›

The Next American President Thread (2016)

1…4344464849…198

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't exactly call Trump charming.

    Your apocalyptic warnings about this and Brexit don't sway me I afraid. Things have a way of sorting themselves out.

    I've already mentioned why the US president has limited powers domestically, & I'm not going to repeat it here.

    If Trump is as dangerous as you presume, then he will lose the election.

    But it's not apocalyptic. Far from it I think. Why do you say that actually. Why do you use the word apocalypse. Obviously we won't have an apocalypse, even IF Trump gets elected. But the risks and uncertainties with a vote for Trump will stay predominant, unless Trump really gets more specific with his policy ideas.
    As I've said time and time again, there is plenty of opportunity for him to get specific between now and November. If you don't think that, then you don't know how the electoral process works in the US.

    If he can't mount a proper general election campaign with details on the issues and how he plans to address them (including working with Congress) then as I've said before, people will hold their noses and vote for Hillary. The same will happen if he self-destructs or implodes (which is possible but not definite).

    So you shouldn't be all that concerned about it.

    I should be concerned. I am a voter. I am supporting a democracy. And in a well-functioning democracy the thing that could be more destructive to democracy are uneducated voters who just think it's "fun" to get Trump elected. I empower myself. I read all the issues. I indulge in the issues. And when that is happening I carefully state my arguments why I vote for a specific presidential candidate.

    More people should do that, instead of waiting until a candidate like Trump comes up with more details about the plans he's tweeting about. More people should indulge themselves into the issues, instead of waiting for what a man like Trump or a woman like Clinton will do for you.

    Like Kennedy once said: "Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many times voters were sitting back...and only voted for a man with a funny hairdo, a funny moustache or big boobs. And if you then blame others except yourself, you are yourself part of the (financial) mess we are in now.
    You see, the problem you seem to have is that you feel the people who have voted for him so far are having 'fun'. That they are taking this lightly. It's probably best to give them a little more credit than that. The same goes for the Sanders voters.

    Perhaps they see something in both of these candidates that you don't? I don't see them jumping up and down saying the world is coming to an end or that Hillary voters are twats though.

    You may empower yourself and come to one conclusion. You should give those who come to a different one through different means a little more respect, given that most people seem to feel that politicians inevitably let them down and say one thing to get elected only to govern in a completely different fashion.

    Why should I be more respectful if you are actually using the word "twat" for Hillary voters, when I just say that Trump voters should understand a bit better if they elect a president who wants to default a country similar to how he defaults investor companies in the real estate business.

    I describe and articulate why I think what voters should think off. You call me a "twat". I may sound direct and sometimes harsh. And I may use historical comparisons. The thing I don't get is this: Why does Bores Johnson gets away with making WW II comparisons, and I don't? Simple: I'm standing for values that currently are much harder to sell. It's great to be a Trump supporter these days. But if you support Hillary, you suddenly are a twat.

    I call it intellectual default really. Because no one can't come up with one proper, good argument why I might be wrong. You, @bondjames, are also beating around the Bush. You are also evading the specifics. I call it severe intellectual loss. Try to come up with some well-defined ideas and specifics how YOU would improve and 'waterproof' the USA in such a way that you and your children can still benefit from prosperity and welfare.
    Firstly, I can appreciate that English is probably not your first language, but I did not call you a twat, nor did I call Hillary voters twats. Read my post carefully before making such incendiary accusations.

    You on the other hand, have done that in not so many words by suggesting that Trump voters and others who are willing to give him a chance may in fact be "stupid", which is the correct definition of twat.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't exactly call Trump charming.

    Your apocalyptic warnings about this and Brexit don't sway me I afraid. Things have a way of sorting themselves out.

    I've already mentioned why the US president has limited powers domestically, & I'm not going to repeat it here.

    If Trump is as dangerous as you presume, then he will lose the election.

    But it's not apocalyptic. Far from it I think. Why do you say that actually. Why do you use the word apocalypse. Obviously we won't have an apocalypse, even IF Trump gets elected. But the risks and uncertainties with a vote for Trump will stay predominant, unless Trump really gets more specific with his policy ideas.
    As I've said time and time again, there is plenty of opportunity for him to get specific between now and November. If you don't think that, then you don't know how the electoral process works in the US.

    If he can't mount a proper general election campaign with details on the issues and how he plans to address them (including working with Congress) then as I've said before, people will hold their noses and vote for Hillary. The same will happen if he self-destructs or implodes (which is possible but not definite).

    So you shouldn't be all that concerned about it.

    I should be concerned. I am a voter. I am supporting a democracy. And in a well-functioning democracy the thing that could be more destructive to democracy are uneducated voters who just think it's "fun" to get Trump elected. I empower myself. I read all the issues. I indulge in the issues. And when that is happening I carefully state my arguments why I vote for a specific presidential candidate.

    More people should do that, instead of waiting until a candidate like Trump comes up with more details about the plans he's tweeting about. More people should indulge themselves into the issues, instead of waiting for what a man like Trump or a woman like Clinton will do for you.

    Like Kennedy once said: "Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many times voters were sitting back...and only voted for a man with a funny hairdo, a funny moustache or big boobs. And if you then blame others except yourself, you are yourself part of the (financial) mess we are in now.
    You see, the problem you seem to have is that you feel the people who have voted for him so far are having 'fun'. That they are taking this lightly. It's probably best to give them a little more credit than that. The same goes for the Sanders voters.

    Perhaps they see something in both of these candidates that you don't? I don't see them jumping up and down saying the world is coming to an end or that Hillary voters are twats though.

    You may empower yourself and come to one conclusion. You should give those who come to a different one through different means a little more respect, given that most people seem to feel that politicians inevitably let them down and say one thing to get elected only to govern in a completely different fashion.

    Why should I be more respectful if you are actually using the word "twat" for Hillary voters, when I just say that Trump voters should understand a bit better if they elect a president who wants to default a country similar to how he defaults investor companies in the real estate business.

    I describe and articulate why I think what voters should think off. You call me a "twat". I may sound direct and sometimes harsh. And I may use historical comparisons. The thing I don't get is this: Why does Bores Johnson gets away with making WW II comparisons, and I don't? Simple: I'm standing for values that currently are much harder to sell. It's great to be a Trump supporter these days. But if you support Hillary, you suddenly are a twat.

    I call it intellectual default really. Because no one can't come up with one proper, good argument why I might be wrong. You, @bondjames, are also beating around the Bush. You are also evading the specifics. I call it severe intellectual loss. Try to come up with some well-defined ideas and specifics how YOU would improve and 'waterproof' the USA in such a way that you and your children can still benefit from prosperity and welfare.
    Firstly, I can appreciate that English is probably not your first language, but I did not call you a twat, nor did I call Hillary voters twats. Read my post carefully before making such incendiary accusations.

    You on the other hand, have done that in not so many words by suggesting that Trump voters and others who are willing to give him a chance may in fact be "stupid", which is the correct definition of twat.

    Stop beating about the bush. Discuss policies and specifics with me. Not trivialities.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't exactly call Trump charming.

    Your apocalyptic warnings about this and Brexit don't sway me I afraid. Things have a way of sorting themselves out.

    I've already mentioned why the US president has limited powers domestically, & I'm not going to repeat it here.

    If Trump is as dangerous as you presume, then he will lose the election.

    But it's not apocalyptic. Far from it I think. Why do you say that actually. Why do you use the word apocalypse. Obviously we won't have an apocalypse, even IF Trump gets elected. But the risks and uncertainties with a vote for Trump will stay predominant, unless Trump really gets more specific with his policy ideas.
    As I've said time and time again, there is plenty of opportunity for him to get specific between now and November. If you don't think that, then you don't know how the electoral process works in the US.

    If he can't mount a proper general election campaign with details on the issues and how he plans to address them (including working with Congress) then as I've said before, people will hold their noses and vote for Hillary. The same will happen if he self-destructs or implodes (which is possible but not definite).

    So you shouldn't be all that concerned about it.

    I should be concerned. I am a voter. I am supporting a democracy. And in a well-functioning democracy the thing that could be more destructive to democracy are uneducated voters who just think it's "fun" to get Trump elected. I empower myself. I read all the issues. I indulge in the issues. And when that is happening I carefully state my arguments why I vote for a specific presidential candidate.

    More people should do that, instead of waiting until a candidate like Trump comes up with more details about the plans he's tweeting about. More people should indulge themselves into the issues, instead of waiting for what a man like Trump or a woman like Clinton will do for you.

    Like Kennedy once said: "Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many times voters were sitting back...and only voted for a man with a funny hairdo, a funny moustache or big boobs. And if you then blame others except yourself, you are yourself part of the (financial) mess we are in now.
    You see, the problem you seem to have is that you feel the people who have voted for him so far are having 'fun'. That they are taking this lightly. It's probably best to give them a little more credit than that. The same goes for the Sanders voters.

    Perhaps they see something in both of these candidates that you don't? I don't see them jumping up and down saying the world is coming to an end or that Hillary voters are twats though.

    You may empower yourself and come to one conclusion. You should give those who come to a different one through different means a little more respect, given that most people seem to feel that politicians inevitably let them down and say one thing to get elected only to govern in a completely different fashion.

    Why should I be more respectful if you are actually using the word "twat" for Hillary voters, when I just say that Trump voters should understand a bit better if they elect a president who wants to default a country similar to how he defaults investor companies in the real estate business.

    I describe and articulate why I think what voters should think off. You call me a "twat". I may sound direct and sometimes harsh. And I may use historical comparisons. The thing I don't get is this: Why does Bores Johnson gets away with making WW II comparisons, and I don't? Simple: I'm standing for values that currently are much harder to sell. It's great to be a Trump supporter these days. But if you support Hillary, you suddenly are a twat.

    I call it intellectual default really. Because no one can't come up with one proper, good argument why I might be wrong. You, @bondjames, are also beating around the Bush. You are also evading the specifics. I call it severe intellectual loss. Try to come up with some well-defined ideas and specifics how YOU would improve and 'waterproof' the USA in such a way that you and your children can still benefit from prosperity and welfare.
    Firstly, I can appreciate that English is probably not your first language, but I did not call you a twat, nor did I call Hillary voters twats. Read my post carefully before making such incendiary accusations.

    You on the other hand, have done that in not so many words by suggesting that Trump voters and others who are willing to give him a chance may in fact be "stupid", which is the correct definition of twat.

    Stop beating about the bush. Discuss policies and specifics with me. Not trivialities.
    There's no discussing with you. Your tone is insulting and demeaning, and quite frankly not worth my time.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    @Gustav calm down a bit and read closer. @bondjames didn't call you a twat, nor Hillary voters, quite the opposite in fact. And I think he has come up with valid points.

    @FLeiter yes, the US have definately moved to the end of the 20th century, even beginning of the 21st... :-P
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wouldn't exactly call Trump charming.

    Your apocalyptic warnings about this and Brexit don't sway me I afraid. Things have a way of sorting themselves out.

    I've already mentioned why the US president has limited powers domestically, & I'm not going to repeat it here.

    If Trump is as dangerous as you presume, then he will lose the election.

    But it's not apocalyptic. Far from it I think. Why do you say that actually. Why do you use the word apocalypse. Obviously we won't have an apocalypse, even IF Trump gets elected. But the risks and uncertainties with a vote for Trump will stay predominant, unless Trump really gets more specific with his policy ideas.
    As I've said time and time again, there is plenty of opportunity for him to get specific between now and November. If you don't think that, then you don't know how the electoral process works in the US.

    If he can't mount a proper general election campaign with details on the issues and how he plans to address them (including working with Congress) then as I've said before, people will hold their noses and vote for Hillary. The same will happen if he self-destructs or implodes (which is possible but not definite).

    So you shouldn't be all that concerned about it.

    I should be concerned. I am a voter. I am supporting a democracy. And in a well-functioning democracy the thing that could be more destructive to democracy are uneducated voters who just think it's "fun" to get Trump elected. I empower myself. I read all the issues. I indulge in the issues. And when that is happening I carefully state my arguments why I vote for a specific presidential candidate.

    More people should do that, instead of waiting until a candidate like Trump comes up with more details about the plans he's tweeting about. More people should indulge themselves into the issues, instead of waiting for what a man like Trump or a woman like Clinton will do for you.

    Like Kennedy once said: "Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many times voters were sitting back...and only voted for a man with a funny hairdo, a funny moustache or big boobs. And if you then blame others except yourself, you are yourself part of the (financial) mess we are in now.
    You see, the problem you seem to have is that you feel the people who have voted for him so far are having 'fun'. That they are taking this lightly. It's probably best to give them a little more credit than that. The same goes for the Sanders voters.

    Perhaps they see something in both of these candidates that you don't? I don't see them jumping up and down saying the world is coming to an end or that Hillary voters are twats though.

    You may empower yourself and come to one conclusion. You should give those who come to a different one through different means a little more respect, given that most people seem to feel that politicians inevitably let them down and say one thing to get elected only to govern in a completely different fashion.

    Why should I be more respectful if you are actually using the word "twat" for Hillary voters, when I just say that Trump voters should understand a bit better if they elect a president who wants to default a country similar to how he defaults investor companies in the real estate business.

    I describe and articulate why I think what voters should think off. You call me a "twat". I may sound direct and sometimes harsh. And I may use historical comparisons. The thing I don't get is this: Why does Bores Johnson gets away with making WW II comparisons, and I don't? Simple: I'm standing for values that currently are much harder to sell. It's great to be a Trump supporter these days. But if you support Hillary, you suddenly are a twat.

    I call it intellectual default really. Because no one can't come up with one proper, good argument why I might be wrong. You, @bondjames, are also beating around the Bush. You are also evading the specifics. I call it severe intellectual loss. Try to come up with some well-defined ideas and specifics how YOU would improve and 'waterproof' the USA in such a way that you and your children can still benefit from prosperity and welfare.
    Firstly, I can appreciate that English is probably not your first language, but I did not call you a twat, nor did I call Hillary voters twats. Read my post carefully before making such incendiary accusations.

    You on the other hand, have done that in not so many words by suggesting that Trump voters and others who are willing to give him a chance may in fact be "stupid", which is the correct definition of twat.

    Stop beating about the bush. Discuss policies and specifics with me. Not trivialities.
    There's no discussing with you. Your tone is insulting and demeaning, and quite frankly not worth my time.

    There is. There absolutely is. Guys who know me via Facebook know I'm a nice chap.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @CommanderRoss. I will sit back a little from this thread from now on as I don't want to stir people up any more.

    @Gustav_Graves, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice chap. Let's give this a break for a while and perhaps we can get back to it at some later stage.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Go ahead everyone. Ignore the donkey in the room. ;)

    Bernie is gonna get this. If he doesn't I'll eat my hat.
    (I'll buy an edible one though)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Go ahead everyone. Ignore the donkey in the room. ;)

    Bernie is gonna get this. If he doesn't I'll eat my hat.
    (I'll buy an edible one though)

    nacho21.jpg
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Like that.^
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @chrisisall, edible though that hat looks, I wish you won't have to eat either it or any humble pie for that matter. I sincerely hope, against all odds, that Bernie delivers big tomorrow and the powers that be have a change of heart. Save us Obi-Ben Sanders. You're our only hope.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Just watched Iron Man 1 & 2 last night... what a POTUS Tony Stark would make...!!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Just watched Iron Man 1 & 2 last night... what a POTUS Tony Stark would make...!!
    Hell we'd probably ask you guys to invade us just to have him as president! Found him the sanest even in Captain America: Civil War.


  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    here's an interesting article:
    http://us.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-hispanics/index.html
  • timmertimmer
    edited June 2016 Posts: 4,622
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    @Timmer no probs, and it's good to do such thinking exercises now and then, it keeps the mind sharp. You do make a lot of sense indeed, and I completely agree on the notion that we need a capitalist base. Planned economies don't work, and never will.

    And working as a civil servant I'm only too familliar with politics and government spending sprees.

    I'll give a extract of my way of thinking, and the logical results of this.

    Firstly, government is there to create a safe environment for (all the) people, a level playing field, not only in an economic sense, but in a social one too. Further more it has to protect us (society) from any form of collective danger (and private as well, but you could put that under level playing field too, it's called police).

    So healthcare should be free, as you can't participate in society if you're sick. Capitalism doesn't work here for there's no going to a different supplier if the one you started with is no good. It's hard sueing your doctor when you're dead.

    Education should be free, as it gives you the chance to participate to your fulles capabilities in society. Creating a level playing field.

    Minimum wages are a must too, as stated above, for they create a level playing field. If thos means your business can't survive, then it isn't adding enough value to society to live. That's capitalism for you.

    Government should also make laws against, i.e. pollution. For it's protection of society in the long run. Of course this is hard to recognise for anyone looking no further then the next five years, but that's what government is for: protection in the long run.

    Now this line of thinking isn't new, it's classic liberal, but I understand that term has gotten a bad taste in the US. Why I don't know, but it has.

    If you ask me, Bernie Sanders is classic liberal, and that's not socialist at all. Why he called himself that is beyond me, but again, I know these terms get a different meaning when you cross the pond.

    On corruption, by the way: we have rules in place where private parties (weather persons or companies) are limited to what they can donate to political parties and individuals (and how much a private person may spend on his own campain). I think, with rules like that, your politics too would be completely different, and your politics far less influenced by short-term thinking.

    Another interesting note on the sideline: about 80% of the German economy is run by family businesses. Those are companies (with billions in revenue) owned by families who've run those for (more then one) generation(s). Interestingly enough these are all very capable of getting through economic crises, because they work and think in long-terms. Weather it be investments or taking out money from the company. It's one of the reasons their economy wasn't hit that hard, even though they're often industrial. Another thing: they still keep a lot of production within Germany, preferring innovation over cheap labour.

    Nice post @ross Lots of interesting stuff and from the Euro outlook, which is interesting and from a different perspective than the American lens
    I hilighted the pollution bit because I think that's a no brainer, ie government working with industry to create pollution controls and work together to maintain a framework of enforceable rules etc for keeping garbage out the lakes and rivers, smoke belching into the air etc.
    This is tangible damage to the environment stuff. Eveyone can see it.
    There is no debate.
    Look at Hong Kong. I haven't been there but the pollution is out of control from I understand.
    But this only makes sense, that industry and government work together, to not make a toxic mess of the planet.
    Which has been happening for a long time, but the process needs to be constantly evaluated and escalated as necessary.

    chrisisall wrote: »
    @timmer, .....the world is changing beyond anything it has ever been before, so economic history can and will be changed as well.
    When I write my book -like that's gonna happen - I've got way too many movies and TV shows to watch -- but if - you can contribute the final chapter, pointing toward the sweeping seismic changes that lie ahead :)

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2016 Posts: 17,691
    timmer wrote: »
    but if - you can contribute the final chapter, pointing toward the sweeping seismic changes that lie ahead :)
    Automation in the food service industry, car manufacturing, gas stations, hell, most any service industry you can name will mean no jobs for non-robots... pure Capitalism will have put THEMSELVES out of a job because no workers paid to pay for their shit.
    Thus beginnith the Star Trek economy...

    ;)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Go ahead everyone. Ignore the donkey in the room. ;)

    Bernie is gonna get this. If he doesn't I'll eat my hat.
    (I'll buy an edible one though)

    It is over. Several news outlets are officially declaring it tonight.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2016 Posts: 17,691
    TripAces wrote: »

    It is over. Several news outlets are officially declaring it tonight.
    Oh, official-like. I really trust them, yeah.
    White Queen Hill will win the numbers, and then they will go away when the DNC realizes she'll lose to Trumpneto. Then, Professor BernieX will be called upon.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-makes-history
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-makes-history

    White Queen Hill will win the numbers, and then they will go away when the DNC realizes she'll lose to Trumpneto. Then, Professor BernieX will be called upon.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-makes-history

    White Queen Hill will win the numbers, and then they will go away when the DNC realizes she'll lose to Trumpneto. Then, Professor BernieX will be called upon.

    She won't lose to Trump unless the Berners decide to stay home or if Sanders runs as a third party candidate.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    TripAces wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-makes-history

    White Queen Hill will win the numbers, and then they will go away when the DNC realizes she'll lose to Trumpneto. Then, Professor BernieX will be called upon.

    She won't lose to Trump unless the Berners decide to stay home or if Sanders runs as a third party candidate.
    I'm with @bondjames here- f**k Hillary. I'd rather have Trump at this juncture.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-makes-history
    From what I read in that article, she will only have the majority of 'pledged' delegates after tomorrow's vote. Not today. So this AP/NBC call is premature by one day. That is a sign of clear media bias in my view.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited June 2016 Posts: 4,554
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Why is it over? Isn't the convention when the superdelegates get to vote?

    Hillary may win this thing at the end of the day, but the media rush to call this result on the eve of the last primaries does smack of bias, and that's rather unfortunate imho.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-makes-history

    White Queen Hill will win the numbers, and then they will go away when the DNC realizes she'll lose to Trumpneto. Then, Professor BernieX will be called upon.

    She won't lose to Trump unless the Berners decide to stay home or if Sanders runs as a third party candidate.
    I'm with @bondjames here- f**k Hillary. I'd rather have Trump at this juncture.

    And this is the problem. I am not sure how any left-leaning person can possibly believe Trump is the option here. Bernie Sanders has done a number on his followers.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I finally came back to see what's going on, but I'm getting right out. If I were to find out that any of you were backing Trump for any reason or under any scenario it would sicken me. Better not to know.

    Even worse, what's going on is that so many of the Berners have been led to believe that Clinton is their enemy. It's sick. It really is. because the man is a selfish twit who needed to bow out weeks ago and instruct his supporters to get behind the nominee. He failed to do it, and I fear his failures as a decent human being might very well put Donald Trump in the White House. It's the epitome of stupidity.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I finally came back to see what's going on, but I'm getting right out. If I were to find out that any of you were backing Trump for any reason or under any scenario it would sicken me. Better not to know.
    Bernie or Trump. Let the DNC UNDERSTAND that.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    628800d1389674247-ss-helmet-isnt-thank-you-handlethetruth.jpg
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    No, THEY can't.
    Flush Bernie, and Trump floats to the top.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It may come down to Barack Obama pulling out all the stops to save this thing for the Dems.

    Expect some serious firepower from the rock star himself at the Convention, which may be just enough to drive home the win for Hills.

    He is an exceptional campaigner and enjoys it too.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    bondjames wrote: »
    It may come down to Barack Obama pulling out all the stops to save this thing for the Dems.

    Expect some serious firepower from the rock star himself at the Convention, which may be just enough to drive home the win for Hills.

    He is an exceptional campaigner and enjoys it too.
    Obama prefers Sanders. He's truly intrigued to see what he can accomplish. Clinton is a thorn in his paw.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It may come down to Barack Obama pulling out all the stops to save this thing for the Dems.

    Expect some serious firepower from the rock star himself at the Convention, which may be just enough to drive home the win for Hills.

    He is an exceptional campaigner and enjoys it too.
    Obama prefers Sanders. He's truly intrigued to see what he can accomplish. Clinton is a thorn in his paw.
    There is a rumour that he may endorse her tomorrow though. Pressured?
This discussion has been closed.