Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scarborough has an ego issue. I'm getting sick of his songs being plugged in his show.

I agree about Todd. He's almost BBC about it all.

Nicole Wallace rips him apart and Maddow, albeit great researcher and tells a great story monologue reaches climax anytime there's a chance he could become undone.
If I'm honest I do like the way Maddow gets exited about the news. At least you can see she actually cares, unlike Todd, who just looks like he could burst into tears at any moment.

I'd like to see Nicole Wallace take over on Meet the Press, but I'm not sure she'll get the chance any time soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
If I'm honest I do like the way Maddow gets exited about the news. At least you can see she actually cares, unlike Todd, who just looks like he could burst into tears at any moment.

I'd like to see Nicole Wallace take over on Meet the Press, but I'm not sure she'll get the chance any time soon.
I have a crush on Wallace. Something about her I can put put my finger on. Despite her being a republican.

:)
 
Yeah but it’s like United are the most “supported club” in the UK.

That doesn’t mean they have more fans (viewers in this context) than the rest combined.
Mmm, maybe, but that argument also fits, and was used, by Conservative detractors in the British GE, add up
all the alternatives to them, and they shouldn't be in power, yet they are by a landslide . I'm not banging any drum for
Fox or anyone else, it's simply my view that Conservatives watch what chimes with their views, and unless PR is introduced
in the States, it follows that they, theoretically, have a greater chance of power.
I am not an avid follower, and don't have exact numbers to hand, so it may well be a different scenario over there.
 
There is no need for explanation, as socialism has never worked.
Anywhere.

Here we go again.

I asked you what policies are "unworkable", you answer with your usual and predictable soundbite: 'socialism'.

And here's me thinking that you'd break down a policy you actually know about in some form of logical critique.

You never do, you never have done, you never will.

CLEARLY, you have no clue about what the Sanders regime would propose.

I happen to.

I kind of didn't want to do this so early in 2020, but I find it pointless talking to you.
 
Here we go again.

I asked you what policies are "unworkable", you answer with your usual and predictable soundbite: 'socialism'.

And here's me thinking that you'd break down a policy you actually know about in some form of logical critique.

You never do, you never have done, you never will.

CLEARLY, you have no clue about what the Sanders regime would propose.

I happen to.

I kind of didn't want to do this so early in 2020, but I find it pointless talking to you.
I happen to believe that Sanders has about as much chance as Corbyn did, you were wrong in your analysis of
the British electorate then, and you are wrong about the American one now.
You're right, it is pointless, let's see who's right, after the election.
 
I happen to believe that Sanders has about as much chance as Corbyn did, you were wrong in your analysis of
the British electorate then, and you are wrong about the American one now.
You're right, it is pointless, let's see who's right, after the election.

Gladly everyone can see you still fail to offer any shard of analysis on the error of ANY policy Sanders offers.

Because you don't know any. Bearing in mind, it's US politics with a different set of standards and opportunities lived by, it's fine, admit to it and back away from the conversation.

You offer the word 'socialism', that no one else does and you froth at the mouth.

You're a pseudo-intellectual, plain and simple, and I'm glad it's out there.

You look an absolute fool, right now.
 
Mmm, maybe, but that argument also fits, and was used, by Conservative detractors in the British GE, add up
all the alternatives to them, and they shouldn't be in power, yet they are by a landslide . I'm not banging any drum for
Fox or anyone else, it's simply my view that Conservatives watch what chimes with their views, and unless PR is introduced
in the States, it follows that they, theoretically, have a greater chance of power.
I am not an avid follower, and don't have exact numbers to hand, so it may well be a different scenario over there.
Sorry mate but that analogy doesn’t even remotely fit as Fox is a news channel and not political party that people vote for. It’s a non-sequitur for this discussion of a TV channel.

And there doesn’t need to be PR, there are only two mainstream parties. No one is suggesting there is anything wrong with the system, just stating that more people watch news channels that aren’t Fox than watch Fox itself, that’s fuck all to do with the UK G.E or FPTP.
 
I happen to believe that Sanders has about as much chance as Corbyn did, you were wrong in your analysis of
the British electorate then, and you are wrong about the American one now.
You're right, it is pointless, let's see who's right, after the election.
I'm not sure that you can compare Corbyn and Sanders. The US and UK versions of socialism are not entirely the same thing.
 
Gladly everyone can see you still fail to offer any shard of analysis on the error of ANY policy Sanders offers.
Free college for all, cancel Student debt.
Result, massive investment needed, needs to be found.

Green new deal, $200 billion dollars pledged.
Result, thousands of workers unemployed, still need to find the money for it.

$15 ph minimum wage.
Result, businesses reduce workforce, unemployment, this is double the current rate.

Housing for all, including rent controls.
When this system was introduced in Britain, there was, obviously, a massive reduction in housing availabilty.
Result, homelessness.

The above are a few you keep asking about, similar, tired, free for all policies. have been rejected here.
I don't think America is too different, if the Dems want power, they don't need Sanders.
 
Free college for all, cancel Student debt.
Result, massive investment needed, needs to be found.

Green new deal, $200 billion dollars pledged.
Result, thousands of workers unemployed, still need to find the money for it.

$15 ph minimum wage.
Result, businesses reduce workforce, unemployment, this is double the current rate.

Housing for all, including rent controls.
When this system was introduced in Britain, there was, obviously, a massive reduction in housing availabilty.
Result, homelessness.

The above are a few you keep asking about, similar, tired, free for all policies. have been rejected here.
I don't think America is too different, if the Dems want power, they don't need Sanders.

Ah, finally!! Bothered to do a little something, eh?

"Free college for all, cancel Student debt. Result, massive investment needed, needs to be found."

- As has been pointed out, college has been tuition free before. But, things have changed obviously. Warren offers a solution that would pay for colleges AND pre-K schooling at an extra tax of 2 cents on the dollar for billionaires above $100 mil. It's been cost effected to be accurate. Sanders could obviously incorporate this strategy as he had a similar viewpoint.

"Green new deal, $200 billion dollars pledged.
Result, thousands of workers unemployed, still need to find the money for it."

- I'm not sure it's worth getting this discussion with you until understand what the GND offers.

"$15 ph minimum wage.
Result, businesses reduce workforce, unemployment, this is double the current rate."

-Already seven states have implemented this rate as well as Amazon. Your argument is scare tactic and soundbite driven.

"Housing for all, including rent controls.
When this system was introduced in Britain, there was, obviously, a massive reduction in housing availabilty.
Result, homelessness."

-Most homelessness is down to debt and low income. If you can't afford to pay the rent, you're gonna get turfed; simple maths anywhere. When big business comes to any town it changes the desirability for the location which equates to gentrification which, in turn, pushes up the affordability for the former renters resulting in them moving on or being homeless. As a result your comment actually argues for rent control. The Progressive idea is create affordable housing for a growing population. Crazy, innit??

"The above are a few you keep asking about, similar, tired, free for all policies. have been rejected here.
I don't think America is too different, if the Dems want power, they don't need Sanders."

NOTHING is "free for all". This is yet another soundbite you've latched on to.
Every taxing paying working citizen contributes towards their society.
Every. One.

It's coming to light for even the dimmest person that they don't complain about services like the armed forces, police, firefighters and such as they just pay for these things out of their taxes without question. Reducing the unnecessary bloated military complex budget and using intellectual diplomacy tends to ease the money needed for war. Closing tax loopholes and asking trillion dollar companies to pay more in tax goes a long way.

The richest economy in the world can afford to pay its citizens what they're worth as Human Beings.

The US could be a virtual paradise to live in and that promise is why so many people flock there.


So, in conclusion, what's needed is someone who puts its citizens first. The actual citizens, not the idea of them. #45 got elected on the promise. The numbers look down, but they are no better off. That questions needs to be asked how that is.

Sanders is everything #45 claimed to be, but is actually a people person.

He's not the 'moderate' that failed the people, but loved the companies, in years before.

That's as civil as I'm going to get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top