Comment deleted by Site Moderator
80% of women who cross the border are raped
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 5 minutes ago
A lot of ignorance of the duplicitous and criminal nature of Hillary Clinton on this thread.
Of all the democrats that could lose an election to Trump, by polarizing the democrats vote, it is she.
In a general election, Sanders would in fact likely siphon votes away from Trump, as moderate Republicans and independents recoiled from the specter of Trump in the White House. By contrast, the hatred towards Clinton guarantees a strong right wing turnout, and poses a serious risk of a low democrat turnout. A low turnout at the election sees Trump win it.
Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to American politics knows that Clinton is: a warmonger (Libya; vigorous defender of Bush's Iraq policy); at best, indifferent to the global environmental crisis; a bedfellow of Goldman Sachs and the big pharmaceutical companies.
All of the above also discounts the fact that she's being investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified information as secretary of state...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have loved a Sanders presidency but I always thought there was a bit of wishful thinking when people claimed he'd do much better against Trump than Clinton could. Yes, some of his supporters won't vote for her. But some of her supporters wouldn't have voted for him - especially as the right-wing noise machine started demonising Sanders as a left-wing radical. He didn't really get attacked by the Republicans and their media, as they always assumed he wouldn't win the nomination. A huge amount of money would have been thrown at trashing him - a lot more Wall Street money going to Trump than he'll get facing off against Clinton. All of this speaks for why Sanders would have been a much better leader of the US, of course, but I was never as confident as some that he had the better chance of beating Trump.
I suspect that anti-Trump turnout will be high. Some Berniebros will sit out but they are visible beyond their numbers. Meanwhile, black and Latino should be high: these demographics backed Clinton in the primaries and can hear the dog whistles just as clearly as Trump's supporters. And a lot of centrists who sometimes vote Republican as well as those on the left are going to want to stop Trump at all costs. So I think Clinton ought to shade it. Terrifying though.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Right or wrong, if Trump is what he majority want then it's tough.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 2 minutes ago
Right or wrong, if Trump is what he majority want then it's tough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There hasn't been an election yet, so at this point the task is to debate that whole 'right or wrong' question.
Hint: Trump is wrong.
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 2 minutes ago
religions are not responsible for suffering.. people are. take religion away, there will still be mass suffering. most of the worlds suffering (disease, starvation, murder) is due to greed and hate.. america is the most greedy nation in the world and uses a disgusting amount of resources per person... humanity is the cause of all the ill in this planet. religion did not teach people to build guns and nuclear weapons designed to kill masses of civilians.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion helps cause conflict (in the same way skin colour, money, land etc does) and it is nothing more than another sick creation from mankinds ego.
Trump is obviously a terrible presidential nominee and should be easily defeated by any regular candidate.
However Clinton these days is just scandal after scandal and with more email leaks to come it may only get worse for her.
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
religions are not responsible for suffering.. people are.
-
Semantics. Religion is a man-made device and a lot of wars have been fought in the name of a variety of Gods.
IF you are a gambler you'll bet on Trump to win..just like many people made money on the EU referendum.
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a technical sense, yes. But to a huge amount of voters he comes across (obv I know the reality) as a self made, hard working product of the American dream.
He comes across as an alternative to the system and that is what might swing it on polling day. People might choose the 'exciting' route.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 13 minutes ago
religions are not responsible for suffering.. people are.
-
Semantics. Religion is a man-made device and a lot of wars have been fought in the name of a variety of Gods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From an atheist perspective, I somehow doubt that if we got rid of religion as a thought mistake, this would transform humanity into a rational and cooperative species. We have a propensity towards collecting in tribes and enmity to the Other. We have a tendency toward emotional decision making. Without religion, we'd make plenty of other harmful thought mistakes to fill the void. Look at the pernicious ideas that are brewing on social media today - many of them don't require faith in a supreme being to infect millions of minds. Eliminate religion and you wouldn't eliminate our capability to subjugate and slaughter each other, just as you wouldn't eliminate the impulse to look after each other, which is also promoted in most of the major religions.
I wish my daddy had given me millions of dollars to become a self-made man...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Paul Robbga (U20351)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a technical sense, yes. But to a huge amount of voters he comes across (obv I know the reality) as a self made, hard working product of the American dream.
He comes across as an alternative to the system and that is what might swing it on polling day. People might choose the 'exciting' route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but we were discussing the reality, not what rednecks allow themselves to believe.
Like Bill Hicks said, choosing a president is like choosing between a sh-t and a t-rd. I guess even though Clinton is a horrible human being she is less likely to actually start a nuclear war and end the planet.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Paul Robbga (U20351)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a technical sense, yes. But to a huge amount of voters he comes across (obv I know the reality) as a self made, hard working product of the American dream.
He comes across as an alternative to the system and that is what might swing it on polling day. People might choose the 'exciting' route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but we were discussing the reality, not what rednecks allow themselves to believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What people choose to believe is the reality though when the only thing they need to do with that choice is to go to a poll and vote for that delusion.
I don't think it's just rednecks either
she is less likely to actually start a nuclear war and end the planet
-
I wouldn't be so certain of that. She's an unrepentant warmonger. She was responsible for the American intervention in Libya, pushing Obama to order the bombing of Gaddafi's forces.
She then bragged about her involvement after Gaddafi was killed:
"We came, we saw, he died!"
She has repeatedly passed up the opportunity to admit that US involvement in both Libya and Iraq was a mistake, and to this day remains 'proud' of her vote in favour of invading Iraq.
Clinton's reckless interventionism is more likely to drag the US in another war than Trump building a wall and banning Muslims from entering the US (which won't happen).
Lambeau
But Trump will probably tell Kim Jong Un "He's a stupid little man, he's got a tiny peepee. Whereas mine is magnificent, many people have told me."
Lambeau, I'm no apologist for Clinton's foreign policy. She's obviously more of a hawk than Obama, who has plenty of blood on his hands. But I think it's a mistake to see Trump as a softer option. Apart from the bigotry, he has repeatedly talked about foreign policy as a kind of zero sum game - an approach that works okay in real estate - advocated torture and carpet bombing large swathes of the middle east.
Sign in if you want to comment
Trump or Clinton?
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
80% of women who cross the border are raped
posted on 26/7/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 5 minutes ago
A lot of ignorance of the duplicitous and criminal nature of Hillary Clinton on this thread.
Of all the democrats that could lose an election to Trump, by polarizing the democrats vote, it is she.
In a general election, Sanders would in fact likely siphon votes away from Trump, as moderate Republicans and independents recoiled from the specter of Trump in the White House. By contrast, the hatred towards Clinton guarantees a strong right wing turnout, and poses a serious risk of a low democrat turnout. A low turnout at the election sees Trump win it.
Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to American politics knows that Clinton is: a warmonger (Libya; vigorous defender of Bush's Iraq policy); at best, indifferent to the global environmental crisis; a bedfellow of Goldman Sachs and the big pharmaceutical companies.
All of the above also discounts the fact that she's being investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified information as secretary of state...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd have loved a Sanders presidency but I always thought there was a bit of wishful thinking when people claimed he'd do much better against Trump than Clinton could. Yes, some of his supporters won't vote for her. But some of her supporters wouldn't have voted for him - especially as the right-wing noise machine started demonising Sanders as a left-wing radical. He didn't really get attacked by the Republicans and their media, as they always assumed he wouldn't win the nomination. A huge amount of money would have been thrown at trashing him - a lot more Wall Street money going to Trump than he'll get facing off against Clinton. All of this speaks for why Sanders would have been a much better leader of the US, of course, but I was never as confident as some that he had the better chance of beating Trump.
I suspect that anti-Trump turnout will be high. Some Berniebros will sit out but they are visible beyond their numbers. Meanwhile, black and Latino should be high: these demographics backed Clinton in the primaries and can hear the dog whistles just as clearly as Trump's supporters. And a lot of centrists who sometimes vote Republican as well as those on the left are going to want to stop Trump at all costs. So I think Clinton ought to shade it. Terrifying though.
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
Right or wrong, if Trump is what he majority want then it's tough.
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
comment by Reddevilsdouble - give peace a chance (U12215)
posted 2 minutes ago
Right or wrong, if Trump is what he majority want then it's tough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There hasn't been an election yet, so at this point the task is to debate that whole 'right or wrong' question.
Hint: Trump is wrong.
posted on 26/7/16
comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 2 minutes ago
religions are not responsible for suffering.. people are. take religion away, there will still be mass suffering. most of the worlds suffering (disease, starvation, murder) is due to greed and hate.. america is the most greedy nation in the world and uses a disgusting amount of resources per person... humanity is the cause of all the ill in this planet. religion did not teach people to build guns and nuclear weapons designed to kill masses of civilians.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion helps cause conflict (in the same way skin colour, money, land etc does) and it is nothing more than another sick creation from mankinds ego.
posted on 26/7/16
Trump is obviously a terrible presidential nominee and should be easily defeated by any regular candidate.
However Clinton these days is just scandal after scandal and with more email leaks to come it may only get worse for her.
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
posted on 26/7/16
religions are not responsible for suffering.. people are.
-
Semantics. Religion is a man-made device and a lot of wars have been fought in the name of a variety of Gods.
posted on 26/7/16
IF you are a gambler you'll bet on Trump to win..just like many people made money on the EU referendum.
posted on 26/7/16
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
posted on 26/7/16
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a technical sense, yes. But to a huge amount of voters he comes across (obv I know the reality) as a self made, hard working product of the American dream.
He comes across as an alternative to the system and that is what might swing it on polling day. People might choose the 'exciting' route.
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 13 minutes ago
religions are not responsible for suffering.. people are.
-
Semantics. Religion is a man-made device and a lot of wars have been fought in the name of a variety of Gods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From an atheist perspective, I somehow doubt that if we got rid of religion as a thought mistake, this would transform humanity into a rational and cooperative species. We have a propensity towards collecting in tribes and enmity to the Other. We have a tendency toward emotional decision making. Without religion, we'd make plenty of other harmful thought mistakes to fill the void. Look at the pernicious ideas that are brewing on social media today - many of them don't require faith in a supreme being to infect millions of minds. Eliminate religion and you wouldn't eliminate our capability to subjugate and slaughter each other, just as you wouldn't eliminate the impulse to look after each other, which is also promoted in most of the major religions.
posted on 26/7/16
I wish my daddy had given me millions of dollars to become a self-made man...
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
comment by Paul Robbga (U20351)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a technical sense, yes. But to a huge amount of voters he comes across (obv I know the reality) as a self made, hard working product of the American dream.
He comes across as an alternative to the system and that is what might swing it on polling day. People might choose the 'exciting' route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but we were discussing the reality, not what rednecks allow themselves to believe.
posted on 26/7/16
Like Bill Hicks said, choosing a president is like choosing between a sh-t and a t-rd. I guess even though Clinton is a horrible human being she is less likely to actually start a nuclear war and end the planet.
posted on 26/7/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/7/16
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Paul Robbga (U20351)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Regular Americans also want to stick it to the establishment which Clinton is definitely part of.
---------------------------------------------
...as is Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a technical sense, yes. But to a huge amount of voters he comes across (obv I know the reality) as a self made, hard working product of the American dream.
He comes across as an alternative to the system and that is what might swing it on polling day. People might choose the 'exciting' route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but we were discussing the reality, not what rednecks allow themselves to believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What people choose to believe is the reality though when the only thing they need to do with that choice is to go to a poll and vote for that delusion.
I don't think it's just rednecks either
posted on 26/7/16
she is less likely to actually start a nuclear war and end the planet
-
I wouldn't be so certain of that. She's an unrepentant warmonger. She was responsible for the American intervention in Libya, pushing Obama to order the bombing of Gaddafi's forces.
She then bragged about her involvement after Gaddafi was killed:
"We came, we saw, he died!"
She has repeatedly passed up the opportunity to admit that US involvement in both Libya and Iraq was a mistake, and to this day remains 'proud' of her vote in favour of invading Iraq.
Clinton's reckless interventionism is more likely to drag the US in another war than Trump building a wall and banning Muslims from entering the US (which won't happen).
posted on 26/7/16
Lambeau
But Trump will probably tell Kim Jong Un "He's a stupid little man, he's got a tiny peepee. Whereas mine is magnificent, many people have told me."
posted on 26/7/16
Lambeau, I'm no apologist for Clinton's foreign policy. She's obviously more of a hawk than Obama, who has plenty of blood on his hands. But I think it's a mistake to see Trump as a softer option. Apart from the bigotry, he has repeatedly talked about foreign policy as a kind of zero sum game - an approach that works okay in real estate - advocated torture and carpet bombing large swathes of the middle east.
Page 3 of 6
6