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.
I agree, Donald hates everyone who's not rich and white.
I don't see how he'll become president without the vote from most:
Hispanic Americans
African Americans
Asian Americans
Majority of Women
Native Americans
Arab Americans
LGBT Americans
The list goes on..
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.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,526,326 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northeaster
Many off Bernie supporters are Independents who will sit it out. She'll still probably win though.
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
I concur with you both. I'm not going to condone a Clinton administration by voting for her. I'll live with whatever consequences that brings.
Anyways. I already lived through the Cheney.....I mean Bush Era. Sooooooo
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.
Mick
Very true, sorry for leaving that important group out.
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
Personally I've decided I cannot sit out under any circumstances, and Trump is pretty close to making me forgo my plans of voting third party if Hilary is the Dem nominee.
Maher should take into consideration that many independents and the white working class who have flocked to Bernie this election are not your typical "urban progressive from LA".
Even though Maher supports Bernie, he has this disdain for the white working class which makes it hard for him to see what is going on. The reason Bernie is such a strong general election candidate is because he does so well in rural areas and among the working class. They are not really the type Maher think of as Bernie voters.
It was a wake-up call for me. I previously had fleeting thoughts that Trump would be the best of the worst so to speak if the Democrats lost. Now, I think our country wouldn't survive a Trump dictatorship err Presidency.
No one that doesn't want this egotistical racist moron inciting our country to violence can afford to sit this one out.
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.
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) .
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.
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.
The difference is Bernie is being honest/realistic about his ability to implement his ideas.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
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.
I totally agree with you on the military spending and I was very pleased to see Rand Paul school Rubio in an earlier Republican debate on the topic of spending money on our military which is already saturated with tons of spending.
I think all of the candidates have made great points and proposals in different ways(and I don't support any which gives me an unbiased view). I, for one, would totally welcome the United States having free tuition but we have to look at the likelihood of Bernie's proposals being approved by Congress and the sustainability of providing free tuition for students in the current welfare state that we already live in.
If Congress is generous with Bernie, they'd likely approve of a meritocratic system that enables certain students to have free tuition in college. The same will occur with single payer health care as well. It will be limited.
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.
Last edited by GuitarHero45; 03-13-2016 at 01:40 AM..
Maher might like to think that divisions among Democrats are trivial...
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.
