I don't get this. Where is the equivalency in your argument? You are talking about someone who ran for the presidential office before. Someone who worked in the White House for 8 years. She has a better understanding on the economy and has the support of the banking sector. Her team has more white house experience than any team Sanders can put together. Which of these points are you not getting?
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
I understand what you're saying, and you're not wrong, but quoting stats in politics is like doing so in football, it can support any position depending on context.
Pasco county next to me voted Trump. In a county with 131k registered Republicans and 107k registered Democrats, Trump received 142k votes. And he won by 50k votes. Assuming most of the Dems registered voted Hillary, then that is 20k Dem votes who did not vote. Given Trump won more than registered Republicans, then he appealed more to the undecided, in spite of everything we knew about him, possibly as well as some Dems who couldn't face voting Clinton. Clinton carried Ca by 3M votes, and her margin on popular vote was 3M.
This is my problem, and this is a Dem problem in general, they don't vote. I know Clinton won the popular vote, but taking millions in California doesn't matter. Most of the states between the coasts went Trump, this was their choice and this is their reward.
Most polls had Clinton winning a landslide. And also called Brexit in favour of not. Polls are not the best way to determine the changes of Bernie would have win.
I can't vote and would have gone Bernie, wife did "Feel the Bern". I can tell you though in my limited experience, his very progressive message is very well received with certain voters, but utterly detested by many who are scared of a boogey man socialist communist threat.
Hillary's resume was hardly a huge endorsement.
Her key achievement was as SoS and she failed miserably. Look at the mess she left behind.
Her key achievement was as SoS and she failed miserably. Look at the mess she left behind.
Last edited:
the 'Socialist' boogey man has long gone. We are no longer in the 50s 60s or 70s.
He was clearly resonating with common sense living wages, education and universal health care.
And he was not bankrolled by Big business. That was important then and now.
While she was highly distrusted and disliked.
It is important to note that Perez was very cagey when she was mentioned as a candidate again.
She is Done.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That in no way makes you better qualified to be president.
4 years as Secretary of State. Where do the other 4 come from?
The banking sector that plunged the world into a recession a few years ago? Again, what has she done that demonstrates her better understanding of the economy, and why couldn't she translate this to her support?
There is literally nothing at the bottom of the barrel now.
WW1 General Pershing?
The feck is he on?
The RCP polling average on Nov 8 was Clinton +3, the result was Clinton +2. Bernie quit in June with an average +10. (at the same time, HRC was +5).
You can speculate all you like, but you cannot say that the facts support your hypothesis- they don't. Neither the H2H polling nor the popularity nor the popularity among independetns nor the voter enthusiasm or reasons for voting, support the idea of HRC being a better candidate. In fact, Bernie was doing better vs Republicans than HRC, especially among independents, since about September 2015, when he had almost no name recognition, and his leads increased from that point. Edit: actual elections - the Democratic primaries - also showed this, since Bernie always won a higher share of independents in open primaries.
Subjectively for me, it's not just the fact that he had leads, it was the humongous nature of those leads.
Also for @NotworkSte
For Brexit/Uk2015/Uk2017 - UK polls have been off in all 3, while nationwide US polling hasn't.
*some of these numbers are from memory and may be off by a percent point or 2.
So Trump wants to kill Muslims and bury them with pigs.
SecState isn't working in the WH. DoS is a separate agency. He probably means her work as first lady.
I alluded to that earlier and got shot down for "being sexist" so I'm not sure what else experience she has apart from being a senator and heading the State Dep.
technically he wants to do nothing, because the story about Pershing is made up.
But yes, he wants to solve terrorist violence by publicly proving all the terrorist propoganda correct.
In any event, she had more relevant experience than any other candidate since Bush 41.
Obama had a go at her 'experience' as First Lady. What was it about having tea or something.
She was probably the most politically active first lady....well maybe ever.
@adexkola Was that your argument for Sander's being better qualified?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
@adexkola - Before you answer, you guys may want to take this to the "what's next for Hillary thread" or the Non-Trump US politics thread.
I don't disagree. But she was so distrusted.
Clinton fatigue is still hovering over the Democratic party.
the sooner she is not even mentioned, the sooner they can move on.
What is scary is states like Ohio still look solid Trump country.
They need a candidate that is far from the corporate nominee they are fond of. A proper blue collar candidate..perhaps Brown from Ohio.
Oh feck off. You were the one who said "Bill's wife" in your comment. Do I have to specifically mention her work negotiating the Iran deal or the Hamas and Israel stand off?
So Trump made up a story and calls for mass murder? 
The good thing about that is that we don't have to keep talking about it as long as Mueller&co are doing their thing. What the public, and even the media, say about the Russia collusion doesn't change very much anymore since it's all been said. Any new developments are just thrown upon the big pile that's already there.
I actually like how he keeps fecking up various other things from time to time, it's somewhat refreshing.
he is fond of repeating talking points which are clearly made up, from Fox News or Right wing blogs.So Trump made up a story and calls for mass murder?
Your mum.
The Iran deal was concluded after Hillary left. If you're going to give her the majority of credit for Iran and Hamas and Israel (that was enduring), then she gets the flack for Benghazi. An error Sanders didn't hold her up to the coals for.
Just saw this, but I'm done with the convo.
Let us know when you've actually put together an argument for Bernie being the better candidate.
I like how he does really cares now and doesn't give a feck last week
He was correct on Iraq and Syria. He had the moral courage to denounce Nicaragua, Mossadegh's removal, and other such adventurism while she basked in Kissinger's endorsement, having voted strongly for Iraq, helped along a coup in Honduras, facilitated disastorous regime change in Libya, and advocated for the same in Syria.
He was correct on the need for universal healthcare, universal acceptance into public colleges, increasing minimum wage gradually to a living wage, and increasing top marginal tax rates, He was right about addressing the opioid crisis, and job training for ex-coal miners.
He was more popular with the general public and with independents. He was a better candidate against Trump.
He was not beholden to corporate interests including Wall Street and Walmart.
Edit: he was correct in his opposition to the crime bill which helped usher in world-beating incarceration rates, welfare bill which has meant joblessness means a precarious existence.
He was correct to denounce DADT. He came out in support of gay marriage before the polling shifted and Hillary changed her mind, which was also correct.
Edit 2: He was correct that there shouldn't be a constitutional amendment which could overturn aspects of Roe v Wade.
He was against the border wall which Hillary supported in 2008, which was the correct stance.
He vocally defended unions including on the picket line.
He was less wrong about Edward Snowden than she was, since he recognised that his leaks had revealed the complete erosion of 4th amendment rights while she saw him as a traitor.
Edit 3: I almost forgot;
He was correct that Social Security should not be privatised, while she enthusiastically supported this grand bargain ~1999.
He was right about fracking and pipelines being a threat to the world, and needing instant action rather than support.
Edit 4: Oh my I'm going to let it all out now.
He was not under FBI investigation at any stage of his candidacy. He was not in cahrge of a foundation that received millions from ME dictatorships. He did not call President Mubarak a close friend. He did not have a family foundation which receive money from banks and countries, while his department sat in judgment of them.
Last edited:
Trump's top advisers are reportedly 'despondent and numb' and unsure how his presidency will recover after Charlottesville
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-white-house-advisers-react-charlottesville-statement-2017-8
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-white-house-advisers-react-charlottesville-statement-2017-8
We've all seen the covers of Time and The Economist, now The New Yorker
Not really that impressive imo.
I've have made a play on #MAGA with the A's as the Klan Masks or something like that.
That's a really smart one tbf. Well played.We've all seen the covers of Time and The Economist, now The New Yorker
Haha good timing.
Edit: may I ask why you don't like it? I thought it was pretty smart with the sail powering Donnie's boat along while he does his thing to support/give them more power.
Nice one!We've all seen the covers of Time and The Economist, now The New Yorker
It just looks to be similar to The Economist's one. Time had the salute. Economist already made a play on the mask. Thought NY would come up with something new.
Wait till they read his latest tweet storm horrorshow
But does it matter that this story is made up when his actual message is he wants to act like that in real life?
Footage from the 2016 rally where he promoted the Pershing legend and declared it exemplary:
While nothing should surprise me about this man anymore, I'm sometimes still baffled how much of a monster he is. And that so many people support him for exactly this reason, just like those cheering in this video.
- Status