US Elections 2016

[Volourn]

"No of course many people will still criticize the West but will happily immigrate to a Western country "

 

Because they know despite the criticism the Western countries tend to be better... than many try to change the new country to be like the old. LOGICZ.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Are there a lot of South Africans coming to the US illegally?

I don't know breakdown by country, but Bruce was talking about Africa in general.

[Hurlshort]

 

Are there a lot of South Africans coming to the US illegally?

I don't know breakdown by country, but Bruce was talking about Africa in general.

 

 

Yeah, the point would still stand.  That's a pretty long way to float a raft.

[Wrath of Dagon]

They come on an airplane and overstay their visas. Last year over half a million people overstayed. I'm guessing most of them weren't from first world countries.

[ShadySands]

snip

Ha, thanks for that

 

Right after I saw that I saw this

 

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

"No of course many people will still criticize the West but will happily immigrate to a Western country "

 

Because they know despite the criticism the Western countries tend to be better... than many try to change the new country to be like the old. LOGICZ.

No they don't tend to be better, Western countries are better as they offer there citizens overall the best quality of life

 

This is an irrefutable fact. And its not about the view that " white people are running Western countries" its because in Western countries certain laws and views exist that are enforced  and end of the day despite criticism these laws  are the best way to ensure a happy and prosperous society

 

So in Africa  most people want a working and economically transformed continent ....but you still have certain  countries where leaders disregard good governance and human rights. This in turn leads to social and political instability and lack of investment. So in the African context certain leaders need to realize that rhetoric is not enough to achieve the required economic transformation ...you need to actually  implement the required laws and enforce them

[Rostere]

All i can say, i find it amusing that she got 86% of the black vote in South Carolina, compared to someone who actually marched with MLK and got arrested while protesting during the Civil Rights-era, all while she was campaigning for Nixon.

 

This is the single most interesting thing this far. I am completely flummoxed by the fact that Bernie does so bad with black voters. It's not local to SC, he also did very bad with black voters in Nevada, but not with any other minorities. Truly incomprehensible, and I have not found any good explanations on the Internet either.

 

Attacking Hilary would go against what Sanders' strategy. As he has stated from beginning of his campaign that he will not smear other candidates but tries to win what he has to offer. Hillary gets run quite freely with his foreign policy expertise because Sanders has even less and his focus is in domestic politics.  

 

Although Sanders strategy not attack his opposition has worked quite well for him, because it was something fresh in US politics and his opponents that attacked him suffered because of those attacks instead of him. I would say that Sanders would not be as serious contender as he is without that strategy.

 

We don't know if Sanders' strategy has worked out or not. And we can't really make such a statement without a comparison to a campaign where he did not have that strategy, which sadly did not (and probably will not) happen. But who knows, maybe he was forced to use his kitten mittens by the DNC in exchange for being allowed to enter the Democratic primaries at all.

 

 

And GOP side the leading candidate is one that owns every attack against him and makes them seem as his strengths. Which is caused that more Trumps opposition smears him more popular Trump becomes.  

 

You can see Clinton's expertise in politics how she has adopted Sanders like strategy to avoid direct smear towards Sanders and how she has also adopted lots of things from his campaign so that it don't look so unique anymore. Especially as said adoption strategy seems to work for her quite well.

 

No, Trump is a candidate who has not been reluctant to denounce his opponents in the strongest terms available to him. The entirety of Trump's original popularity came from his inclination to denounce people such as Bush in very, very strong words. From which we got the famous "You can't insult your way to the presidency" quote. He also gets lots of attention for bad things, but that only would not have helped him.

 

Of course, the exact types of insults and the same rhetoric used by Trump would be suicide to use in the democratic primary. But that does not mean that Bernie should not denounce Hillary in the strongest of words available to him in the areas where they differ the most - economic policy and foreign policy. It's absurd that Bernie calls for more debates, only to weasel out of the action and ignore calling Hillary's bluff in these areas. I like Bernie's policies, but in the contest against Hillary I've found him to be rather spineless. But maybe he counts on her being indicted by the FBI, and wants to pick up 100% of her voters afterwards.

 

Also foreign policy is not Sanders strong point...he doesn't have too much insight on these types of matters

But foreign policy is Hillary's weak point. Sanders has been consistently right on every matter since the nineties, while Hillary has taken the wrong side. Her brief job as Secretary of State consists mostly of failures like the "Russian reset button". Experience does not mean that you have been a bobblehead on a shelf in the Obama administration, you must point to situations where Hillary's own unique advice and insight has shifted the course of the US to the better. If not, she would be replaceable by anyone. Frankly, I can't think of any such situations, on the contrary with her views I think she might be toxic to US foreign policy.

[BruceVC]

 

Also foreign policy is not Sanders strong point...he doesn't have too much insight on these types of matters

But foreign policy is Hillary's weak point. Sanders has been consistently right on every matter since the nineties, while Hillary has taken the wrong side. Her brief job as Secretary of State consists mostly of failures like the "Russian reset button". Experience does not mean that you have been a bobblehead on a shelf in the Obama administration, you must point to situations where Hillary's own unique advice and insight has shifted the course of the US to the better. If not, she would be replaceable by anyone. Frankly, I can't think of any such situations, on the contrary with her views I think she might be toxic to US foreign policy.

 

 Yes Clinton has been following the standard " Obama idea of foreign policy " ..but for me this is exactly the right policy so why would she decide to redefine it?

 

So for example, 

 

• The USA respects the veto of the UNSC even if flawed like the initial required military intervention in Syria 
• The USA is not automatically agreeing to the  views of historical " friends" around military intervention. So despite massive pressure from the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia the Obama administration did not just bomb Iran. They followed the path of negotiations
• The USA is prepared to let other countries take the military lead in regions where typically it was the USA who had to lead. Its okay if there is a perception that Russia " outmaneuvered" the USA in Syria. Its fine if Russia resolves the conflict one way or another 

 

I like Sanders but what are some examples of him being on the right side of policy decision since the 90'S ...I feel this would  be a subjective debate

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwzDJqelLPw

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

 

Hm, not sure if this one will show up properly...

Edited February 29, 2016 by Raithe

[Elerond]

I would say that it seems that John Oliver don't like Drumpf very much, maybe it is because of his British roots 

[Raithe]

[kirottu]

Because Forbes are dirty commies.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

All i can say, i find it amusing that she got 86% of the black vote in South Carolina, compared to someone who actually marched with MLK and got arrested while protesting during the Civil Rights-era, all while she was campaigning for Nixon.

 

 

This is the single most interesting thing this far. I am completely flummoxed by the fact that Bernie does so bad with black voters. It's not local to SC, he also did very bad with black voters in Nevada, but not with any other minorities. Truly incomprehensible, and I have not found any good explanations on the Internet either.

It's likely a combination of Blacks generally being conservative(ie more likely to back establishment candidates) and a lot of them not knowing who Bernie is. Hillary has been capitalizing on the former by appealing to their religious leaders and the latter is exacerbated by having few debates(and what debates there are happen at times people aren't likely to watch) and the lack of coverage Bernie gets in the media.

[Drowsy Emperor]

But why would anyone vote for Hillary, even compared to the other democratic candidates

[Keyrock]

But why would anyone vote for Hillary, even compared to the other democratic candidates

Because there's probably a contingent that feel it's time for a female president and Jill Stein has exactly a 0% chance of winning.  Come on, Drowsy, don't you know it's current year?

 

Edit:  For the record, I don't disagree with the notion that it's about time a woman gets to "run the country" (I put that in quotes because we all know that it's the special interest groups that run the country"), though Hillary wouldn't exactly be my first choice.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Keyrock

[Drowsy Emperor]

That's the most bizarre rationale I've ever heard. A candidate should be elected based on gender?

 

What a triumph of ideology and stupidity over politics.

 

Besides, she's barely human, let alone female.

[Keyrock]

That's the most bizarre rationale I've ever heard. A candidate should be elected based on gender?

 

What a triumph of ideology and stupidity over politics.

 

Besides, she's barely human, let alone female.

That's not what I meant, for myself, anyway.  I wouldn't vote for a candidate solely, or even mostly, because they were female.  I am, though, very open to someone with a vastly different point of view, that, presumably, being a different gender from every other PotUSA would provide, taking top office.  That candidate would, of course, have to have a platform that I am agreeable to and a good not completely awful track record.

 

That said, I have no doubt there are plenty of people out there that would vote for Hillary based mostly on her being female.  Same as there are people that would vote for Rubio mostly based on him being Hispanic.  There are lots of idiots out there.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Keyrock

[Leferd]

Or that there are a lot of idiots out there voting for Trump just because he's a white male who's said some bigoted and chauvinistic things.

[Keyrock]

Yes, the "we need to elect one of us" idiocy is a real thing, unfortunately.

[Malcador]

But why would anyone vote for Hillary, even compared to the other democratic candidates

Because of party, hatred of opposition would be chief ones. Other ones are down policy lines.

[BruceVC]

Or that there are a lot of idiots out there voting for Trump just because he's a white male who's said some bigoted and chauvinistic things.

Yeah, this view that  " people only vote for Hilary because she is a women " definitely doesn't apply to the vast majority of Democrats

 

We can see this as Sanders initially was no competition to Hilary but as the months have gone by he has gained more and more support....if Democrats only cared about gender then Sanders wouldn't be doing so well

 

Democrats vote on the policy objectives of candidates....if they believe the candidate and like what they hear then they would support that candidate. Its the same as the Republicans

 

And Hilary Clinton basically represents the Obama legacy which many Americans support and want to continue. It makes sense to me, I would vote for Hilary if I could 

[Bartimaeus]

Huh, I thought you were an ardent Bernie supporter, Bruce. What changed your mind?

[kgambit]

Huh, I thought you were an ardent Bernie supporter, Bruce. What changed your mind?

 

Bruce has always been a supporter of Hillary.  

[BruceVC]

 

Huh, I thought you were an ardent Bernie supporter, Bruce. What changed your mind?

 

Bruce has always been a supporter of Hillary.  

 

Indeed, I am

 

But I like Sanders, its just I believe Hilary is better suited overall to be the next US president

[Zoraptor]

Yes, the "we need to elect one of us" idiocy is a real thing, unfortunately.

 

Which is really ironic since the last two "one of us" candidates were the son of multimillionaire oil men (GWB) and the son of an already successful property multimillionaire (Trump) so are about as far from the Average Joe on Struggle Street as you can get. And GWB was a near unmitigated disaster, too. It's not just the US that has this phenomenon though, our Prime Minister is a multimillionaire banker (!) who is seen as just one of the guys because he admits peeing in the shower and likes to sexually harass people with pony tails seems like a nice guy to have a beer with. Though at least he is first gen wealthy and not from family wealth.