ToffeeDoug
Player Valuation: £35m
On the last point, she must do. She has to the unifier, the consensus builder etc. At heart, I'm not convinced that Democrats are really that radical themselves, more liberal conservatives if you like.
POTUS 2016
- Thread starter SerenityNigh
- Start date
- Status
On the last point, she must do. She has to the unifier, the consensus builder etc. At heart, I'm not convinced that Democrats are really that radical themselves, more liberal conservatives if you like.
neil999
Player Valuation: £80m
yeah they seem equivalent to centrist conservatives here
Pienaar's gloves
Player Valuation: £35m
Hillary and the establishment Democrats seem to be the same as Blair's New Labour, of which I am a critic, however it was 1,000,000 times better than having a Trump in charge.
kithnou
Player Valuation: £70m
source?
No need to source the obvious
Rook
Player Valuation: £80m
20 years ago she was a liberal. Put now its pretty clear that she loves being stupid rich and has become Margret Thatcher. Granted Obama isn't much better. In fact Obama 8 years ago just ran slightly to the left of Hillary then took about 98% of her policies once he became president.
Outside of some social issues and judicial picks there is really no difference between GWB, Obama and Hillary.
Also don't underestimate Trump, especially against Hillary. Trump is still going to sweep the South and could probably take Florida. Plus a lot of blue states up in the midwest and NE which went for Obama, Kerry and Gore in the past are in play. He has a lot of support up in those states. Also turnout among Dems might be low whereas Trump's support is energized.
We are in a favorable stretch of states demographically for Sanders with low percentages of minority voters. That being said, those margins are very impressive. Wisconsin should be interesting. Shame he got waxed so convincingly throughout the South.
Garrick
Awesome, lid.
I think Sanders should win in Wisconsin. Long history of progressive politicians there. Imagine he'll run up massive margins in places like Madison.I did the deed already on the first day of early voting.
Jib in lad
Player Valuation: £25m
This is brilliant.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
This is the argument that keeps being advanced, but I am not sure how true it is. Trump "in charge" would be able to do almost nothing - the wall is perhaps the limit of what he could do, and Congress would take the credit for it because they have been anti-migrant for longer than him. The rest of what he wants would be vetoed by a Republican establishment that hates him, or (if they lose control) by a Democratic establishment that hates him.
Cruz would be much worse, as they would probably be a bit grateful to him and he would have "a mandate" to basically destroy the state and most of its poor.
Clinton would just result in four years of insane partisanship.
Bernie would probably destroy them with his logic, or at least would force them into fighting midterms that they would inevitably get absolutely smashed in.
rascal
Player Valuation: £60m
Any evidence to back up your assertion that Obama is an idiot?
We didn't start the fire.
Sure, he was a nasty man and a blowhard even then, a rich clown playing the media for publicity, a quintessential type: the eternal hustler, too nasty and vulgar to be entirely respectable, but too successful to be ignored. We’ve seen thousands like him and we’ll see thousands more. But he’d built a bunch of buildings, and real estate is to Manhattan what oil is to Texas: a toxic and destabilizing commodity, and a universal excuse for almost any bad behavior. So he wasn’t a liberal man, but he’d spent his life surrounded by them. How bad could he be?
If you think that sounds stupid and smug, imagine how it sounds to people out in the rest of the country. Liberals were sure the devil would come slouching out of Alabama or Texas, beating a bible and shouting about sodomy and sin. They didn’t expect him to be a businessman who lives on Fifth Avenue and 57th Street. Rick Santorum was a threat, but your run-of-the-mill New York tycoon just couldn’t be, not in the same way — because even if the latter was unlikable, he was known, he was covered, he fell within a spectrum that the morning shows and entertainment press are comfortable with, much more so, anyway, than they are with what the slow learners among liberals still blithely call “rednecks.” When, a few years ago, Trump started going on about Obama’s birth certificate, no one said, “Hey, maybe we don’t want to associate with this guy anymore.” Instead, the Washington Post invited him to be its guest at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Its editors wouldn’t have extended the same backslapping generosity to David Duke or Alex Jones or any of the other rustic zealots with whom Trump is now, unquestionably, on all fours.
The culture that first made Trump wasn’t the one that goes hunting on weekends, or the one that’s been reborn in Christ. It was the culture of celebrity for its own sake, of kidding-but-not-kidding-but-maybe-really-kidding, a culture of materialism and greed, too forgiving of fame and too prone to taking nauseating crassness as just another act; a culture with delusions of its own moral faultlessness and its ability to control whatever conversation it’s begun, ever-tempted by the idea that absolutely everybody must see irony where we see it, that it’s all politics as usual, and whatever happens, Vanity Fair will cover it all with the same, slightly distanced knowingness, in between the ads for expensive watches and luxury cars.
He's not ours, and he never will be. He belongs to the people who built him up, and they're inflicting him on us. If reputable leadership refuses to address the issues that really concern the people at large, they will turn to disreputable sources to have these issues addressed.
So, our choice is either Trump or the giant bag of appetites and entitlements that is Hillary?
Lord help us weak and wanton sinners...
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/28...ed-donald-trump-was-liberal-not-conservative/
Sure, he was a nasty man and a blowhard even then, a rich clown playing the media for publicity, a quintessential type: the eternal hustler, too nasty and vulgar to be entirely respectable, but too successful to be ignored. We’ve seen thousands like him and we’ll see thousands more. But he’d built a bunch of buildings, and real estate is to Manhattan what oil is to Texas: a toxic and destabilizing commodity, and a universal excuse for almost any bad behavior. So he wasn’t a liberal man, but he’d spent his life surrounded by them. How bad could he be?
If you think that sounds stupid and smug, imagine how it sounds to people out in the rest of the country. Liberals were sure the devil would come slouching out of Alabama or Texas, beating a bible and shouting about sodomy and sin. They didn’t expect him to be a businessman who lives on Fifth Avenue and 57th Street. Rick Santorum was a threat, but your run-of-the-mill New York tycoon just couldn’t be, not in the same way — because even if the latter was unlikable, he was known, he was covered, he fell within a spectrum that the morning shows and entertainment press are comfortable with, much more so, anyway, than they are with what the slow learners among liberals still blithely call “rednecks.” When, a few years ago, Trump started going on about Obama’s birth certificate, no one said, “Hey, maybe we don’t want to associate with this guy anymore.” Instead, the Washington Post invited him to be its guest at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Its editors wouldn’t have extended the same backslapping generosity to David Duke or Alex Jones or any of the other rustic zealots with whom Trump is now, unquestionably, on all fours.
The culture that first made Trump wasn’t the one that goes hunting on weekends, or the one that’s been reborn in Christ. It was the culture of celebrity for its own sake, of kidding-but-not-kidding-but-maybe-really-kidding, a culture of materialism and greed, too forgiving of fame and too prone to taking nauseating crassness as just another act; a culture with delusions of its own moral faultlessness and its ability to control whatever conversation it’s begun, ever-tempted by the idea that absolutely everybody must see irony where we see it, that it’s all politics as usual, and whatever happens, Vanity Fair will cover it all with the same, slightly distanced knowingness, in between the ads for expensive watches and luxury cars.
He's not ours, and he never will be. He belongs to the people who built him up, and they're inflicting him on us. If reputable leadership refuses to address the issues that really concern the people at large, they will turn to disreputable sources to have these issues addressed.
So, our choice is either Trump or the giant bag of appetites and entitlements that is Hillary?
Lord help us weak and wanton sinners...
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/28...ed-donald-trump-was-liberal-not-conservative/
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
