Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And most of, educated/liberal/intelligent/moderate/common sensical white men. They obviously played a critical role in getting Obama elected twice. The other parts of the rainbow coalition are just not enough numerically, to be honest.
It's hilarious how just 48 hours ago, Trumptards were telling us that Bernie voters LOVE and ADORE Drumpf, and that Drumpf LOVES Bernie supporters.
Now, fast forward 2 days, and are calling Bernie supporters commies and agitators, and Drumpf is accusing Bernie of crashing his Klan rallies.
LOL
Word. Isn't that what the Trump shills have been pushing? If Bernie isn't the nominee - all of Bernie's voters gonna run right over to Trump. I'm not seeing it especially after this week-end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
Indeed, if those Independent supporters of Bernie weren't going to vote for Hillary in the first place they will just sit it out . . . . . unless, Mr. Trump pisses them off by continuously accusing their hero of orchestrating the rally protests.
Mick
And now Adolph Trump is threatening Bernie on twitter. What a uniter that man is, I tell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarHero45
If you really think about it, every single one of the candidates is the best of the worst so to speak. American politicians have been "salesmen" and "marketers" for decades. There's nothing new under the sun. Trump is focused on because the media smears him and uses him as a Red Herring any chance they get but Sanders, Clinton, Rubio, and Cruz are no different from Trump...They all propose certain things that resonate with their voter bases and propose policies that probably won't get passed through as a whole.
How is the radical proposal to "build a wall"(which likely won't happen) any different from the radical proposal to bring "free tuition" to an already heavily taxed nation with more than 300 million citizens.(which also won't happen) It isn't different at all and both are used as marketing strategies utilized by candidates to promote themselves to their voter bases. Politics as usual in other words.
Each candidate has their positive and negative attributes.
As long as people understand that all the candidates are simply marketing themselves and half of the things they propose won't pass, it becomes easier to make an objective decision on which of the "worst" will do the least damage.
Trump has not one positive attribute IMO. And that is ME listening to words COMING FROM HIS OWN MOUTH. I'm not blinded by the media; I've seen what I've seen and there is no way in hell that Trump would EVER get my vote.
It's a shame. A popular businessman that probably could have won an election this year. But he decided instead to separate our nation into Us vs. Them. He has turned off women and minorities. Kinda hard to win that way.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,520,723 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
And now Adolph Trump is threatening Bernie on twitter. What a uniter that man is, I tell you.
Really? It's come to this? Relating Trump to Hilter.
Again. If you wanted to see a time where America could've gone into a dictatorship. It was under George W Bush. The American People couldn't give away their rights fast enough for safety after September 11. I fear little from trump.
Even Mexico has tuition free public universities. In America, tuition free colleges and universities, which is an investment in the future of America, will cost about 0.4% of annual GDP, or $70 billion. Meanwhile, America spent literally TRILLIONS on wars in Iraq, no-bid contracts for campaign donors and other corporate welfare and deregulation/bailouts, all of which were disasters for ordinary Americans.
But as soon as someone proposes investing money into human needs in America, people say we can't afford it. Apparently, we can afford to let the military industrial complex control the foreign policy, Wall Street control the economic policy and our health care companies control the health care policy, but we cant afford to spend money on human needs.
Agreed. That's what's always so interesting about the backlash of how to pay for education here in the US. If they complained as loudly about our massive defense budget and waste then we'd be a lot better off. The reason other countries can afford it is because they don't spend a fortune trying to police the world. The Europeans for example can afford it not because they have lower populations but because we're happy to bankrupt ourselves serve as their defacto defense force. The US has plenty of money to reduce the costs of higher education, it's just that our government and society places more value on destroying and rebuilding other countries rather than investing in our own.
Politicians are afraid of touching the defense spending issue out of fear of being labeled anti military or a it veteran.
Essentially, it's not Bernie's proposals that are radical. I agree with him on college especially since I'm about to finish my last year at a university. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology here. It's the possibility of his proposals getting approved and being fulfilled that I find to be rather "wish-washy" just like the wall.
While many of his ideas are appealing, even many left-leaning economists who have examined his plans are highly skeptical of their feasibility. While I'd certainly vote for either, one of the reasons I favor Hilary is because most of her plans are more comprehensive, detailed, and feasible. It's doubtful either candidate will be able to implement exactly what they want, but I do think Hilary is more pragmatic.
Re education, it's important to note that most countries with free education have significant strings attached. For instance, in most European countries with free or low-cost education, a persons must commit to a specific career path by the time they reach their early 20s. Once they're on the that path there isn't the kind of flexibility to change that we have in the U.S.
I recognize U.S. education needs to be more affordable, but comparing small, less populous countries like Sweden and Germany to a large populous country like the U.S. is spurious.
Indeed, if those Independent supporters of Bernie weren't going to vote for Hillary in the first place they will just sit it out . . . . . unless, Mr. Trump pisses them off by continuously accusing their hero of orchestrating the rally protests.
Mick
I support Sanders.....I don't care what Trump does I will never under any circumstance vote for Hillary. I won't sit it out. I never have. I'll write in Sanders.
While many of his ideas are appealing, even many left-leaning economists who have examined his plans are highly skeptical of their feasibility. While I'd certainly vote for either, one of the reasons I favor Hilary is because most of her plans are more comprehensive, detailed, and feasible. It's doubtful either candidate will be able to implement exactly what they want, but I do think Hilary is more pragmatic.
Hillary lies about everything. She could state the best plan in the world and one has to assume it's a lie because that is who she is.
Hillary lies about everything. She could state the best plan in the world and one has to assume it's a lie because that is who she is.
No, she lies about some things, perhaps many, as do virtually all politicians who've been nationally prominent 40+ years. That's just part of the business. Hilary isn't any worse than the vast majority of national politicians who've been around as long she has. I don't understand why Hilary is perceived as significantly worse than so many others who've done the same things to the same degree.
Sanders has -at the very least- contradicted himself a few times as well, so he's not completely immune either. For instance, consider his historical stance on NAFTA; lotta flip-flopping and contradictions.
No, she lies about some things, perhaps many, as do virtually all politicians who've been nationally prominent 40+ years. That's just part of the business. Hilary isn't any worse than the vast majority of national politicians who've been around as long she has. I don't understand why Hilary is perceived as significantly worse than so many others who've done the same things to the same degree.
Sanders has -at the very least- contradicted himself a few times as well, so he's not completely immune either. For instance, consider his historical stance on NAFTA; lotta flip-flopping and contradictions.
Sanders gets a pass from his supporters. IF he is the nominee - wait until the Republicans drag out all the skeletons from HIS closet. He won't look so shiny and pristine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
