|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dc koop
(Post 12024312)
It's quite obvious that Trump has an election campaign branch office in the Cayman Islands where no doubt a large part of his wealth is stashed away in that haven for tax dodging parasites
|
Re: 2016 Election
|
Re: 2016 Election
Somebody please wake me up from this ****ing nightmare.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12024787)
If progressives aren't smart enough to figure out that they lack broad support and will need to compromise with others who disagree with them on many issues, then they deserve to get nothing.
|
Re: 2016 Election
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12024890)
|
Re: 2016 Election
In fact, in one forum, posters were saying that Trump must win because he fills stadiums when speaking but Hillary does not. So if Hillary wins the she must be cheating. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 12024886)
So progressives should just vote for Clinton regardless of what her policies are because she is the Democrat. What is the point of having an election?
One will give you some of what you want. The other will be a disaster. Which one makes more sense? In any case, only a big baby would hold views that are shared by perhaps 10% of the public yet demand to get everything that he or she wants. When you hold unpopular views, you have a few options: -You can try to persuade others to change their views (although the odds are against you, so you should be prepared to compromise) -You can compromise with those who might give you some of what you want, with the understanding that you probably won't get most of what you want, i.e. act like an adult -You can vote for a spoiler who will only help the other candidate who you like even less, i.e. shoot yourself in the foot -Change your views so that they are more popular -Have a tantrum when you don't get your way, then be shocked when things go badly for you If diehard progressives want to behave like the Tea Party and use the last approach, then they deserve to fail. |
Re: 2016 Election
All of us here have our opinions reflected and/or influenced by what we read. We certainly don't know that what we read is true or not. These days there is a sharp division between what we read or hear from "established" news organs (MSM - Mainstream Media) and what we read or hear from what are called the "alternative" media. Generally speaking, those whose opinions are shared by one or other of those categories carry a strong and blind contempt for those whose opinions are not shared by it.
Too many posts on this forum openly express the contempt. "What bullshit that report is!" "What a fool you are for believing that news source!" " Leftie tosser!" "Right-wing bigot!" In effect, "I am dead right and you are dead wrong!" It's pretty discouraging. God help America, eh? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Gordon Barlow
(Post 12024914)
All of us here have our opinions reflected and/or influenced by what we read. We certainly don't know that what we read is true or not. These days there is a sharp division between what we read or hear from "established" news organs (MSM - Mainstream Media) and what we read or hear from what are called the "alternative" media. Generally speaking, those whose opinions are shared by one or other of those categories carry a strong and blind contempt for those whose opinions are not shared by it.
Too many posts on this forum openly express the contempt. "What bullshit that report is!" "What a fool you are for believing that news source!" " Leftie tosser!" "Right-wing bigot!" In effect, "I am dead right and you are dead wrong!" It's pretty discouraging. God help America, eh? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Gordon Barlow
(Post 12024914)
It's pretty discouraging. God help America, eh?
Let's be serious: Breitbart is like The Sun but with more bile and without the topless photos. In contrast, the Washington Post is an actual newspaper that has a track record of breaking substantive news and has won prizes for doing it. No comparison. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
(Post 12024920)
Or, you could read the facts yourself and realize Trump's and idiot.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12024943)
I find it discouraging that you take Breitbart seriously while dismissing the Washington Post.
Let's be serious: Breitbart is like The Sun but with more bile and without the topless photos. In contrast, the Washington Post is an actual newspaper that has a track record of breaking substantive news and has won prizes for doing it. No comparison. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12024912)
There are two options.
One will give you some of what you want. The other will be a disaster. Which one makes more sense? In any case, only a big baby would hold views that are shared by perhaps 10% of the public yet demand to get everything that he or she wants. When you hold unpopular views, you have a few options: -You can try to persuade others to change their views (although the odds are against you, so you should be prepared to compromise) -You can compromise with those who might give you some of what you want, with the understanding that you probably won't get most of what you want, i.e. act like an adult -You can vote for a spoiler who will only help the other candidate who you like even less, i.e. shoot yourself in the foot -Change your views so that they are more popular -Have a tantrum when you don't get your way, then be shocked when things go badly for you If diehard progressives want to behave like the Tea Party and use the last approach, then they deserve to fail. I'm not sure exactly what views are being referred to, but I don't think of progressive views as being unpopular, I think of them as not getting represented the way the system is working at the moment. In the primary at a polling station on 7 June, 2 people when asked if they wanted to cross over, and if so which of the 3 parties' ballots they wanted, rather than saying democrat they said they wanted to vote for Sanders, so they were presumably new voters (voters who don't normally vote) not familiar with the party system who were only voting because of Sanders. Small sample, but still an indication, Clinton got more votes but nothing to indicate new voters'. If Sanders, a socialist, had been the nominee, it would have been a revolution which quite likely would have drawn a lot more working class people who don't normally vote to come out and vote (and some who vote against their interests to vote for them), which could have led to progressives winning the Congress and Senate as well as the presidency. It could've been a historic election and a turning point for the country, for the good. I'm not saying that this would definitely have happened but there's a good chance that it would. Well it didn't happen, but it's difficult to vote for Clinton, the person who stopped it from possibly happening, and who it seems only believes in placing herself in a position to get elected. |
Re: 2016 Election
Plenty of Clinton coverage in the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f310a#comments |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:08 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.