Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, and the things seen from my perspective are discerned from as far away as Brazil, it seems. I'd recommend the linked Atlantic piece as well.
I am large, and contain multitudes.
The world is a better place if "Alison" is a sample...
results among voters ages 18-25, for what it's worth
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
you left this part out:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself"
in jest
results among voters ages 18-25, for what it's worth
Worth nowt.
Anyhoo....
Cheer up Hillary. At least you won't have to work at the same desk that Monica spent so much time under.
onlyme
Player Valuation: £10m
Similar demographics to the Brexit vote. Us arl arses have a lot to answer for.
results among voters ages 18-25, for what it's worth
Politicians must take heed a sane alternative to nutters does exist, they however need a platform.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
"In the coming days, commentators will attempt to normalize this event. They will try to soothe their readers and viewers with thoughts about the “innate wisdom” and “essential decency” of the American people. They will downplay the virulence of the nationalism displayed, the cruel decision to elevate a man who rides in a gold-plated airliner but who has staked his claim with the populist rhetoric of blood and soil. George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory. “The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”
results among voters ages 18-25, for what it's worth
Targeting young voters is not a good strategy sadly because we don't vote in large enough numbers.
Nichola Sturgeon complaining that it's not a good result for Scotland. I'm sure republican voters really care too.
She obviously could well be proven correct but no idea what business it is of hers.
She obviously could well be proven correct but no idea what business it is of hers.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
not in the short term, perhaps.
but the two houses and supreme court will have to get far more creative still to preclude this from coming to pass down the road
I just meant in general it's a bad strategy. What's seen as good by the young is usually seen as bad by the older generation. And they vote...
I dunno if it's the same in the US but that's how it is here in the UK
Added to that is the fact people's opinions tend to move to the right with age.
Lot of Baltic state nervous now I'd imagine. Putin could well have a free reign at the former Soviet states.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
that is certainly a point well taken, but this time might be different... in 1984 for example, Reagan won 18-24s 61 to 39, a higher margin than 25-29 or 30-49.
i think having crushing debts just to go to school, laughably improbably odds of home-ownership, and now possibly no health coverage might be a qualitative difference. it is for me!
if we were going to go pseudo-fascist in response, like our parents (well, Americans' parents), we would have by now
Touche. Sometimes the most accurate message is the one that remains unsaid.you left this part out:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself"
in jest
Some things are subject to Newtonian principles, others are of a more quantum nature.
But wait, there's more.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.
And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.
To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
- Status