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.
Since Bernie and Hilary have always been the only plausible Democratic contenders, of course they're closer in terms of percentage than the Republicans.
That doesn't follow at all.
Moreover, globalist media like the New York Times and ABC News has tried to craft self-fulfilled prophesy by bleating endlessly about GOP "chasm" and a "brokered GOP" convention, to no avail. While it becomes more apparent by the day that it will actually be the DNC's that is going to be the internally contested event as a result of failing to meet a delegate goal. So predictably that it doesn't even qualify as irony.
How will Sanders's supporters react to a bald-faced power grab by the HRC camp when the latter fails to attain the delegate threshold? Silently, willingly, resigned, is what I forecast.
The map I displayed has California as being 35 to 49 percent non-white.
The census data has California's non-white population as being
16.48% black
How are the other 33%?
You have completely misunderstood all the numbers. Congratulations.
It always amazes me that people who claim they are anti-war and who claim they dont support anti-worker trade deals enthusiastically embrace a woman like Hillary. It makes zero sense. Support for Hillary is support for more wars, the TPP and increased inequality. Just like the past 40 years.
You have completely misunderstood all the numbers. Congratulations.
It always amazes me that people who claim they are anti-war and who claim they dont support anti-worker trade deals enthusiastically embrace a woman like Hillary. It makes zero sense. Support for Hillary is support for more wars, the TPP and increased inequality. Just like the past 40 years.
Surely you aren't referring to me because I am not "anti-war" nor am I anti-global trade. I am anti or pro military actions based upon the specifics of the action. I am for and against trade agreements depending on the details of such agreements and credible analysis. So when it comes to me, hold your amazement in check, I'm not particularly easy to pigeon hole.
Surely you aren't referring to me because I am not "anti-war" nor am I anti-global trade. I am anti or pro military actions based upon the specifics of the action. I am for and against trade agreements depending on the details of such agreements and credible analysis. So when it comes to me, hold your amazement in check, I'm not particularly easy to pigeon hole.
Really? So you DO NOT support Sanders' positions then, as you claim. He is AGAINST perpetual warfare in the Middle East and anti-worker trade deals written by lobbyists for corporations who fund the campaigns of people like Clinton. Clinton has been heavily PRO warfare in the Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Syria), is funded by war corporations and is a firm believer in "trade" deals written by corporations which heavily weaken the bargaining power of workers over corporations. Labor unions are heavily AGAINST these disastrous deals.
Tell us, whats so great about deals that let corporations sue national governments if they protect the people they are meant to serve? These deals are an affront to democracy and the chair of the Chamber of Commerce can assure his people that Clinton is all on board, just like she has always been. She is just lying again to her gullible followers.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for more perpetual warfare in the Middle East and more anti-worker trade deals. Thats the harsh reality so-called "realistic progressives" need to understand.
Moreover, globalist media like the New York Times and ABC News has tried to craft self-fulfilled prophesy by bleating endlessly about GOP "chasm" and a "brokered GOP" convention, to no avail. While it becomes more apparent by the day that it will actually be the DNC's that is going to be the internally contested event as a result of failing to meet a delegate goal. So predictably that it doesn't even qualify as irony.
How will Sanders's supporters react to a bald-faced power grab by the HRC camp when the latter fails to attain the delegate threshold? Silently, willingly, resigned, is what I forecast.
If you think there's a plausible chance for a brokered DC you're are completely clueless.
In 2008 Obama beat Hilary by the narrowest of margins. The super delegates knew a brokered convention would be counterproductive, so they put Obama over the top since he had more votes and pledge delegates.
This year it's not nearly so close, so there's simply no credible reason for most super delegates to support Bernie over Hilary. Even if you disregard super delegates, Hilary will have almost enough regular delegates to secure the nomination, so the the super delegates are really just a formality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Surely you aren't referring to me because I am not "anti-war" nor am I anti-global trade. I am anti or pro military actions based upon the specifics of the action. I am for and against trade agreements depending on the details of such agreements and credible analysis. So when it comes to me, hold your amazement in check, I'm not particularly easy to pigeon hole.
Exactly, and this is why I generally favor pragmatic, non-ideological politicians. I'm baffled how many people don't seem to understand the complexity and ambiguity of national and global politics. In most cases, there isn't a clear and simple right and wrong approach. Hilary understand this, which is why she's not the most compelling campaigner. Complex explanations don't lend themselves to simple, palatable sound bites.
Really? So you DO NOT support Sanders' positions then, as you claim.
What I've said is that I philosophically agree with many of Sanders positions, not all and not necessarily as they are proposed.
Quote:
He is AGAINST perpetual warfare in the Middle East
What exactly does "perpetual warfare" in the Middle East mean? Yes, I oppose "perpetual warfare" but I'm not convinced that dealing with ISIS fits that definition.
Quote:
anti-worker trade deals written by lobbyists for corporations who fund the campaigns of people like Clinton.
As someone to the left of Sanders on some matters, my decidedly unpatriotic view on globalism doesn't include a nationalist component, as a result I feel that after generations of colonial and neo-colonialist economic exploitation trade deals that aid in the development of underdeveloped countries are fine with me. What I would prefer would be a concentration of retraining and development of a workforce to do jobs that Americans can excel at. Who assembles an iPhone or bakes a cookie aren't the jobs that I am going to lose sleep over.
Quote:
Clinton has been heavily PRO warfare in the Middle East (Iraq, Libya, Syria), is funded by war corporations and is a firm believer in "trade" deals written by corporations which heavily weaken the bargaining power of workers over corporations. Labor unions are heavily AGAINST these disastrous deals.
Your argument is heavy on the corp and light on the unions, like Sanders Clinton is heavily endorsed by American trade unions, why is that always absent from the discussion?
Quote:
She is just lying again to her gullible followers.
That's always an impressive and persuasive argument for your candidate.
Last edited by TheWiseWino; 03-27-2016 at 06:37 PM..
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.
