Road to the White House 2016

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

A Soviet apologist who thinks Stalin didn't do anything wrong. Usually Marxist-Leninists and Maoists.

Nah. It's a Marxist who defends the Soviet Union from Khrushchev onwards and more specifically supports the Soviets sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and/or the Prague Spring in 1968.Mao(ists) and the more hardline Stalinists condemned this.

I've heard Anarchists call them Tankies, but then again Anarchists call most Marxists tankies in my experience.

[Meshugger]

 

[BruceVC]

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Sanders growing support worries me a little 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

Edited August 19, 2015 by BruceVC

[Orogun01]

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Saunders growing support worries me a little 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?

The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism.

[Rosbjerg]

So the media here is in love with the idea that Trump is gaining actual ground (US politics are viewed in popular media as somewhat eccentric as it is) - so asking the Americans, is there any reality to that at all? or is it just people saying "sure" for the hell of it, when asked?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Saunders growing support worries me a little

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

 

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?

The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism.

Why? I can understand being surprised maybe a decade ago, but after the Patriot(and later Freedom Act), the leaks from Snowden and Manning, and this TPP the USA looks like a police state. Edited August 19, 2015 by KaineParker

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So the media here is in love with the idea that Trump is gaining actual ground (US politics are viewed in popular media as somewhat eccentric as it is) - so asking the Americans, is there any reality to that at all? or is it just people saying "sure" for the hell of it, when asked?

It's hard to say, it could be that Trump does a Perot and splits the vote. Which if he's a Clinton shill would more than likely benefit Hillary.

[BruceVC]

 

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Saunders growing support worries me a little 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?

The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism.

 

 

You see my friend the real question is " do you think Obama has been a good president " ? Because Clinton will be much of the same and that's a good thing IMO, a very very good thing for the overall strength of the USA 

 

I have  almost given up trying to convince people why Obama has been so good for the USA, history will  vindicate my support of him 

 

But also Hilary Clinton comes with a wealth of experience so its not just the fact she is a women, yes that is part if it I won't deny that, its the fact she is equally qualified, if not more so, than any other candidate 

 

So the better question is " why not Hilary Clinton " ?

[Meshugger]

Well you can start with FBI investigating over 300 emails containing classified information that she used on a private server.

 

Then you can check on the Benghazi investigations.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Meshugger

[Hurlshort]

I have plenty of problems with Clinton, but I think both the emails and Benghazi are more political theater than actual substance.  

[BruceVC]

I have plenty of problems with Clinton, but I think both the emails and Benghazi are more political theater than actual substance.  

Yes those issues are just a  political distraction 

 

I am more interested in genuine issues and concerns with her, like some of the real issues I have with Trump 

[Gfted1]

It would be hilarious to see Trump win if for no other reason than to watch the rest of the world evacuate their bowels.

[BruceVC]

It would be hilarious to see Trump win if for no other reason than to watch the rest of the world evacuate their bowels.

 

That would be funny but the USA wouldn't be laughing when we see all the harm he would wreck on your countries reputation and political status in the world after his presidency ended 

[Gfted1]

[Meshugger]

 

I have plenty of problems with Clinton, but I think both the emails and Benghazi are more political theater than actual substance.  

Yes those issues are just a  political distraction 

 

I am more interested in genuine issues and concerns with her, like some of the real issues I have with Trump 

 

 

Oh, lets imagine that those claims are just made by a bunch of meanies that hate women. Why should anyone want to vote for someone that is payed by Wall Street, supported the patriot act and later the freedom act(lol), thought that bombing Iraq was swell idea as bailing out the banks was. Why?

 

I support Trump for the lulz of crying liberals and cuckservatives world-wide and Sanders for trying (and most likely failing) to fight the good fight, just like Ron Paul did. 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Meshugger

[Orogun01]

 

 

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Saunders growing support worries me a little 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?

The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism.

 

 

You see my friend the real question is " do you think Obama has been a good president " ? Because Clinton will be much of the same and that's a good thing IMO, a very very good thing for the overall strength of the USA 

 

I have  almost given up trying to convince people why Obama has been so good for the USA, history will  vindicate my support of him 

 

But also Hilary Clinton comes with a wealth of experience so its not just the fact she is a women, yes that is part if it I won't deny that, its the fact she is equally qualified, if not more so, than any other candidate 

 

So the better question is " why not Hilary Clinton " ?

 

I don't think he has been a good President, most of his accomplishments have been without real substance. In his defense I could say that indeed he inherited a great mess and that the system has been broken for years, it will be difficult to repair it in just 2 terms. But then I remember that he's the drone strike lord, which is what makes me fear Hillary cuz I don't think she is as nice a person.

[Zoraptor]

I said it last time this infographic turned up: Lehmann Brothers went bust when Bush jr was still president.

 

I'd almost certainly vote for Sanders were I a citizen of libertyland and find Hillary to be... disingenuous, at best, but it is pretty misleading comparing Hillary's spending from a full term run in 2008 to someone else's spending in a race that hasn't even had a single primary yet.

[kgambit]

 

 

I said it last time this infographic turned up: Lehmann Brothers went bust when Bush jr was still president.

 

 

That's not a list of donations just for the current election cycle.   According to Politifact.com that is a cumulative list of all contributions dating from 1999 to present day for Clinton, and 1989 to present day for Bernie.  

 

 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/

 

And Politifact says those numbers are extremely accurate ......

Edited August 19, 2015 by kgambit

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Sanders had a wet dream :

 

 

Collectivization began in 1929, and lasted three years. First they organized a commune, but it lasted for only half a year, then it was changed to a collective farm. Then the campaign against kulaks started. I was then nine years old already, and could understand what was happening. My uncle on the maternal side Makar Antonovich Petukhov was elected chairman of the combed, then he became chairman of the collective farm. His uncle Fedor Antonovich Petukhov was considered a kulak. But what kind of kulak was he in reality? He had a thresher, seeder and reaper, all earned with sweat and hard work. Besides, he had many children to help with the work in the fields. Still, he was dispossessed completely, all his property, even to the spoons. This was called absolute requisition. You can understand the state of Fedor Antonovich. And to make matters worse it was done under guidance of a close relative. His wife, a fairly sharped-tongued broad, openly denounced collectivization, railing against the Soviet authorities. For this she was arrested, imprisoned for a month or so, then released, but the husband go ten years for resisting the authorities and refusing to join the collective farm. He served the entire term, came back, and still wouldn't join. He was a hell of a stubborn man. He lived in the village until he died, his children cared for him.

So that was the fate of the richest peasant at the time. We had two more families deemed to be kulaks, but not because they were really wealthy, just because the kids were handy, while others laid about on stoves during the winter, they went to other villages and did carpentry and woodwork, to earn a ruble. And in the summer sweated in the fields. So naturally, they were better off than some others. So there are your kulaks. In reality, in the village there weren't any kulaks, just some hard working and industrious peasants.

http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/vershinin-nikolay-petrovich/

 

What does this have to do with Sanders?

 

He's trying to paint Sanders as a Tankie while the reality is that Sanders is a Social Democrat.

 

Then why does he call himself a Socialist and not a Social Democrat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Does he not know what Socialism means, or is he lying? And why was he a member of the Socialist party? Edit: Btw, the Liberty Union party he started his political career with not only endorsed candidates from the Socialist party but even the pro-Stalin Workers World Party, although I don't know to what extent he was still affiliated with LU at that point. Edited August 20, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Leferd]

Since it's illegal in America to bet on US Elections, here's Dublin's lines for the Republican nomination:

 

 

 

None of that looks too appealing for me to get good money value. Still, it's significantly better than the Democratic line.

 

Hillary Clinton 1/5

Bernie Sanders 6/1

Joe Biden 9/1

 

Mrs. Clinton is going to get the nomination but I'm not going to put down $100 just to make a $20 profit.

 

Winning the General Election gets much better value.

 

Clinton is at Even odds.

Jeb Bush is at 10/3.

Trump is at 10/1

Rubio 12/1

Sanders 12/1

Walker 12/1

Biden 16/1

 

Clinton at Evens and Bush at 10/3 are good value bets right now including if hedging from both sides.

 

[Barothmuk]

I've heard Anarchists call them Tankies, but then again Anarchists call most Marxists tankies in my experience.

Basically. It's also a pretty easy way to trigger someone within the Leninist school of thought.

I have  almost given up trying to convince people why Obama has been so good for the USA, history will  vindicate my support of him

Unless history is really desperate to sell us on Obama I very much doubt that. He'll be a historical footnote at most.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Sanders had a wet dream :

Collectivization began in 1929, and lasted three years. First they organized a commune, but it lasted for only half a year, then it was changed to a collective farm. Then the campaign against kulaks started. I was then nine years old already, and could understand what was happening. My uncle on the maternal side Makar Antonovich Petukhov was elected chairman of the combed, then he became chairman of the collective farm. His uncle Fedor Antonovich Petukhov was considered a kulak. But what kind of kulak was he in reality? He had a thresher, seeder and reaper, all earned with sweat and hard work. Besides, he had many children to help with the work in the fields. Still, he was dispossessed completely, all his property, even to the spoons. This was called absolute requisition. You can understand the state of Fedor Antonovich. And to make matters worse it was done under guidance of a close relative. His wife, a fairly sharped-tongued broad, openly denounced collectivization, railing against the Soviet authorities. For this she was arrested, imprisoned for a month or so, then released, but the husband go ten years for resisting the authorities and refusing to join the collective farm. He served the entire term, came back, and still wouldn't join. He was a hell of a stubborn man. He lived in the village until he died, his children cared for him.So that was the fate of the richest peasant at the time. We had two more families deemed to be kulaks, but not because they were really wealthy, just because the kids were handy, while others laid about on stoves during the winter, they went to other villages and did carpentry and woodwork, to earn a ruble. And in the summer sweated in the fields. So naturally, they were better off than some others. So there are your kulaks. In reality, in the village there weren't any kulaks, just some hard working and industrious peasants.

http://iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti/vershinin-nikolay-petrovich/

What does this have to do with Sanders?

He's trying to paint Sanders as a Tankie while the reality is that Sanders is a Social Democrat.

Then why does he call himself a Socialist and not a Social Democrat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Does he not know what Socialism means, or is he lying? And why was he a member of the Socialist party?

From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes."

 

If you honestly think that Bernie Sanders is going to bring back the gulag and inflict Holodomor 2.0 on the South, then I have no idea what Bernie Sanders you've been hearing about but it isn't the guy running for president.

[Barothmuk]

From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes."

I doubt even he believes that's possible.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Saunders growing support worries me a little 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?

The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism.

 

 

You see my friend the real question is " do you think Obama has been a good president " ? Because Clinton will be much of the same and that's a good thing IMO, a very very good thing for the overall strength of the USA 

 

I have  almost given up trying to convince people why Obama has been so good for the USA, history will  vindicate my support of him 

 

But also Hilary Clinton comes with a wealth of experience so its not just the fact she is a women, yes that is part if it I won't deny that, its the fact she is equally qualified, if not more so, than any other candidate 

 

So the better question is " why not Hilary Clinton " ?

 

I don't think he has been a good President, most of his accomplishments have been without real substance. In his defense I could say that indeed he inherited a great mess and that the system has been broken for years, it will be difficult to repair it in just 2 terms. But then I remember that he's the drone strike lord, which is what makes me fear Hillary cuz I don't think she is as nice a person.

 

 

There seems to be this blanket judgment on drone strikes as them being a bad and unacceptable military  strategy, I don't support this view 

 

The usage of drone strikes makes sense in lots of cases. For example there primary use has been against the Taliban in Western Pakistan and Afghanistan and questions are just ignored about why the USA deploys drones? The Taliban and its affiliated groups like Al-Qaeda don't fight a conventional war in Afghanistan, they wage war against the  the Coalition forces in Afghanistan and then cross the border to Pakistan where they regroup and strategize. The current Pakistan government has no control over these Al-Qaeda influenced areas so what is the USA suppose to do? 

 

Just let the Taliban  cross the border and think they can come back to Afghanistan in the summer...no this makes no sense. Now they could deploy ground troops into Pakistan  but then we have many other issues like the sovereignty of the Pakistan government because even though those parts of Pakistan are not under  the control of the Pakistan government its still part of there country

 

So drone strikes make sense, there has to be some punitive military steps against people who want to engage in war against the USA and its allies in Afghanistan and think they can hide in some other country   

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

So the race for the Democratic presidential candidate nomination is getting interesting, Clinton is on 47% and Sanders gets 29 %.....I am still firmly confident and happy with Hilary Clinton getting the nomination but Saunders growing support worries me a little 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Clinton-Democrats-Slipping/2015/08/19/id/670812/

Bruce why do you have against us? You would really condemn us to a bad president just because you have to satisfy your ideological itch of seeing a woman as president?

The system is ****ed, the people's candidate always gets buried and miscast while the two corporate circus freaks are promoted. I'm surprised of how American democracy looks like Cuban Socialism.

 

 

You see my friend the real question is " do you think Obama has been a good president " ? Because Clinton will be much of the same and that's a good thing IMO, a very very good thing for the overall strength of the USA 

 

I have  almost given up trying to convince people why Obama has been so good for the USA, history will  vindicate my support of him 

 

But also Hilary Clinton comes with a wealth of experience so its not just the fact she is a women, yes that is part if it I won't deny that, its the fact she is equally qualified, if not more so, than any other candidate 

 

So the better question is " why not Hilary Clinton " ?

 

I don't think he has been a good President, most of his accomplishments have been without real substance. In his defense I could say that indeed he inherited a great mess and that the system has been broken for years, it will be difficult to repair it in just 2 terms. But then I remember that he's the drone strike lord, which is what makes me fear Hillary cuz I don't think she is as nice a person.

 

 

There seems to be this blanket judgment on drone strikes as them being a bad and unacceptable military  strategy, I don't support this view 

 

The usage of drone strikes makes sense in lots of cases. For example there primary use has been against the Taliban in Western Pakistan and Afghanistan and questions are just ignored about why the USA deploys drones? The Taliban and its affiliated groups like Al-Qaeda don't fight a conventional war in Afghanistan, they wage war against the  the Coalition forces in Afghanistan and then cross the border to Pakistan where they regroup and strategize. The current Pakistan government has no control over these Al-Qaeda influenced areas so what is the USA suppose to do? 

 

Just let the Taliban  cross the border and think they can come back to Afghanistan in the summer...no this makes no sense. Now they could deploy ground troops into Pakistan  but then we have many other issues like the sovereignty of the Pakistan government because even though those parts of Pakistan are not under  the control of the Pakistan government its still part of there country

 

So drone strikes make sense, there has to be some punitive military steps against people who want to engage in war against the USA and its allies in Afghanistan and think they can hide in some other country   

 

The usage of drones has been disavowed by people who use drones who admit "We don't know what we're shooting at". Boots on the ground gives more accurate intel when making a decision. Drones are precision tools but without the intel its like a butcher performing surgery with a scalpel, the tools are there but the knowledge isn't.

Also, he's involved in a series of conflicts that he refuses to call wars and along that he has set a series of dangerous precedents of the President bypassing Congress.