distressed about this election. Don't trust Clinton, can't stand Trump. I've always thought Obama was a class act; he looks like a blooming superstar against these two. A nod to my West Wing obsession, WWJD - (what would Jed do). Sorry to cause such distress, but then again I wasn't the person who gave awy the White House cat, when President Clinton's tenure came to an end. so really having the cat was sychophanatic and you want this person running the world?!?! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 10:48:46 GMT
Any apology phrased as "sorry but" isn't an apology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 10:55:05 GMT
More importantly she needs a complete face lift to go with the voice and the content of the speech. Yikes. I guess she thinks that, you know, being one of the most powerful people in the world and all might mean that she may not have much time to do an Estee Lauder advert campaign or challenge Kim Kardashian for "most pointless person on the planet" so there's probably not really any need for a facelift . . . . |
|
1,330 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jul 25, 2016 11:10:51 GMT
Any apology phrased as "sorry but" isn't an apology. My pet peeve ANYWHERE. I read "sorry but I don't give a sh*t". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 12:16:11 GMT
Hillary looks good for her age, she's almost 70. She looks about 15 years younger than Bernie who is only 6 years older. Looks shouldn't matter in politics.
|
|
1,330 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jul 25, 2016 12:38:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 13:17:04 GMT
What I meant is that voters who didn't vote for the person who got elected should not be blamed for it. Like you said yourself, don't blame others. If your candidate can't win, it's their fault, especially if they offend their potential supporters multiple times and then expect them to get in line without making any concessions. If you don't think voters should vote for the person they want to be president, you don't understand the concept of democracy. Democracy is tempered by what is possible, you don't appear to understand that or the nature of elections. Historical perspective teaches you this; Margaret Thatcher was assisted by a labour split because of supposed socialist purity and so labour supporters shared the blame. On the other side, Blair was assisted by a conservative party riven with splits over Europe and so conservative supporters shared the blame. You don't get to stand aside and say 'nothing to do with me'. You also don't seem to understand that 'don't blame others', means 'take your own share of the blame'. I very much understand the nature of elections. I understand that if there's a candidate who has all the right policy ideas, you should vote for them. And to address your point of "what's possible", that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you keep saying that a certain party can't win because no one knows who they are, but at the same time you are the one who keeps them out of the presidential debates (I'm talking about the media here), then of course they won't win. If you say don't vote for them because they won't win, then obviously they won't win. They can win once people start thinking for themselves and no longer let themselves be scared into voting for someone they don't want. Sure, the Green Party of the Libertarian Party aren't going to win this year. But if they get a decent percentage of the vote now, and some more next time, ultimately they will get big enough to make a difference. Also, this election could make a considerable difference for them, because if they get enough votes they can get federal funding. That would mean they will be able to get there message out with more people and thereby build up more support. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 14:25:24 GMT
Democracy is tempered by what is possible, you don't appear to understand that or the nature of elections. Historical perspective teaches you this; Margaret Thatcher was assisted by a labour split because of supposed socialist purity and so labour supporters shared the blame. On the other side, Blair was assisted by a conservative party riven with splits over Europe and so conservative supporters shared the blame. You don't get to stand aside and say 'nothing to do with me'. You also don't seem to understand that 'don't blame others', means 'take your own share of the blame'. I very much understand the nature of elections. I understand that if there's a candidate who has all the right policy ideas, you should vote for them. And to address your point of "what's possible", that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you keep saying that a certain party can't win because no one knows who they are, but at the same time you are the one who keeps them out of the presidential debates (I'm talking about the media here), then of course they won't win. If you say don't vote for them because they won't win, then obviously they won't win. They can win once people start thinking for themselves and no longer let themselves be scared into voting for someone they don't want. Sure, the Green Party of the Libertarian Party aren't going to win this year. But if they get a decent percentage of the vote now, and some more next time, ultimately they will get big enough to make a difference. Also, this election could make a considerable difference for them, because if they get enough votes they can get federal funding. That would mean they will be able to get there message out with more people and thereby build up more support. As someone who frequently votes Lib Dem, I know full well about voting for someone who won't win. I also know that, when in a marginal, that I can't be so naive as to think that my vote is conscience free and I switch to a second choice readily. We do not have a constituency named 'Utopia'. Nader, for example, campaigned heavily in swing states in 2000 instead of for votes in states that would lead to increased funding without him hurting his cause. Next election he polled 80% less as people realised what they had done. Too late for the world though and, arguably, much of our current state of affairs comes from that. Many would consider the potential fallout as being even worse for this election. |
|
