RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common

RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Wayward5oul -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/15/2016 5:22:34 PM)
quote: It's all relative, Phydeaux. The Republican candidates generally look extreme from a European perspective but Trump most of all - which is an impressive achievement, considering his competitors amongst the GOP). He's also as mad as a mongoose. Trump is extreme yes, but more in terms of behavior. He isn't an extreme conservative, the way that his fellow candidates are. His extreme rhetoric on immigration, Muslims, etc. is reaching repubs who are angry and fed up, but he has a different track record in a lot of other stuff that appeals to moderates and independents. Hell, if he thought a 3rd party candidate had a legitimate shot at winning, he may have gone that route in the first place, so that he didn't have to support ideals of any particular party. I think he would be unpredictable as a president, just because he won't necessarily follow party lines. Hell, if he wasn't clearly as certifiably insane as he is, I might consider him.

Greta75 -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/15/2016 8:55:55 PM)
FR Trump has officially declared in his last debate that one thing he will never do if he was President was to use executive powers like Obama keeps using. He talks about negotiation, bringing people together, getting them to work together. He talks about, he works for the people and not for himself. He also talks about it's important to be flexible. When he has access to inner facts of the situations at hand, he will be able to listen to all the advisers and make the decision best suited for the situation. Some of his plans might change according to what's best for that situation. Personally, I believe, no matter what, as a business man who made it to the top, you still need to hire experts to advice you and then, sometimes, you go with their advice, sometimes, you don't and follow your gut. I think everyone else painting him, as launching nuclear on anybody who piss him off, is grossly exaggerating everything. In the real world, even not in the political world. There is no way, you can build a successful wealthy empire, if you do not have some form of sanity and self-control when it comes to the major decisions. At the same time, he has the guts to say things that are on people's mind, but nobody dares to say. And he face down PC police. I'm just so awed about what he said about G.Bush. I mean, I bet democrat candidates wish they could say that aloud.

MrRodgers -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/16/2016 1:06:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence Trump is a light fascist and Sanders is a light socialist to keep it very simple. But like someone else said, what they have in common is that they are as far from neo liberal policies as one can get probably get in American politics. They also aren't interested in moral issues and refrain from discussing them leading them to be able to catch voters from the communitarian rightists such as the religious ones. I think that Sanders could gain a crushing advantage if he out of the blue started calling for the adoption of morally conservative issues that progressives aren't interested in. Let's say that Sanders started actively campaigning against gambling and increasing federal control over alcohol sales. I doubt any progressive "liberal" would switch over to Trump because of this but various Trump supporters might switch over to Sanders. I also think that being more moderate on guns would be a strategically correct card to play, as again they would not switch to Trump but more people could switch from Trump to Sanders. Of course he has to beat Hillary first. It's all about strategy at this point. If Hillary is elected for the democratic ticket Trump could easily flipflop on a lot of social and economic issues, again precluding any conservative from supporting Hillary but Hillary supporters could more easily then switch to Trump. The established candidates do not have the option to flip flop on some of the more important issues because of lobbyist interests. So Trump and Sanders have far more room for strategic maneuvering leading me to conclude that if either Trump or Sanders are elected and if they really want to win above all and have a solid team of advisors then I doubt they can lose. It only becomes interesting if both are elected for their party list. And yes, Hillary is beating Trump in all sorts of polls but Trump hasn't even had time to really open his mouth up about her in any serious way yet. In a 1v1 race there are all sorts of positions he could attack. An easy foreign policy point would be the possible conflict arising from future tension between Turkey and Russia. Hillary is beholden to the Saudis and the classical US foreign policy position in the middle east. Trump has room to act in support of Russia, proclaiming that they are fighting Daesh while the Turks fight the Kurds and thus assist Daesh. He has the room to attack Hillary (and her husband) for repeatedly failing to bring about a working health care plan and having no alternatives to "Obama care" despite this supposedly being her main political drive since she was young. He can drag union workers to his side by attacking mexican immigration from the perspective of wage dumping. She can't respond because she is beholden to the Hispanic vote. The only option left for her would be a radical one in terms of giving Unions further rights to enforce blockades and equal pay for immigrants; I doubt her donors would allow her to go that far nor would she probably want to. Plus then Trump could really start dishing out "Oh and we thought Sanders was the socialist" card. There are so many angles of attack possible he'd have to want to lose to actually lose. Interesting comments. Light fascist vs. Light socialist! It appears that neither of them are in bed with lobbyists or special interest groups {at least it's not blatantly obvious}. I agree it's only interesting if both are elected for their political party. If Hillary wins, and that is who this nation elects, I'm thinking we get the country we deserve. Just as we "deserve" our current country. Well I don't think it will be a walk in the park what ever choice is made. America benefits from capitalism because it is its financial center and the dollar is basically as strong as it is because everyone uses it for various transactions. It's just that the benefit is not really seen because the wealth distribution has become so scewed. But imagine if Trump wins and builds his wall, it won't solve much but one thing it might do is curb low skilled labor immigration. Now that's going to hard struggling agro commerce. Or if either of them doesn't sign the various Trans this or that agreements American corporations might lose on international competitiveness if other countries do sign them. Now if it goes so far to challenge the dollars stability then inflation might skyrocket because so much of your currency derives its value from the GDP of other nations and if they dump it and you can't consume domestic products then you're screwed. And the thing is, America doesn't have the old industrial base it used to have to fall back on. Challenging financial capitalism and its global trade is difficult if you've built your country around it. Plus especially Sanders might not be willing to wage war to keep to force other nations in line which might further influence other nations to abandon the dollar or leave the frameworks of the global trade that America benefits from, they might for example raise tariffs or join new currency pacts. Less wars also means less income for your military industrial corporations... Some good points but as far as the dollar is concerned, I am not worried. Not only with rates not now but in the future, going up even if just a very little at a time but the dollar is still not only the world's reserve currency which it will remain with trillion$ a year in dollar denominated business, but is the safe haven (escape valve) from all of the troubled currencies around the world. Plus there is the steady confidence in the US economy and of course the basis for the real value of any currency...the US labor force.

CodeOfSilence -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 11:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence Trump is a light fascist and Sanders is a light socialist to keep it very simple. But like someone else said, what they have in common is that they are as far from neo liberal policies as one can get probably get in American politics. They also aren't interested in moral issues and refrain from discussing them leading them to be able to catch voters from the communitarian rightists such as the religious ones. I think that Sanders could gain a crushing advantage if he out of the blue started calling for the adoption of morally conservative issues that progressives aren't interested in. Let's say that Sanders started actively campaigning against gambling and increasing federal control over alcohol sales. I doubt any progressive "liberal" would switch over to Trump because of this but various Trump supporters might switch over to Sanders. I also think that being more moderate on guns would be a strategically correct card to play, as again they would not switch to Trump but more people could switch from Trump to Sanders. Of course he has to beat Hillary first. It's all about strategy at this point. If Hillary is elected for the democratic ticket Trump could easily flipflop on a lot of social and economic issues, again precluding any conservative from supporting Hillary but Hillary supporters could more easily then switch to Trump. The established candidates do not have the option to flip flop on some of the more important issues because of lobbyist interests. So Trump and Sanders have far more room for strategic maneuvering leading me to conclude that if either Trump or Sanders are elected and if they really want to win above all and have a solid team of advisors then I doubt they can lose. It only becomes interesting if both are elected for their party list. And yes, Hillary is beating Trump in all sorts of polls but Trump hasn't even had time to really open his mouth up about her in any serious way yet. In a 1v1 race there are all sorts of positions he could attack. An easy foreign policy point would be the possible conflict arising from future tension between Turkey and Russia. Hillary is beholden to the Saudis and the classical US foreign policy position in the middle east. Trump has room to act in support of Russia, proclaiming that they are fighting Daesh while the Turks fight the Kurds and thus assist Daesh. He has the room to attack Hillary (and her husband) for repeatedly failing to bring about a working health care plan and having no alternatives to "Obama care" despite this supposedly being her main political drive since she was young. He can drag union workers to his side by attacking mexican immigration from the perspective of wage dumping. She can't respond because she is beholden to the Hispanic vote. The only option left for her would be a radical one in terms of giving Unions further rights to enforce blockades and equal pay for immigrants; I doubt her donors would allow her to go that far nor would she probably want to. Plus then Trump could really start dishing out "Oh and we thought Sanders was the socialist" card. There are so many angles of attack possible he'd have to want to lose to actually lose. Interesting comments. Light fascist vs. Light socialist! It appears that neither of them are in bed with lobbyists or special interest groups {at least it's not blatantly obvious}. I agree it's only interesting if both are elected for their political party. If Hillary wins, and that is who this nation elects, I'm thinking we get the country we deserve. Just as we "deserve" our current country. Well I don't think it will be a walk in the park what ever choice is made. America benefits from capitalism because it is its financial center and the dollar is basically as strong as it is because everyone uses it for various transactions. It's just that the benefit is not really seen because the wealth distribution has become so scewed. But imagine if Trump wins and builds his wall, it won't solve much but one thing it might do is curb low skilled labor immigration. Now that's going to hard struggling agro commerce. Or if either of them doesn't sign the various Trans this or that agreements American corporations might lose on international competitiveness if other countries do sign them. Now if it goes so far to challenge the dollars stability then inflation might skyrocket because so much of your currency derives its value from the GDP of other nations and if they dump it and you can't consume domestic products then you're screwed. And the thing is, America doesn't have the old industrial base it used to have to fall back on. Challenging financial capitalism and its global trade is difficult if you've built your country around it. Plus especially Sanders might not be willing to wage war to keep to force other nations in line which might further influence other nations to abandon the dollar or leave the frameworks of the global trade that America benefits from, they might for example raise tariffs or join new currency pacts. Less wars also means less income for your military industrial corporations... Some good points but as far as the dollar is concerned, I am not worried. Not only with rates not now but in the future, going up even if just a very little at a time but the dollar is still not only the world's reserve currency which it will remain with trillion$ a year in dollar denominated business, but is the safe haven (escape valve) from all of the troubled currencies around the world. Plus there is the steady confidence in the US economy and of course the basis for the real value of any currency...the US labor force. Here's an interesting picture just how important the Agro commerce sector is for the United States and for the rest of the world: [image]http://oi67.tinypic.com/5afax5.jpg[/image] An increase in wages or a deportation of immigrants might actually lead to both a food price crisis and a massive abandoning of US currency as people struggle to find alternative suppliers. There are few other sectors that are as labor intensive agriculture. I mean who knows how large part of the costs of these businesses are tied to labor costs but it might be a larger part than other sectors. I actually had no idea that Mexico was so behind the US. That's just kinda sad. They send their young and able bodied men to work on US fields for peanuts and then import the food that they buy for the money sent back from the workers which is then funneled back to the agro commerce sector.

Phydeaux -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 1:06:22 PM)
News Flash: go look at cites that rate the candidates. The 4 most moderate candidates are all republican. Trump is the 2nd most moderate, in most.

mnottertail -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 1:09:39 PM)
cites that rate them as moderate are nutsucker. they are fucking stupid, not moderate.

MrRodgers -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 1:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence Trump is a light fascist and Sanders is a light socialist to keep it very simple. But like someone else said, what they have in common is that they are as far from neo liberal policies as one can get probably get in American politics. They also aren't interested in moral issues and refrain from discussing them leading them to be able to catch voters from the communitarian rightists such as the religious ones. I think that Sanders could gain a crushing advantage if he out of the blue started calling for the adoption of morally conservative issues that progressives aren't interested in. Let's say that Sanders started actively campaigning against gambling and increasing federal control over alcohol sales. I doubt any progressive "liberal" would switch over to Trump because of this but various Trump supporters might switch over to Sanders. I also think that being more moderate on guns would be a strategically correct card to play, as again they would not switch to Trump but more people could switch from Trump to Sanders. Of course he has to beat Hillary first. It's all about strategy at this point. If Hillary is elected for the democratic ticket Trump could easily flipflop on a lot of social and economic issues, again precluding any conservative from supporting Hillary but Hillary supporters could more easily then switch to Trump. The established candidates do not have the option to flip flop on some of the more important issues because of lobbyist interests. So Trump and Sanders have far more room for strategic maneuvering leading me to conclude that if either Trump or Sanders are elected and if they really want to win above all and have a solid team of advisors then I doubt they can lose. It only becomes interesting if both are elected for their party list. And yes, Hillary is beating Trump in all sorts of polls but Trump hasn't even had time to really open his mouth up about her in any serious way yet. In a 1v1 race there are all sorts of positions he could attack. An easy foreign policy point would be the possible conflict arising from future tension between Turkey and Russia. Hillary is beholden to the Saudis and the classical US foreign policy position in the middle east. Trump has room to act in support of Russia, proclaiming that they are fighting Daesh while the Turks fight the Kurds and thus assist Daesh. He has the room to attack Hillary (and her husband) for repeatedly failing to bring about a working health care plan and having no alternatives to "Obama care" despite this supposedly being her main political drive since she was young. He can drag union workers to his side by attacking mexican immigration from the perspective of wage dumping. She can't respond because she is beholden to the Hispanic vote. The only option left for her would be a radical one in terms of giving Unions further rights to enforce blockades and equal pay for immigrants; I doubt her donors would allow her to go that far nor would she probably want to. Plus then Trump could really start dishing out "Oh and we thought Sanders was the socialist" card. There are so many angles of attack possible he'd have to want to lose to actually lose. Interesting comments. Light fascist vs. Light socialist! It appears that neither of them are in bed with lobbyists or special interest groups {at least it's not blatantly obvious}. I agree it's only interesting if both are elected for their political party. If Hillary wins, and that is who this nation elects, I'm thinking we get the country we deserve. Just as we "deserve" our current country. Well I don't think it will be a walk in the park what ever choice is made. America benefits from capitalism because it is its financial center and the dollar is basically as strong as it is because everyone uses it for various transactions. It's just that the benefit is not really seen because the wealth distribution has become so scewed. But imagine if Trump wins and builds his wall, it won't solve much but one thing it might do is curb low skilled labor immigration. Now that's going to hard struggling agro commerce. Or if either of them doesn't sign the various Trans this or that agreements American corporations might lose on international competitiveness if other countries do sign them. Now if it goes so far to challenge the dollars stability then inflation might skyrocket because so much of your currency derives its value from the GDP of other nations and if they dump it and you can't consume domestic products then you're screwed. And the thing is, America doesn't have the old industrial base it used to have to fall back on. Challenging financial capitalism and its global trade is difficult if you've built your country around it. Plus especially Sanders might not be willing to wage war to keep to force other nations in line which might further influence other nations to abandon the dollar or leave the frameworks of the global trade that America benefits from, they might for example raise tariffs or join new currency pacts. Less wars also means less income for your military industrial corporations... Some good points but as far as the dollar is concerned, I am not worried. Not only with rates not now but in the future, going up even if just a very little at a time but the dollar is still not only the world's reserve currency which it will remain with trillion$ a year in dollar denominated business, but is the safe haven (escape valve) from all of the troubled currencies around the world. Plus there is the steady confidence in the US economy and of course the basis for the real value of any currency...the US labor force. Here's an interesting picture just how important the Agro commerce sector is for the United States and for the rest of the world: [image]http://oi67.tinypic.com/5afax5.jpg[/image] An increase in wages or a deportation of immigrants might actually lead to both a food price crisis and a massive abandoning of US currency as people struggle to find alternative suppliers. There are few other sectors that are as labor intensive agriculture. I mean who knows how large part of the costs of these businesses are tied to labor costs but it might be a larger part than other sectors. I actually had no idea that Mexico was so behind the US. That's just kinda sad. They send their young and able bodied men to work on US fields for peanuts and then import the food that they buy for the money sent back from the workers which is then funneled back to the agro commerce sector. Well what I mean by confidence in any given labor force is what labor does over all, meaning every step of the way. What the end product is as a result, (finished product) and is called enhanced value. So when judging the value of any currency, any holder judges the expertise built into and quality of the product that results in its 'enhanced value' and what they will get for a dollar. To use your example, years ago at an agric. show (an American was actually arrested and told to cease and desist from trying to sell his rice) in Japan. Specifically when one compares each county's product, it was no contest. Japanese rice is shipped to the customer in a bag...full of shit. It had rocks, dirt and bad rice etc. whereas the American rice and anyone can attest, was perfect...clean, ripe and ready to prepare and eat. That's the case for many products that all around the world, customers (and countries directly as a result) hold dollars to spend on (foreign exchange) American goods and has direct influence on the dollar remaining their reserve currency. Imagine you are in the treasury dept. of any number of small foreign countries, what currency should you hold ? So for your example and in particular, do you realize just how bad the food market would have to get in the US for what you suggest to really make any difference at all ? Part of the turn around in the auto industry in the US, is that for quality and price, they have had a great comeback and set a record for 2015.

CodeOfSilence -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 2:41:56 PM)
They can hold all sorts of currencies. Swiss Franc, Euro, Yen, I Think the Pound is at like 0 inflation this year. The US currency is not just a reserve currency, it is a major trade currency. Oil is most often traded in US dollars. It is suspected that Libya might have been invaded for trying to sell oil on a gold based currency. It is rumored that Iraq tried to do the same. Obviously an abrupt increase in the cost of US agro-products would leave corporations and nations looking for food elsewhere. Europe is probably very willing to sell amidst its Russian sanctions, all trade with Europe would probably be done with the Euro weakening the global standing of the dollar. I don't mena it will kill it, just that even good intentions have costs. Let's say these quasi-conspiracies are true. Let's say Sanders was president and didn't invade Iraq and Libya and let's say they managed to overturn Global trade in oil at least in terms of their own output from the Dollar to the Gold standard. Just Iraqi output at todays oil prices (and they are low) is worth 120 million USD a day. That's 43 billion a year. And that's just the sum directly traded, not counting all the insurances, all the funds based on it, all the schemes you have going and financial instruments. Recently they said that the fake, speculative economy is many times worth the real world GDP. This means that switching to the gold standard just for Iraqi trade could potentially deal 200-300 billion dollars of damage to the value of the dollar over the long term if those instruments switched over to alternative currencies too. Now that's not much because the dollar is like this huge leech on the whole world economy, but it's a good start. And frankly I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here, not in terms of the actual value of Iraqi oil but in terms of how these things influence the real world economy. Nobody real knows. It's a fucking black hole.

Politesub53 -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 4:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux News Flash: go look at cites that rate the candidates. The 4 most moderate candidates are all republican. Trump is the 2nd most moderate, in most. Most fucking moderate doesnt equal Democrat, it just equates to which candidate for Republican leader is less of a nutter.

cloudboy -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 7:09:16 PM)
Sanders has articulated an actual platform and campaigns using positive messages. He identifies problems and offers solutions. Trump is smoke and mirrors. He'll "fix" the economy. He'll "keep Putin in line." Mexico will build a wall for the USA. Japan will contain China. China will contain North Korea. Trump is all about out-grouping and in-grouping. Sanders is about boosting the income of the middle class without scapegoating immigrants. Sanders is pro choice and wants to increase funding for planned parenthood. Sanders supporters are excited, Trump supporters are angry and fearful of minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. A large portion of what Trump says is false and misleading.

Greta75 -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/17/2016 10:13:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Trump is all about out-grouping and in-grouping. Sanders is about boosting the income of the middle class without scapegoating immigrants. Sanders is pro choice and wants to increase funding for planned parenthood. Okay, talking about Planned Parenthood, I gotta applaud Trump for doing the suicide unthinkable. SC being a very conservative state, probably anti-abortion state. And him happily defending Planned Parenthood in that state! Acknowledging that it has done some good as well! Go Trump! I mean some of those things he said in his last debate were democrats wet dreams. They wish they could say it. I think Planned Parenthood was completely missing in the Dem debate as they wouldn't dare to remind SC they supported it. I'm on Trump Camp because I totally see him as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is exactly what I consider myself to be.

Wayward5oul -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/18/2016 4:55:23 PM)
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-bernie-sanders-mika-msnbc-town-hall-154646784.html They were describing Sanders. Trump said it was him.

Phydeaux -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/18/2016 7:23:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Sanders has articulated an actual platform and campaigns using positive messages. He identifies problems and offers solutions. Trump is smoke and mirrors. He'll "fix" the economy. He'll "keep Putin in line." Mexico will build a wall for the USA. Japan will contain China. China will contain North Korea. Trump is all about out-grouping and in-grouping. Sanders is about boosting the income of the middle class without scapegoating immigrants. Sanders is pro choice and wants to increase funding for planned parenthood. Sanders supporters are excited, Trump supporters are angry and fearful of minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. A large portion of what Trump says is false and misleading. Bronx cheer. The average american can't find crimea on the world map. Doesn't know what a CDO is. 95% of Americans can't solve math equations that diophantes could solve 2500 years ago. Much I enjoy wonking out - the average american doesn't want policy. They don't want someone like johnathan gruber - they want somone that will stake a position, get it done, or explain why not. They want someone that knows people.,

Tkman117 -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/18/2016 8:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Sanders has articulated an actual platform and campaigns using positive messages. He identifies problems and offers solutions. Trump is smoke and mirrors. He'll "fix" the economy. He'll "keep Putin in line." Mexico will build a wall for the USA. Japan will contain China. China will contain North Korea. Trump is all about out-grouping and in-grouping. Sanders is about boosting the income of the middle class without scapegoating immigrants. Sanders is pro choice and wants to increase funding for planned parenthood. Sanders supporters are excited, Trump supporters are angry and fearful of minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. A large portion of what Trump says is false and misleading. Bronx cheer. The average american can't find crimea on the world map. Doesn't know what a CDO is. 95% of Americans can't solve math equations that diophantes could solve 2500 years ago. Much I enjoy wonking out - the average american doesn't want policy. They don't want someone like johnathan gruber - they want somone that will stake a position, get it done, or explain why not. They want someone that knows people., In other words, you admit Americans are generally uneducated and uninformed and will simply choose the loudest, most confident sounding person out there to lead. Yeah, glad to know you at least understand what is wrong with your country. Americans are good people (maybe not you specifically) but they are good, and unless they want to continue the slow collapse of their society, they need to choose a leader who is actually working to bring together the country instead of dividing it the way the Cons are currently.

Phydeaux -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/18/2016 11:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Sanders has articulated an actual platform and campaigns using positive messages. He identifies problems and offers solutions. Trump is smoke and mirrors. He'll "fix" the economy. He'll "keep Putin in line." Mexico will build a wall for the USA. Japan will contain China. China will contain North Korea. Trump is all about out-grouping and in-grouping. Sanders is about boosting the income of the middle class without scapegoating immigrants. Sanders is pro choice and wants to increase funding for planned parenthood. Sanders supporters are excited, Trump supporters are angry and fearful of minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. A large portion of what Trump says is false and misleading. Bronx cheer. The average american can't find crimea on the world map. Doesn't know what a CDO is. 95% of Americans can't solve math equations that diophantes could solve 2500 years ago. Much I enjoy wonking out - the average american doesn't want policy. They don't want someone like johnathan gruber - they want somone that will stake a position, get it done, or explain why not. They want someone that knows people., In other words, you admit Americans are generally uneducated and uninformed and will simply choose the loudest, most confident sounding person out there to lead. Yeah, glad to know you at least understand what is wrong with your country. Americans are good people (maybe not you specifically) but they are good, and unless they want to continue the slow collapse of their society, they need to choose a leader who is actually working to bring together the country instead of dividing it the way the Cons are currently. I do find it amusing how junior science boy manages to inject a personal attack into every comment. Don't get so full of yourself. Americans, by and large don't care about other countries, because by and large we don't need to. Texas, by itself is larger than switzerland, belgium, luxembourg, Monaco, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, Portugal, and the netherlands. California - has more population than Canada - and is a more interesting place to boot. You europeans have given us two world wars, and colonialism. Frankly, you fucked up real good. So pardon if most Americans don't really care what you think, or do. Most of y'all are inconsequential pipsqueaks trying to pretend relevance in the real world. When the truth of the matter is if it wasnt for the US you couldn't defend warsaw or vienna - let alone Vilnius, or Riga, or Talinn. The truth is we have counties bigger than some of your states; cities bigger than some of your countries. We need to know about american countries and american cities because those are our trading zones and prague is a long way off from Shreveport. So yeah, most americans can't spout of european capitals; we may never visit them. But when y'all wanted our help we gave it to you. And a lot of ignorant doughboys gave fathers or brothers for your freedom.

Lucylastic -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/19/2016 3:42:40 AM)
Love to see Trumps dive into dummery Attacking the pope? WHAT??? and people think that the pope should "apologise" oh this is freaking unreal http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/18/donald-trump-responds-pope-francis-implying-hes-not-christian And RUbio didnt turn up for the CNN town hall?? what what???? more bullshit from the republican morons...yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy nothing says dumb like these republican candidates run for president. This saturday should be fun....

Greta75 -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/19/2016 4:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 In other words, you admit Americans are generally uneducated and uninformed and will simply choose the loudest, most confident sounding person out there to lead. Yeah, glad to know you at least understand what is wrong with your country. Americans are good people (maybe not you specifically) but they are good, and unless they want to continue the slow collapse of their society, they need to choose a leader who is actually working to bring together the country instead of dividing it the way the Cons are currently. This is a funny comment. Because I think Obama has been doing nothing but dividing the country. Making different races hate each other more, more distrust of Muslims and his constant use of executive action, shows his not interested in bridging two parties together to solve problems. His unable to bring people together at all. Bush may have bumbled alot, but one can't say his a divider. Even after 9/11, he was able to bridge together Muslims and non-Muslims. And anyway, I hope Trump will be President to prove all the Leftist wrong that he won't be able to bring the country together.

Greta75 -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/19/2016 4:30:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Love to see Trumps dive into dummery Attacking the pope? WHAT??? and people think that the pope should "apologise" oh this is freaking unreal I didn't know the Pope gets special pass from criticism?

Lucylastic -> RE: What Trump and Sanders Have in common (2/19/2016 4:37:56 AM)
theres a lot of things you dont know greta. Oh by the way I dont think that the pope should be free from any criticism. its just trump trying to be more obnoxious than he already is. He speaks his mind, but so do drunks and ignorant assholes. Its why his base think the pope should apologise to him.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125