2016 Election
#7427
Banned
Joined: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 348
Re: 2016 Election
dakota44 doesn't like conservatives (god forbid we exist), doesn't like to be contradicted, and is generally a bit clueless as noted in other threads. Probably a lovely bloke, otherwise
Last edited by themadpooper; May 22nd 2016 at 12:56 am.
#7428
Re: 2016 Election
Awww. Really? You are so pitiful. By the way...I do not have an issue with all conservatives...just the radical and irrational ones .... like you.
#7429
Re: 2016 Election
#7430
Banned
Joined: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 348
Re: 2016 Election
Speaking as an old codger, with my best days behind me, I have to say I'm extremely disappointed to read so much parroting of mainstream bullshit on this thread. Whatever happened to youthful questioning of authority and orthodoxy? Has BE's younger generation abandoned all willingness to doubt what they're told by their "betters"?
Trump's and Sanders's main attraction is not their respective policies but the bare fact that they offer themselves as alternatives to the mindless corruption espoused by all the other candidates. As the two major parties are learning, there is a rebellion "out there". It is being cleverly led by the two front-runners, whose supporters to a large degree don't care what their policies are. They are voting for their heroes out of rebellion; that's all.
If Trump is allowed to be the Republican nominee (meaning, if the powers that be don't assassinate him), he would beat Clinton very comfortably, because many Sanders supporters would switch to Trump. Yes, indeed: so-called socialists would prefer the rude capitalist than the corrupt establishment stooge. Make no mistake: this election is putting "the establishment" on notice that their days are numbered. Hence the very real fear of an assassination. Will that happen? It's better than even money, in my book.
Trump's and Sanders's main attraction is not their respective policies but the bare fact that they offer themselves as alternatives to the mindless corruption espoused by all the other candidates. As the two major parties are learning, there is a rebellion "out there". It is being cleverly led by the two front-runners, whose supporters to a large degree don't care what their policies are. They are voting for their heroes out of rebellion; that's all.
If Trump is allowed to be the Republican nominee (meaning, if the powers that be don't assassinate him), he would beat Clinton very comfortably, because many Sanders supporters would switch to Trump. Yes, indeed: so-called socialists would prefer the rude capitalist than the corrupt establishment stooge. Make no mistake: this election is putting "the establishment" on notice that their days are numbered. Hence the very real fear of an assassination. Will that happen? It's better than even money, in my book.
So many smug types on this thread, all desperately trying to convince themselves and each other Trump doesn't have a chance when the numbers contradict this on a daily basis. I was watching CNN earlier and the numbers they had showed a 1 point difference between Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, how is that even possible when according to liberals and the general anti Trump crowd, Trump had absolutely no hope of taking a place like this? Don't get me wrong, I don't want Trump but Clinton? God help us
#7431
Re: 2016 Election
Agree with this
So many smug types on this thread, all desperately trying to convince themselves and each other Trump doesn't have a chance when the numbers contradict this on a daily basis. I was watching CNN earlier and the numbers they had showed a 1 point difference between Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, how is that even possible when according to liberals and the general anti Trump crowd, Trump had absolutely no hope of taking a place like this? Don't get me wrong, I don't want Trump but Clinton? God help us
So many smug types on this thread, all desperately trying to convince themselves and each other Trump doesn't have a chance when the numbers contradict this on a daily basis. I was watching CNN earlier and the numbers they had showed a 1 point difference between Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, how is that even possible when according to liberals and the general anti Trump crowd, Trump had absolutely no hope of taking a place like this? Don't get me wrong, I don't want Trump but Clinton? God help us
#7432
Banned
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 19,367
Re: 2016 Election
Agree with this
So many smug types on this thread, all desperately trying to convince themselves and each other Trump doesn't have a chance when the numbers contradict this on a daily basis. I was watching CNN earlier and the numbers they had showed a 1 point difference between Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, how is that even possible when according to liberals and the general anti Trump crowd, Trump had absolutely no hope of taking a place like this? Don't get me wrong, I don't want Trump but Clinton? God help us
So many smug types on this thread, all desperately trying to convince themselves and each other Trump doesn't have a chance when the numbers contradict this on a daily basis. I was watching CNN earlier and the numbers they had showed a 1 point difference between Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, how is that even possible when according to liberals and the general anti Trump crowd, Trump had absolutely no hope of taking a place like this? Don't get me wrong, I don't want Trump but Clinton? God help us
Can't stand Corbyn, hates Cameron. Osborne has "ruined" the economy. Farage is a loudmouth nutter, Boris is Trump's brother. All the rest are wimps. Everything is shite.
Trump is bad. Clinton is bad. All of them are bad...
...but not one peep suggesting anything "good" as an alternative, nor any way forward. We're doomed...
Standard-issue British moan.
#7433
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,569
Re: 2016 Election
You're sounding like a tried-true Brit, exercising your "moan entitlement".
Can't stand Corbyn, hates Cameron. Osborne has "ruined" the economy. Farage is a loudmouth nutter, Boris is Trump's brother. All the rest are wimps. Everything is shite.
Trump is bad. Clinton is bad. All of them are bad...
...but not one peep suggesting anything "good" as an alternative, nor any way forward. We're doomed...
Standard-issue British moan.
Can't stand Corbyn, hates Cameron. Osborne has "ruined" the economy. Farage is a loudmouth nutter, Boris is Trump's brother. All the rest are wimps. Everything is shite.
Trump is bad. Clinton is bad. All of them are bad...
...but not one peep suggesting anything "good" as an alternative, nor any way forward. We're doomed...
Standard-issue British moan.
#7435
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 5,009
Re: 2016 Election
Clinton has been partly responsible for about a million civilian deaths, Trump for none. Why would you prefer an apparent psychopath over a mere loud-mouth? What if we all brought that reasoning to our everyday lives?
#7436
Re: 2016 Election
That is typical ill informed crap. Dig another overused and ridiculous criticism out of your bag.
#7437
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Posts: 14,569
Re: 2016 Election
Really, all you're saying here is that Clinton has held high office in the U.S. Government and Trump never has. And the idea of someone running for president who has never held senior military or civilian government offices (or been a legislator) is certainly novel. Not sure it's an experiment we should be embarking on...
#7438
Re: 2016 Election
Really, all you're saying here is that Clinton has held high office in the U.S. Government and Trump never has. And the idea of someone running for president who has never held senior military or civilian government offices (or been a legislator) is certainly novel. Not sure it's an experiment we should be embarking on...