It'd be Kaine or Biden. Bernie wouldn't get near it.
Still, Clinton is never, ever stepping down so it's all moot.
It'd be Kaine or Biden. Bernie wouldn't get near it.
Still, Clinton is never, ever stepping down so it's all moot.
It's 100% some kind of Trump/Putin viral weapon. Or she's got a cold.
President Tim Kaine.
Hinckley's back out. Get me Jodie Foster.
I'm a bit late on this - but it reminded me of something I had earlier read.Originally Posted by John
Although some bills later return to be signed into law, as a general overview, Obama has the least Vetoes since Harding in the 1920's.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legi...vetoCounts.htm
edit: Is their a way to resize an image from Gyazo?
Agreed, it truly mystifies me. I try my hardest to ignore it and you all are loving it. I guess it's more distressing when it's your own country (I was loving Brexit on the night as well).
Clinton's now taken to her website to declare that Pepe the frog is a white supremacist meme.
The fact that it's on her website.
Jesus, that article.
I also like the fact that her website has that 'we can't risk a Trump presidency' pop-up, with only the option to agree. 'X' that one.
What about Hillary's piss bag?
https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/08...sing-catheter/
Her website is a disgrace. 112 reasons (and counting!) Hillary Clinton should be our next president. I've not made that up either. She's running for President and her website is Buzzfeed.
Got to get those millennials voting somehow! Nobody understands them!
Whilst I find the whole American political scene contemptible, I've no doubt that there are some very clever people involved in her campaign who know what they're doing. They've presumably deduced that the people they need to reach are younger, more liberal and thus far more likely to be appealed to by Buzzfeed-style clickbait than reasoned debate.
Nope. Bernie, a 73 year old white man, won the yoof 85-15, and that's partly because Hillary's attempts to pander to them with Buzzfeed-style articles come off as fucking condescending and pathetic (because they are). In fact it's exactly that deduction (the people they need to reach are younger, more liberal and thus far more likely to be appealed to by Buzzfeed-style clickbait than reasoned debate) which fucks people like me right off.
Of the people I know, the ones over 50 are approximately ten times as positive about her as people my age.
Yes, but you're someone who is reasonably engaged in politics and will vote anyway. Most youth aren't. I can't speak for America, but youth turnout in the UK is routinely shit. Engaging them will be a key component of the Democratic campaign, largely because they should be a reliable voting bloc.
I'd note also that you shouldn't really compare the Democratic selectorate with the wider national electorate. Bernie did well with a sub-section of enthused Democratic voters, but you're not winning if they're the only people who bother.
Everything is BuzzFeed.
Every generation and political demographic is the same. Remember Bernie not doing well with minority voters because he refused to reach out to them on their terms. Oh goodness, how come they all vote against their self interest! Why don't they understand what's best for them.
Politicians lose because they forget that rule 1 of big tent politics is get everyone in the fucking tent.
It's to the point I think I'm literally going to just write in Kanye West and be done with it when I go to the poll.
Trump +4 Ohio; +2 Nevada; +2 Colorado; +4 Florida; +5 LATimes.
Trump is winning right now. You mad liberals?
I don't like to be a sore winner but I'm afraid I'll have to be a massive gloating dick to you in your darkest hour if Clinton wins.
Anyways, polls aren't a problem but Hillary pissing herself might be.
Donald Trump on his black outreach tour
This is good, and basically what I think about them both.
I can agree on the Democrat side, but he (and you I guess) must be havin' a lol on the Trump side.
And yet it is his independence, his willingness to name facts however unpleasantSeriously?Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politician of our day.
Well, yeah; but the war stuff is about right.
Even the war stuff, all we really know is that Trump likes Putin or something. He is happy to criticize China all day long, so I'm not sure where the peace with China thing comes from. Then there's the whole killing terrorists' family etc., which I'm sure bodes well for world peace. Fuck the current war-loving democratic lot, that I can agree with.
'Trump, Trump, Trump!'
The west in general has long been far too bent on intervention in shit countries because a) they can and b) it makes them look important. I'm fully on board leaving these countries to achieve regional-led solutions.
I don't know why Trump doesn't push foreign policy more (or maybe he does, I'm just trying to block it all out). Sure, she knows about a thousand times as much as he does, but he can lol any comparisons off by pointing out what a disaster she was as secretary of state, and anti-interventionism will appeal to a lot of borderline liberals and libertarians.
Trump doesn't get to claim any high ground on interventionism when he plans to "massively expand the military".
The day a candidate comes up and says they're going to contract the military because they won't be using it overseas, then they can be considered credible. Otherwise it's just pandering to a base who still want big guns/war-penises, but don't like the fact that some of the latest misadventures didn't go so good, because it hits them right in the patriotism.
Having a strong national defence isn't the same as sending it across the globe to bomb people because you've espied an opportunity to impose liberal democracy on other people.
You could hold a series of rallies on blowing the Moon up for a laugh and still claim the high-ground on interventionism against anybody involved with the last five years of American foreign policy.
America's military isn't just "strong". It spends as much on defence as the next seven countries combined, and has for a long enough time to build up massive reserves. Unless the whole world attacks America tomorrow, they have plenty enough for self-defence.
The whole point of non-intervention is to discourage wasteful spending on the military, surely. Claiming to be non-interventionist (and that's giving Trump way more credit than he deserves for consistency in political positions) and then also claiming a dramatic military expansion is defeating the entire purpose. It's trying to play two mutually-inconsistent sides of the Republican base (angry and confused because Iraq/Afghanistan weren't the slam dunk wins their nationalism demanded, while also sporting a raging erection for the military, guns, soldiers, and apple pie). It's not consistent political philosophy - it's pandering.
At some point its not self-defence, is it? Its about the corporate interest.
America spends the money it does because a) it's been acting as the world's policeman since about 1941 b) its military power gives strong credibility to its foreign policy decisions and thus needs to be maintained c) it's basically propping up the entire NATO defence structure in Europe and d) it's actively engaged in other theatres e.g. Korea.
It's not a case of national self-defence for the Americans. They're effectively maintaining a global deterrence, particularly in south-east Asia (engagement in South Korea and Japan), eastern Europe (NATO) and the Middle East (although probably using Israel as a conduit). You can question whether that's worth their time or not, but American withdrawal from these theatres would immediately embolden some right wankers. Armies are needed, and armies cost a lot of money.
This is the most petty, pedantic point ever, but Korea and Japan are nowhere near South-East Asia.
I agree that the US has a number of military roles which it really needs to keep up, for the sake of all our stability. You list Korea/Japan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Trump has, of course, explicitly stated that he wants to withdraw from all three of those roles.
It's possible to have a coherent non-interventionist policy, and perhaps even one that won't reduce the need for military spending. Trump doesn't, because his positions are incoherent, reactionary, and largely philosophically unrelated.
You don't have to be a non-interventionist (like Ron Paul) to correctly position yourself against the on-going Syrian idiocy.
It wouldn't be like you to be petty - let's call them east Asia instead lest you seethe yourself senseless. Not that it alters the fundamental point, which is that the Americans have to spend a shit load of money and if they're spending as much as the next seven countries combined then fucking good.
You won't find me agreeing with Trump's views on NATO and the like, but we need to move away from the idea that a strong military and a high defence spend is somehow code for nationalist dick-waving.
Wait, what?
That article is so bemusing. When did the Kennedys stop being the architects of Vietnam? Or when did we start believing the isolationists who have no clue what is happening in the world? They always stay non-interventionist.
Easy there, tiger. It was light-hearted.
If you're expanding for expansion's sake, rather than having an actual reason for doing it, it's dick-waving. Given that Trump is essentially talking about reducing US military activities, he clearly doesn't have a plan that desperately needs more troops. It's dick-waving.You won't find me agreeing with Trump's views on NATO and the like, but we need to move away from the idea that a strong military and a high defence spend is somehow code for nationalist dick-waving.
Korea is on the same latitude as Tunisia, and yet it goes down to minus 30 in winter. Not many people know that. But I do.
I don't really think that's true. Americans at large don't really take issue with the amount we spend on the military. What they do take issue with is the utter clusterfuck we've made of the Middle East in recent times - and, particularly, the extremism which has been produced thereof. ISIS was more or less created in an American prison. It doesn't really matter whatever else Trump says, about expanding the military or withdrawing from China, because he's never had and never will have a cohesive political philosophy; what matters is that, on the point of foreign policy in the Middle East, he's better than Clinton.
I'm always surprised at how far north Europe is.
TIL.
I've always liked that the UK is as far north as Alaska and Siberia.
I'm talking about the concept generally - more investment in the military and ensuring a strong national defence doesn't mean you have to have a penchant for sending them all over the world, nor that you're appealing to some sort of primitive patriotism tied up in military strength.
Trump is clearly not a serious thinker on these issues, so I won't bother considering his scattergun 'policies'.
Isn't this just the equivalent of massive infrastructure investment, but instead of roads and railways, it's aircraft carriers and big missiles.
It's genius really, economic stimulus, reduced foreign policy impact and making the punters feel more secure behind their walls all wrapped up in one line of the stump speech.
'Hillary' speaking to trade unionists via video link like a senile grandmother is pretty lol.
*airhorn*
These Vic Berger-vids are the best thing about the election.
Ted Cruz has BOTTLED IT. Does that make 'Jeb' the principled one?
So 'The Face of VR' Palmer Luckey chucked some money towards some right-wing meme site and then allegedly went all 1% on reddit. At one time he was listed as their vice president.
I miss the days when bullying was something you physically had to do. And now I know where mert gets his material from.
Sky are using their penalty camera angle, presumably to get the best view of 'Hillary' when she collapses.
Reply With Quote
