|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
posted February 21, 2020 10:40 PM |
|
|
|
All of these is only theater. Conflict creation is a method of manipulation the mass of people. Behind of this we have real rulers. Big financial oligarchs like Federal Reserve which is no federal and no reserve. America is not a democracy! Its criminal oligarchy.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 21, 2020 11:16 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Look. Clinton would have been an infinitely better president than Trump could ever be - not that this would say much, because Trump is anything but fit to be one. It doesn't matter how canditates APPEAR to be - being president isn't a TV show.
It's really simple. The American president has an awful lot of power. Trump on that seat? I mean, who has an easy feeling with him at the helm? If you have to be thankful that passenger planes are shot accidentally, avoiding a lot due to the shame involved...
2016 no one in their right mind could vote the guy, but having to endure that twittering oaf for 4 years should be enough to tell everybody that Donald Trump isn't president material and never was.
I consider this an issue as obvious as climate change. It's not even debatable.
At this point I would just say that in 2016 more women were prepared to vote Trump (as hard to fathom it is that ANY woman would vote for him) than men were prepared to vote Clinton.
I think that if the Reps had nominated an ACCEPTABLE, actually charming candidate (like Rob Lowe), it would have been a landslide victory, because all women had voted him because he was charming as opposed to a career female, while all men had voted for him over the suffragette.
So, if you wanted to say that, yes, Clinton was a crappy candidate - you'd need a more womanly one. But Trump was a lot crappier, because this is just IMAGE. The POTUS, though, is about abilities, and Clinton would wipe the floor with Trump.
"Clinton would be better because Trump is awful" is not a compelling argument that Clinton was the superior candidate. Can you point to any specific accomplishments or abilities she possessed that made her a better candidate? The ability to relate to her fellow Americans perhaps or to inspire? Other than her stints as senator and secretary of state, neither of which are that notable (except the Benghazi matter perhaps), what would have made her a better leader? The results prove right: Americans clearly believed she would not have made an effective leader.
"Nobody in their right mind would vote for the guy." So 50% of the country is insane because they voted for someone you don't like? Nice.
Also, it seems like a lot of Americans are happy with him at the helm. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans are very satisfied with how things are going. The economy is doing well, unemployment is down, we have a slew of new trade deals, and are not engaged in any new foreign conflicts. Sounds like he's done a solid job for the American people. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. His tweeting, while certainly tiresome, is understandable given that he has been savaged by our media for virtually everything. I don't blame the guy for wanting to speak his mind.
But at the end of the day, the question is whether he had done good by our nation and I think the proof is in the pudding. I think far more people re concerned less with image than results. And he's I am less interested in presidential image than I am in presidential results. And he certainly has gotten results.
But I wonder if the disagreement stems from what we believe makes someone presidential. Is it playing nice with the global community? Is putting their own nation first?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 04:48 AM |
|
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 09:09 AM |
|
|
@JJ
I believe our perception of the term 'candidacy' is at the root of our petty disagreement. In my view, the statements 'He will make a good president' and 'He is a good candidate for president' should not be considered to convey the same meaning, while you uphold that they should.
The Count
____________
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 09:43 AM |
|
|
|
Communist are always aggainist free speach! So sorry Sanders its your method! :0)))) But freedom people have real important problems! All people who using his head to thinking have troubles with twitter face youtube etc! Paypal! They have blocked accounts! Its thats financial oligarchy and Soros is on of agents these thugs.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 11:39 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 11:40, 22 Feb 2020.
|
I would've voted for Sanders during the last election, because he seemed like he was actually for the people. I have learned since then that he is not. He is a charlatan, and worse than that.
Trump is the only person currently in the running worth voting for. He's not perfect, he doesn't stand with the Constitution(let me know when any of the rich do), but he's the best in the running currently that this country has to offer. He's pro-wall and anti-illegal immigration, which is more sensible than i can say for all the others. If he was pro-environment/Constitution, he'd be closer to perfect. You have to care more about the current populace and their rights, before anyone else; if you're going to be a fitting president/government official.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 11:43 AM |
|
|
CountBezuhoff said:
@JJ
I believe our perception of the term 'candidacy' is at the root of our petty disagreement. In my view, the statements 'He will make a good president' and 'He is a good candidate for president' should not be considered to convey the same meaning, while you uphold that they should.
The Count
I don't think so. Why would he be a good candidate? In 2016 he was 70, which is too old for a good candidate. AT the time of his candidacy he was CEO of a corporation (resulting in an obvious conflict of interests). He has no prior record of governmental or military service. During his campaign he made numerous blatantly false or incorrect claims and racist comments.
His status as a businessman was unclear. He either has lost an insane amount of money or is guilty of tax evasion.
If it's true he's a billionaire (and not just balancing figures), he's a bad choice obviously (again, conflict of interests with the vast majority of the US citizens).
He was a crappy candidate by all means.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 02:25 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
I would've voted for Sanders during the last election, because he seemed like he was actually for the people. I have learned since then that he is not... Trump is the only person currently in the running worth voting for.
So, you supported the most far-left in the Democratic party and now you support the most far-right in the Republican party? Programs differ so much I doubt you have any idea of what you're talking about.
Plus, Trump not being pro-environment is not something that comes out of thin air, he is defending the interests of the oil industry that want to frack the entire country and keep the coal business moving. Some of the many positions where he aligns with the plutocrats running your country.
*And how can your english be worst then mine?
____________
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 03:47 PM |
- penalty applied by Corribus on 22 Feb 2020. |
|
|
I know exactly what i'm talking about. Go snow yourself and your snow provocations, mosquito.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 09:05 PM |
|
|
You know that's not allowed, fred. Try to act civilized, please.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 09:17 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 21:16, 23 Feb 2020.
|
@fred
He is against the oligarchy of supreme wealth control. Not the middle class working people.
If there are more cuts on food prices and less bailouts with executive bonuses, GOOD
The rich are fueling other canidates and would probably go against bernie to hold control over their wealth scheme. Wealth = control to them.
We are oppressed and decieved paying into the systems few chosen canidates. A billion votes on their selected few. And DNC is against bernie by fueling buttigrieg
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 09:38 PM |
|
|
Bernie is polling quite well among hispanics, unlike four years ago. This is quite intriguing.
PS: He is also projected to win 25% of the black vote. Even more intriguing.
bloodsucker said:
So, you supported the most far-left in the Democratic party and now you support the most far-right in the Republican party? Programs differ so much I doubt you have any idea of what you're talking about.
Trump and Bernie were the most anti-establishment candidates in the race, so people who were fed up with the status quo (like Fred) naturally flocked to them.
The Count
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 10:01 PM |
|
|
|
Trump isn't anti-establishment. Has never been. He was just staged as being "unconventional". Old trick. Gordic knots and so on. Works for people who are sick and tired of the same old.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 10:08 PM |
- penalty applied by Corribus on 22 Feb 2020. |
|
Corribus said:
You know that's not allowed, fred. Try to act civilized, please.
You know goddamn well that bloodsucker was insulting and baiting me, yet he didn't even get warned. Just like an authority figure to punish someone standing up for themselves, instead of punishing the pricks that start snow. So you can go snow yourself too, timmy.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 22, 2020 11:25 PM |
|
|
|
Well, the establishment is vehemently anti-Trump and this seals his options.
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2020 12:13 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
You know that's not allowed, fred. Try to act civilized, please.
Sorry, Corribus but I don't agree with him being penalized. I stroke him first, he just didn't reacted very well but knowing him as well as I do, I wasn't expecting less. You can say I teased the cat...
CountBezuhoff said:
Trump and Bernie were the most anti-establishment candidates in the race, so people who were fed up with the status quo (like Fred) naturally flocked to them.
That's why I say he does know what he is talking about. One thing is being anti-establishment, another not being able to distinguish between antagonic political programs. Is like me moving from Bloco de Esquerda* to Chega* just because the leader is even more radical.
*Google it
____________
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 23, 2020 05:45 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Well, the establishment is vehemently anti-Trump and this seals his options.
People keep repeating that the "establishment" is anti so-and-so but it's just a catchy statement that doesn't really mean anything. Republicans have shown pretty remarkable loyalty towards backing up their man, sans a few outliers.
If Sanders secures the nomination - which is looking increasingly likely - he will enjoy plenty of loyalty from the Democrats. A socialist would mix things up but it's not unprecedented: FDR was more-or-less a democratic socialist and we had him for over 12 years. The major parties realize they don't really have a choice but to back up their candidate otherwise the other party can exploit them.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 23, 2020 05:50 AM |
|
|
|
I'm completely fine with heavily taxing the wealthy but a 'wealth tax' is going to be a hot mess. If that ends up becoming a reality, grab your popcorn.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 23, 2020 08:14 AM |
|
|
Related:
Sorry Bernie Bros but Nordic Countries are not Socialist
This gets into some of the issues with a Sanders presidency. While I am glad that he is willing to speak frankly about some topics that get brushed aside by other candidate, a lot of his policies have already been tried by other countries and were unsuccessful.
For example, the 'wealth tax' is a logistical nightmare when it comes to determining what a person's wealth is, or how they are suppose to pay the wealth tax. Jeff Bezos is a classic example as the world's richest man: the vast majority of his net worth is in shares in Amazon. So what are we suppose to do? Give a court-order telling him that he has to sell shares of the company?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 23, 2020 09:46 AM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
People keep repeating that the "establishment" is anti so-and-so but it's just a catchy statement that doesn't really mean anything. Republicans have shown pretty remarkable loyalty towards backing up their man, sans a few outliers.
What republicans think is not relevant if there is no press to diffuse it. The truth is that over 90% of the press is democrat leaning, Wall Street is left leaning, FBI is left leaning, Google, Facebook, Twitter are left leaning this is how elites control is exerted. When you do a search for Trump and all you get in first 100-200 results is negative opinions, you get the picture of how the establishment deploys its power.
The best example of its efficiency is you considering that republicans acting normal is a proof of loyalty against one man, when is loyalty towards the US constitution. There was no impeachment material, period.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
