US Politics 2

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1097901885162434561

So you're saying Trump doesn't hate Muslims right.

He likes rich Muslims that brutally kill other Muslims.

Can't you replace the word Muslim with literally any race or type of human and it'd basically be correct.

Trump loves money. Those three words basically describe everything.

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:She obviously wasn’t better than trump otherwise she would have won

She stood for more of the same when people wanted change

I expect them to go with Kamala Harris this time and see Trump win again

Clinton received millions more votes than Trump. And she was the better candidate because she wasn’t a white supremacist apologist piece of gooseberry fool.

Yet she didn’t target the voters she needed. It’s not like she’s new to the game.

And she ran to the right of Trump/Republicans. It’s no wonder she couldn’t get the following she needed. That’s on her and her team for choosing the platform she ended up with. Not Russia or Bernie or whoever else is the scapegoat that day

She stood for more of the same but ran to the right of the Republicans? Bit all over the place here.

Trump ran left of her with things like no more wars and targeting Wall Street “drain the swamp”

Clinton wasn’t really providing anything more than what people had spent the previous 8 years living through. You knew what you were going to get if Hilary Clinton was President.

Trump and Bernie were filling stadiums on their campaigns with a message of change. The Clinton campaign completely ignored this and all of those votes. It doesn’t take a genius to watch a speech from either Trump or Bernie over that period and stop and think “hang-a-bout why were these two getting so much attention? - maybe we should meet in the middle and offer those people something for their votes”

I find it ridiculous that people say Bernie couldn’t have beat Clinton/Trump but in the next sentence he was so good he was the sole reason Clinton lost.

What did Clinton do after she lost? She toured the world selling her book, blaming anyone else that she could in the process

Your argument is that Clinton lost because Trump was better.

But then you argue that it’s ridiculous that Bernie couldn’t beat Clinton/Trump? Bernie lost to Clinton. By your own logic she was the better candidate.

I think this is a difficult discussion. Clinton put her foot on the scale a lot to beat Bernie so the fight wasn't exactly fair. That said I think that a lot of Bernie supporters over stated this point.

Clinton got more votes than Trump but she could have had a better strategy, I heard once that she didn't visit the rust belt once during in the election which was the area that swung losing her the election. This seems like a massive oversight and a bit complacent. She is also very much liked to the continuation of the last two democratic presidents who look a bit tarnished in hindsight.

Trump did pull some left wing tactics with slogans like drain the swamp, but he was basically lying and at one point he said he didn't like the slogan. He also used blatantly racist language that should have had any right minded person running for the hills.

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1097901885162434561

So you're saying Trump doesn't hate Muslims right.

He likes rich Muslims that brutally kill other Muslims.

Can't you replace the word Muslim with literally any race or type of human and it'd basically be correct.

Trump loves money. Those three words basically describe everything.

He quite likes a violent dictator as well. The power domination stuff really gets him going.

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:She obviously wasn’t better than trump otherwise she would have won

She stood for more of the same when people wanted change

I expect them to go with Kamala Harris this time and see Trump win again

Clinton received millions more votes than Trump. And she was the better candidate because she wasn’t a white supremacist apologist piece of gooseberry fool.

Yet she didn’t target the voters she needed. It’s not like she’s new to the game.

And she ran to the right of Trump/Republicans. It’s no wonder she couldn’t get the following she needed. That’s on her and her team for choosing the platform she ended up with. Not Russia or Bernie or whoever else is the scapegoat that day

She stood for more of the same but ran to the right of the Republicans? Bit all over the place here.

Trump ran left of her with things like no more wars and targeting Wall Street “drain the swamp”

Clinton wasn’t really providing anything more than what people had spent the previous 8 years living through. You knew what you were going to get if Hilary Clinton was President.

Trump and Bernie were filling stadiums on their campaigns with a message of change. The Clinton campaign completely ignored this and all of those votes. It doesn’t take a genius to watch a speech from either Trump or Bernie over that period and stop and think “hang-a-bout why were these two getting so much attention? - maybe we should meet in the middle and offer those people something for their votes”

I find it ridiculous that people say Bernie couldn’t have beat Clinton/Trump but in the next sentence he was so good he was the sole reason Clinton lost.

What did Clinton do after she lost? She toured the world selling her book, blaming anyone else that she could in the process

Your argument is that Clinton lost because Trump was better.

But then you argue that it’s ridiculous that Bernie couldn’t beat Clinton/Trump? Bernie lost to Clinton. By your own logic she was the better candidate.

That’s not my argument. It’s the Clintonite arguement...

“Bernie isn’t good enough for President, he can’t beat Trump. We need Clinton”
“Waah Bernie stopped Clinton from beating Trump”

He either wasn’t good enough to beat Trump or he was good enough that he kept voters home instead of voting for Clinton.



And as an add on to my previous comment, I forgot Trumps major left wing policy that was probably one of his biggest things. More manufacturing jobs for workers.

BID0 wrote:Trump ran left of her with things like no more wars and targeting Wall Street “drain the swamp”

Clinton wasn’t really providing anything more than what people had spent the previous 8 years living through. You knew what you were going to get if Hilary Clinton was President.

Trump and Bernie were filling stadiums on their campaigns with a message of change. The Clinton campaign completely ignored this and all of those votes. It doesn’t take a genius to watch a speech from either Trump or Bernie over that period and stop and think “hang-a-bout why were these two getting so much attention? - maybe we should meet in the middle and offer those people something for their votes”

I find it ridiculous that people say Bernie couldn’t have beat Clinton/Trump but in the next sentence he was so good he was the sole reason Clinton lost.

What did Clinton do after she lost? She toured the world selling her book, blaming anyone else that she could in the process

"Drain the swamp" was (still is) a libertarian cry against the federal government wasn't it? Trump ran a right-wing, racist, nativist campaign and anyone from the left who supported him for his isolationist, "anti-war" views enabled all his other right-wing policies he promised to enact.

Clinton ran a terrible, arrogant campaign looking to gain states like Georgia and Arizona, which was never going to happen, and ignored the safe Democrat states because she was up against a conventionally terrible opponent. She wasn't, however, helped by Comey's extraordinary actions in the FBI's investigation against her or a toothless media that consistently gave Trump more free and unchallenged airtime because of his atypical candidacy.

She strawberry floated it with the 'deplorables' comment (even though she was right) and a complacent, entitled attitude. But she still won the popular vote comfortably and would be in the White House if it wasn't for 78,000 Green votes.

Would Sanders have won against Trump if the Democratic primaries weren't weighted in Clinton's favour? Maybe, but it I don't think it would have been likely. He would have turned off a lot of independents and neoliberal Democrats as a socialist candidate in 2016 (without the backdrop of the necessity of an anti-fascist, anti-Trump 'resistance') and was always weak with minority voters in the primaries. He might have won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania but might have lost Virginia, and Trump would have still won.

I agree with Cutty, and I’ll update this post with the reasons why when I’m not on a crappy old phone.

Cuttooth wrote:

BID0 wrote:Trump ran left of her with things like no more wars and targeting Wall Street “drain the swamp”

Clinton wasn’t really providing anything more than what people had spent the previous 8 years living through. You knew what you were going to get if Hilary Clinton was President.

Trump and Bernie were filling stadiums on their campaigns with a message of change. The Clinton campaign completely ignored this and all of those votes. It doesn’t take a genius to watch a speech from either Trump or Bernie over that period and stop and think “hang-a-bout why were these two getting so much attention? - maybe we should meet in the middle and offer those people something for their votes”

I find it ridiculous that people say Bernie couldn’t have beat Clinton/Trump but in the next sentence he was so good he was the sole reason Clinton lost.

What did Clinton do after she lost? She toured the world selling her book, blaming anyone else that she could in the process

"Drain the swamp" was (still is) a libertarian cry against the federal government wasn't it? Trump ran a right-wing, racist, nativist campaign and anyone from the left who supported him for his isolationist, "anti-war" views enabled all his other right-wing policies he promised to enact.

Clinton ran a terrible, arrogant campaign looking to gain states like Georgia and Arizona, which was never going to happen, and ignored the safe Democrat states because she was up against a conventionally terrible opponent. She wasn't, however, helped by Comey's extraordinary actions in the FBI's investigation against her or a toothless media that consistently gave Trump more free and unchallenged airtime because of his atypical candidacy.

She strawberry floated it with the 'deplorables' comment (even though she was right) and a complacent, entitled attitude. But she still won the popular vote comfortably and would be in the White House if it wasn't for 78,000 Green votes.

Would Sanders have won against Trump if the Democratic primaries weren't weighted in Clinton's favour? Maybe, but it I don't think it would have been likely. He would have turned off a lot of independents and neoliberal Democrats as a socialist candidate in 2016 (without the backdrop of the necessity of an anti-fascist, anti-Trump 'resistance') and was always weak with minority voters in the primaries. He might have won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania but might have lost Virginia, and Trump would have still won.

I don't disagree with any of that really.

Although "drain the swamp" seemed to be aimed at purging corrupt politicians and the lobbying that is rife in American politics and that's a direct attack at Clinton and Obama and their bank money.

It's obvious to us that even before the election Trump wasn't going to drain the swamp, or protect workers, or stop the wars (although surprisingly that is the one campaign pledge he has carried out so far).

If you have the option of one candidate who isn't promising to change anything and then a second candidate who is (but is probably lying), when you're desperate you surely take the option that at least has a chance of changing your situation.

If the Dems don't aim to get those 78,000 Green votes, Bernie Sanders, Susan Sarandon (or whoever's fault it was for Clinton losing) in the next election that that's really on themselves.

I hope MN candidate Klobuchar doesn't get the dem nominee, she's so safe with next to no radical and/or socialist views that she's the vanilla of the candidates and thus perfect for Dems to rally behind.

I wish AOC was older.

Sanders has already managed to raise over $6 million for his campaign, so he clearly still has support.

I think his brother lives over here actually.

KK wrote:Sanders has already managed to raise over $6 million for his campaign, so he clearly still has support.

I think his brother lives over here actually.

Isn't Michael Bloomberg putting at least £500m of his own money to back either himself (if he runs) or the leading Democratic candidate? That's an awful lot of TV money.

KK wrote:Sanders has already managed to raise over $6 million for his campaign, so he clearly still has support.

I think his brother lives over here actually.

Moggy wrote:

KK wrote:Sanders has already managed to raise over $6 million for his campaign, so he clearly still has support.

I think his brother lives over here actually.

twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1097845000811962369

Photek wrote:I hope MN candidate Klobuchar doesn't get the dem nominee, she's so safe with next to no radical and/or socialist views that she's the vanilla of the candidates and thus perfect for Dems to rally behind.

I'm confused, you says you hope she doesn't win but you talk like she should. Unless you really want a more interesting, leftwing candidate and don't believe a moderate will be worth a damn.

Harris is my favourite right now, followed by O'Rourke.

Sanders, Warren and Biden have all missed the bus tbh.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Sanders, Warren and Biden have all missed the bus tbh.

They can get the next one...to the retirement home amirite?!

Beto O'Rouke has missed the bus too though?

Of course Sanders will still have support, there's millions of Democrats willing to die on that particular hill. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the wider appeal to tap into the middle ground which is where the next election will likely be won, despite Trump being a complete asshole.

A progressive candidate is entirely the wrong route for the Democrats to go down in terms of their Presidential nomination. It has to be someone with blue collar appeal.

The problem Sanders has is many Americans have this really skewed idea about what socialism is.
They think things like having as much holiday as we in the UK have will somehow cripple the economy and that not giving CEO's absolutely obscene wages and perks will see them flee the country and companies go bankrupt.
Somehow it's fine for the President to have 6 hours a day of executive time but a factory worker expecting to just work the hours they signed up for and not be browbeat into not taking full use of holiday entitlement while being paid the minimum the company thinks they can get away with is beyond the pale and a sign of being a filthy socialist who obviously hates America, capitalism and freedom.
Heaven forbid anyone feel they want to maybe join a union to help bargain for better conditions as you may as well tattoo the words Communist Nazi into their forehead.

Basically anything other than a company being allowed to absolutely maximise profits at the expense of the environment or people that work for them (this doesn't include the CEO's who obviously do all the actual work) is socialism and thus evil and a sign you have some kind of mental illness.

If Sanders, or somebody like AOC, got the nomination, it would be interesting to see if America was willing to go with socialist candidate. Socialism has been a dirty word in America for a very very long time, I really am not sure if they would go for it.

Or more likely they will elect a socialist President but fill the House and Senate with Republicans.

Peter Crisp wrote:The problem Sanders has is many Americans have this really skewed idea about what socialism is.
They think things like having as much holiday as we in the UK have will somehow cripple the economy and that not giving CEO's absolutely obscene wages and perks will see them flee the country and companies go bankrupt.
Somehow it's fine for the President to have 6 hours a day of executive time but a factory worker expecting to just work the hours they signed up for and not be browbeat into not taking full use of holiday entitlement while being paid the minimum the company thinks they can get away with is beyond the pale and a sign of being a filthy socialist who obviously hates America, capitalism and freedom.
Heaven forbid anyone feel they want to maybe join a union to help bargain for better conditions as you may as well tattoo the words Communist Nazi into their forehead.

Basically anything other than a company being allowed to absolutely maximise profits at the expense of the environment or people that work for them (this doesn't include the CEO's who obviously do all the actual work) is socialism and thus evil and a sign you have some kind of mental illness.

You really got to know the culture after all that time you spent on that American political forum, didn't you?

Years of Username Limbo wrote:You really got to know the culture after all that time you spent on that American political forum, didn't you?

I got to know the batshit mental far right conservative culture.
It's as if they've been brainwashed into sticking up for the super rich and big business at the expense of 99% of the population and they just can't fathom that maybe, just maybe it's possible to think differently. They also have this persecution complex and feel they are the true downtrodden even when they have all the power and the poor and minorities just don't understand the true horror of having your political ideology questioned.
They are the most thin skinned people on the planet who simultaneously like to act all tough and call people snowflakes.
They truly think all tax is theft despite it being the entire basis of western civilisation and how we have things like public roads that are free for everyone to use but what do I know I'm just a mentally ill liberal (to be fair I do vote Lib Dem so maybe I am ) who obviously shouldn't be let anywhere near a voting booth.

The more I know about the right of US politics the more it seems like they really, really hate themselves and think the only people who deserve anying are the super rich who are just better than the rest of us slobs.