Australian Politics Forum - Who Will Win the Presidency?

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44371
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #270 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:44am

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:29am:

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:14am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

It's all out there, it's easy to find. The old boy likes the idea of Trump because of one issue, and one issue alone:

Race.

Really?? What are Trump's policies on race? Tell us.

Oh, you haven't heard? He has policies on black crime, where he cited completely false statistics - statistics you yourself quoted.

He has policies on Hispanic illegal immigrants. He wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out (as if they're too dumb to get on a plane).

And he has policies on refusing travel visas to everyone from a majority-Muslim country.

Now we all know you'll say, oh but blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Central Asians and all other Muslims are not a race.

You'll say it's just about the beards.

Cunning, no?

Illegals, criminals and fanatics are a race??

Who knew??

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11346
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #271 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:49am

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:29am:

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:14am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

It's all out there, it's easy to find. The old boy likes the idea of Trump because of one issue, and one issue alone:

Race.

Really?? What are Trump's policies on race? Tell us.

Oh, you haven't heard?

He has policies on black crime

, where he cited completely false statistics - statistics you yourself quoted.

He has

policies on Hispanic illegal immigrants. He wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out.

And

he has policies on refusing travel visas to everyone from a majority-Muslim country.

Now we all know you'll say, oh but blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Central Asians and all other Muslims are not a race.

You'll say it's just about the beards.

Cunning, no?

1.
Apprehending & prosecuting criminals, regardless of race, is the best way from keeping criminals from preying on citizens. No?

➤ You do know that in America, the Federal Government isn't permitted....by law under normal conditions....in policing local neighborhoods......that's completely up to the local governments, not the feds. Trump can only suggest that all criminals be apprehended & prosecuted, above that he has no jurisdiction.....no President does or has.

2.
The wall Trump proposes isn't meant to just keep Mexicans from illegally crossing the southern border into the United States, it's to keep all peoples, no matter their origin, from illegally entering.

America is a Sovereign Country, & as such can refuse entry to anyone that's they don't invite or wish to allow entry to. America does not subscribe toan "OPEN BORDERS" Policy, & neither do we.

3.
Again, as a Sovereign Country, America isn't required to issue a travel visa to anyone it deems a threat to the American People. America determines that, we (the rest of the world) doesn't.

If America so wishes, after determining that someone, some group, or some region for that matter, isn't a threat to it's people, it may decide to issue a visa on a case by case basis.......just as we do here.

No one in the World has an automatic or predetermined right to an American Visa.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:24am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44371
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #272 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:54am

Karnal wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Oh, old boy, we all love how you use the term "the Establishment" with a straight face. As if you're not the most Establishment poster here.

Nudge nudge wink wink, innit. And yes, past US presidents managed global transitions to benefit the US and the world - FDR in particular. conference at Yalta ring a bell?

Not every president has to be a Nixon or a Bush Jnr, dear. Trump, of course, would not even be that. The reset button? Trump would be impeached in his first term.

Reset that, Establishment.

A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

We have here a clear pattern of corruption that makes Watergate look like child's play. Hillary's aide, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary's false claim that she didn't send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. The FBI, to its credit, refused. (James Comey wasn't involved at that stage.)

Hillary's aide then asked whether the FBI would be saying anything publicly about the classification issue. Once assured that the FBI would be silent, Hillary took the stage and alleged publicly, and falsely, that she never used her illegal home server to send or receive classified information...

Donald Trump has his faults, but Hillary Clinton is far too corrupt to serve as President of the United States.
....
The corruption might not seem directly relevant to the rise of Donald Trump, but it's there, implicitly. The present arrangements work for the political class, the permanent bureaucracy, their client groups, and the lawless. But not for millions of the law-abiding. Consider illegal immigration, for example, which pre-Trump was entirely discussed in terms of the interests of the lawbreakers - how to "bring them out of the shadows", how to give them "a path to citizenship", celebrate their "family values" and "work ethic" - and never in terms of the law-abiding, whose wages they depress, whose communities they transform, and, in too many criminal cases, whose lives they wreck. Victor Davis Hanson writes:
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump's sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.

...
Trump, like other philosophically erratic politicians from Denmark to Greece, has tapped into a very basic strain of cultural conservatism: the question of how far First World peoples are willing to go in order to extinguish their futures on the altar of "diversity".
http://www.steynonline.com/7564/laws-are-for-the-little-people

In this low-bar presidential race, why do conservative establishmentarians and past foreign-policy officials feel a need to publish their support for the Democratic candidate, when their liberal counterparts feel no such urge to distance themselves from their own nominee? Is what Clinton actually did, in leaving Iraq abruptly, or lying about Benghazi, or violating federal security laws, so much less alarming than what Trump might do in shaking up NATO or "bombing the hell out of ISIS"?

Just so. Trump is an unknown. But, to channel Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary is the most known known in the history of knowns. And what we know of her is that she's stinkingly corrupt, above the law, and able to suborn entire government agencies in the cause of her corruption. Where do you think we're gonna be after eight years of that?

Oh, and it will be eight years. The NeverTrumpers are saying, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2020", just like after 2012 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2016", and after 2008 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2012." Next time never comes. There are no tomorrows for the Republican Party, because, unlike the GOP, the Democrats use their victories very effectively.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35220
Gender: female

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #273 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:20am

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Oh, old boy, we all love how you use the term "the Establishment" with a straight face. As if you're not the most Establishment poster here.

Nudge nudge wink wink, innit. And yes, past US presidents managed global transitions to benefit the US and the world - FDR in particular. conference at Yalta ring a bell?

Not every president has to be a Nixon or a Bush Jnr, dear. Trump, of course, would not even be that. The reset button? Trump would be impeached in his first term.

Reset that, Establishment.

A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

We have here a clear pattern of corruption that makes Watergate look like child's play. Hillary's aide, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary's false claim that she didn't send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. The FBI, to its credit, refused. (James Comey wasn't involved at that stage.)

Hillary's aide then asked whether the FBI would be saying anything publicly about the classification issue. Once assured that the FBI would be silent, Hillary took the stage and alleged publicly, and falsely, that she never used her illegal home server to send or receive classified information...

Donald Trump has his faults, but Hillary Clinton is far too corrupt to serve as President of the United States.
....
The corruption might not seem directly relevant to the rise of Donald Trump, but it's there, implicitly. The present arrangements work for the political class, the permanent bureaucracy, their client groups, and the lawless. But not for millions of the law-abiding. Consider illegal immigration, for example, which pre-Trump was entirely discussed in terms of the interests of the lawbreakers - how to "bring them out of the shadows", how to give them "a path to citizenship", celebrate their "family values" and "work ethic" - and never in terms of the law-abiding, whose wages they depress, whose communities they transform, and, in too many criminal cases, whose lives they wreck. Victor Davis Hanson writes:
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump's sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.

...
Trump, like other philosophically erratic politicians from Denmark to Greece, has tapped into a very basic strain of cultural conservatism: the question of how far First World peoples are willing to go in order to extinguish their futures on the altar of "diversity".
http://www.steynonline.com/7564/laws-are-for-the-little-people

In this low-bar presidential race, why do conservative establishmentarians and past foreign-policy officials feel a need to publish their support for the Democratic candidate, when their liberal counterparts feel no such urge to distance themselves from their own nominee? Is what Clinton actually did, in leaving Iraq abruptly, or lying about Benghazi, or violating federal security laws, so much less alarming than what Trump might do in shaking up NATO or "bombing the hell out of ISIS"?

Just so. Trump is an unknown. But, to channel Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary is the most known known in the history of knowns. And what we know of her is that she's stinkingly corrupt, above the law, and able to suborn entire government agencies in the cause of her corruption. Where do you think we're gonna be after eight years of that?

Oh, and it will be eight years. The NeverTrumpers are saying, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2020", just like after 2012 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2016", and after 2008 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2012." Next time never comes. There are no tomorrows for the Republican Party, because, unlike the GOP, the Democrats use their victories very effectively.

Well that was quite an hysterical rant.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11346
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #274 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:26am

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Oh, old boy, we all love how you use the term "the Establishment" with a straight face. As if you're not the most Establishment poster here.

Nudge nudge wink wink, innit. And yes, past US presidents managed global transitions to benefit the US and the world - FDR in particular. conference at Yalta ring a bell?

Not every president has to be a Nixon or a Bush Jnr, dear. Trump, of course, would not even be that. The reset button? Trump would be impeached in his first term.

Reset that, Establishment.

A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

We have here a clear pattern of corruption that makes Watergate look like child's play. Hillary's aide, Patrick Kennedy, tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary's false claim that she didn't send or receive classified information on her illegal home server. The FBI, to its credit, refused. (James Comey wasn't involved at that stage.)

Hillary's aide then asked whether the FBI would be saying anything publicly about the classification issue. Once assured that the FBI would be silent, Hillary took the stage and alleged publicly, and falsely, that she never used her illegal home server to send or receive classified information...

➤➤ Donald Trump has his faults, but Hillary Clinton is far too corrupt to serve as President of the United States.
....
The corruption might not seem directly relevant to the rise of Donald Trump, but it's there, implicitly. The present arrangements work for the political class, the permanent bureaucracy, their client groups, and the lawless. But not for millions of the law-abiding. Consider illegal immigration, for example, which pre-Trump was entirely discussed in terms of the interests of the lawbreakers - how to "bring them out of the shadows", how to give them "a path to citizenship", celebrate their "family values" and "work ethic" - and never in terms of the law-abiding, whose wages they depress, whose communities they transform, and, in too many criminal cases, whose lives they wreck. Victor Davis Hanson writes:
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Republican party, and it has nothing to do with the flaws of Donald Trump. Something like his tone and message would have to be invented if he did not exist. None of the other 16 primary candidates — the great majority of whom had far greater political expertise, more even temperaments, and more knowledge of issues than did Trump — shared Trump's sense of outrage — or his ability to convey it — over what was wrong: The lives and concerns of the Republican establishment in the media and government no longer resembled those of half their supporters.

...
Trump, like other philosophically erratic politicians from Denmark to Greece, has tapped into a very basic strain of cultural conservatism: the question of how far First World peoples are willing to go in order to extinguish their futures on the altar of "diversity".
http://www.steynonline.com/7564/laws-are-for-the-little-people

In this low-bar presidential race, why do conservative establishmentarians and past foreign-policy officials feel a need to publish their support for the Democratic candidate, when their liberal counterparts feel no such urge to distance themselves from their own nominee? Is what Clinton actually did, in leaving Iraq abruptly, or lying about Benghazi, or violating federal security laws, so much less alarming than what Trump might do in shaking up NATO or "bombing the hell out of ISIS"?

Just so. Trump is an unknown. But, to channel Donald Rumsfeld, Hillary is the most known known in the history of knowns. And what we know of her is that she's stinkingly corrupt, above the law, and able to suborn entire government agencies in the cause of her corruption. Where do you think we're gonna be after eight years of that?

Oh, and it will be eight years. The NeverTrumpers are saying, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2020", just like after 2012 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2016", and after 2008 they said, "Don't worry. We'll get it right in 2012." Next time never comes. There are no tomorrows for the Republican Party, because, unlike the GOP, the Democrats use their victories very effectively.

Well said........ +1

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:35am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44371
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #275 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:26am

mothra wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:20am:

Well that was quite an hysterical rant.

No, it was very measured and calm. Nothing hysterical about it. But for you it's an easy way out to just to misrepresent it so you do not have to actually identify any point that you could disprove or dispute.
Or it just all went right over your head.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #276 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:36am

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

More like the Secret Service determined that Assange's stalking of Clinton constituted a threat to a US Presidential candidate.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Who Will Win the Presidency? Reply #277 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:39am Like I keep saying, Clinton should be facing the tough questions, and its a crying shame she is not. But the repugs have only themselves to blame for not coming up with even a semi-credible candidate.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44371
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #278 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 12:41pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 11:36am:

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:54am:

A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

More like the Secret Service determined that Assange's stalking of Clinton constituted a threat to a US Presidential candidate.

You guys are desperate.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Lord Herbert

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 34441
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #279 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 12:46pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 7:38am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 7:17am:

Let me try it once again. I'm retired, so I've got endless patience.

Not sure about that... You seem to be often 'leaving the building' in a geriatric tantrum...

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 7:17am:

How will Hillary Clinton be an improvement upon Trump in dealing with China on this issue?

Do you think it takes one man on a horse with a beauty pageant contestant as an adviser to take on world-class career politicians and hostile heads of state? Let's see you get that ingrown toenail removed from an Alan Bond character.

BTW how's that Presidential IQ thing going? You know google will tell you Clinton hasn't yet served as a President... Don't think of needing to google this as an obvious sign of your oncoming dementia... Think of it as, say, 'outsourcing your memory'

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 7:17am:

Shoot. Make us happy.

Love the royal 'we'... Sort of English in a way... But lacks balls.

My patience is legendary among those who know me. It's why I missed my vocation as a mercenary sniper in combat zones.

So!

We're waiting.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95203
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #280 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 1:02pm

Panther wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:49am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:29am:

Frank wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 10:14am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

It's all out there, it's easy to find. The old boy likes the idea of Trump because of one issue, and one issue alone:

Race.

Really?? What are Trump's policies on race? Tell us.

Oh, you haven't heard?

He has policies on black crime

, where he cited completely false statistics - statistics you yourself quoted.

He has

policies on Hispanic illegal immigrants. He wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out.

And

he has policies on refusing travel visas to everyone from a majority-Muslim country.

Now we all know you'll say, oh but blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Central Asians and all other Muslims are not a race.

You'll say it's just about the beards.

Cunning, no?

1.
Apprehending & prosecuting criminals, regardless of race, is the best way from keeping criminals from preying on citizens. No?

➤ You do know that in America, the Federal Government isn't permitted....by law under normal conditions....in policing local neighborhoods......that's completely up to the local governments, not the feds. Trump can only suggest that all criminals be apprehended & prosecuted, above that he has no jurisdiction.....no President does or has.

Oh, I know. Funny how Trump has all these policy ideas on cleaning up drug crime, no?

Quote:

2.
The wall Trump proposes isn't meant to just keep Mexicans from illegally crossing the southern border into the United States, it's to keep all peoples, no matter their origin, from illegally entering.

Trump isn't proposing a wall against Canada. Trump has made all sorts of allegations about Mexicans - they're rapists, criminals and drug smugglers. Trump has somehow forgotten that those who organize drug smuggling from Mexico are in fact Americans. He's also forgotten American crime and rape figures - including his own civil case for rape. His 81% black murder rate of whites was a complete porkie.

Quote:

America is a Sovereign Country, & as such can refuse entry to anyone that's they don't invite or wish to allow entry to. America does not subscribe toan "OPEN BORDERS" Policy, & neither do we.

But of course. This is why the US has illegal immigrants to begin with.

There is a question, however, whether a US department could impose restrictions on people - even non-residents - based on their religion. While security issues may well apply, it would be up to the courts to rule on whether a ban on anyone from a Muslim majority country (Muslim or otherwise), would be constitutional.

Trump's policy on making Muslim US citizens carry religious ID cards is certainly unconstitutional. This is the problem with being a political outsider, and it's not a strength. If Trump's policies can't make it past the various committees, congress, senate, and finally, the Supreme Court, they're useless. If Trump can't even get legal advice to see if his policies are legal, what's the point?

The point, as you know very well, is not to create policies, but to hit all the right notes with the bigots.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44371
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #281 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 2:27pm

Karnal wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 1:02pm:

The point, as you know very well, is not to create policies, but to hit all the right notes with the bigots.

No - the point is to represent the popular will rather than be as unmoored from who you represent as the Democrats and the Republicans are now. There would be no Trump if the Republicans had taken illegal immigration and crimes by illegal immigrants much more seriously much sooner. There would have been no Bern either if the Democrats were really representing their constituents (nor Corbyn in the UK, Hanson, Hinch, Xenophone here, Le Pen in France, etc, etc.)

There would be no Trump if the entire American and Western political class had made sure that their people were behind them with globalisation, trade deals, immigration and the like. There would be no Trump if PC madness had been stopped years ago.

Trump is where he is because the people are sick of precisely your reasoning: " If Trump's policies can't make it past the various committees, congress, senate, and finally, the Supreme Court, they're useless."
People are sick of the political class - "the various committees, congress, senate, and finally, the Supreme Court" - dudding them, no matter which party is in office. And there is no papering over that. Even if Hillary wins, this dissatisfaction is going to intensify, rather than go quiet.

Th energy is with what Trump, Le Pen, AfD, Wilders, Hanson etc are harnessing, not with Hillary. That it's not pretty or that it doesn't play by the book as usual or please the various committees, quangos and NGOs is the very point.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #282 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 2:32pm

Have to admit I did hear a French economist talk about why Trump and Sanders got so much traction this election year.

They were both pitching the same angle, but the solution was different.

People are angry about wage inequality, why they can't get jobs etc. Sanders and Trump both tapped into that.

The key difference is how each candidate looked at the cause and therefore the solution.

Sanders thought it was at the top end of twon.
Trump thinks its minorities.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44371
Gender: male

Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #283 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 2:45pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 24^th, 2016 at 2:32pm:

Have to admit I did hear a French economist talk about why Trump and Sanders got so much traction this election year.

They were both pitching the same angle, but the solution was different.

People are angry about wage inequality, why they can't get jobs etc. Sanders and Trump both tapped into that.

The key difference is how each candidate looked at the cause and therefore the solution.

Sanders thought it was at the top end of twon.
Trump thinks its minorities.

I don't think Trump blames minorities. He blames the political class best represented by Hillary, funded by rich donors, championed by Big Media.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Lord Herbert Gold Member Offline Posts: 34441 Gender:	Re: Who Will Win the Presidency? Reply #284 - Oct 24^th, 2016 at 2:46pm Post of the Week, Frank.
Back to top	IP Logged