I watched George Galloway speaking live in Edinburgh on Facebook the other day and it made a few things much clearer. I was guilty of believing too much of what was being written not only in the mainstream press but also on the alternative news sites. Clinton's election was being presented as a fait accompli, and after Obama's failure to follow up on his pledges (with regards to foreign policy anyway), I'd given up all hope and reached the conclusion democracy was out for the count in the USA - especially since Trump presented such a bizarre spectacle with his political incorrectness I couldn't even take him seriously. But I should have listened more to the likes of Galloway. John Pilger, Michael Moore and others who saw it coming. According to Galloway the exact same forces as those which brought about Brexit were at play in the US elections. Trump drew his support from the disaffected and disenfranchised, the former blue collar workers of what has come to be known as the 'Rust Belt,' who blame their lot on competition from immigrants and the sycophancy of the political establishment. Clinton promised more of the same, while Trump, for all his obvious faults, promised to bring about change. So he was basically elected for the same reason Obama was, but with a warts and all approach in stark contrast to the carefully-phrased platitudes and dazzling charm of an incumbent who has failed to deliver. I wrongly suggested Clinton was getting the bulk of her support from middle class white women. The majority of white women voted for Trump (53%). Obviously jobs for themselves and their husbands, and opportunities for their sons and daughters, were of far greater importance to them than any ego gratification from seeing the first woman in the White House. Again, we were misled by the media on this point. So you live and learn. Democracy is far from out for the count in America, even if the election did only come down to a choice of the lesser evil.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
What's next, I wonder? Marine Le Pen for France? Hollande is looking very weak, while Le Pen is currently polling at 20% of the total vote and seems destined to make it to the final round...
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:I watched George Galloway speaking live in Edinburgh on Facebook the other day and it made a few things much clearer. I was guilty of believing too much of what was being written not only in the mainstream press but also on the alternative news sites. Clinton's election was being presented as a fait accompli, and after Obama's failure to follow up on his pledges (with regards to foreign policy anyway), I'd given up all hope and reached the conclusion democracy was out for the count in the USA - especially since Trump presented such a bizarre spectacle with his political incorrectness I couldn't even take him seriously. But I should have listened more to the likes of Galloway. John Pilger, Michael Moore and others who saw it coming. According to Galloway the exact same forces as those which brought about Brexit were at play in the US elections. Trump drew his support from the disaffected and disenfranchised, the former blue collar workers of what has come to be known as the 'Rust Belt,' who blame their lot on competition from immigrants and the sycophancy of the political establishment. Clinton promised more of the same, while Trump, for all his obvious faults, promised to bring about change. So he was basically elected for the same reason Obama was, but with a warts and all approach in stark contrast to the carefully-phrased platitudes and dazzling charm of an incumbent who has failed to deliver. I wrongly suggested Clinton was getting the bulk of her support from middle class white women. The majority of white women voted for Trump (53%). Obviously jobs for themselves and their husbands, and opportunities for their sons and daughters, were of far greater importance to them than any ego gratification from seeing the first woman in the White House. Again, we were misled by the media on this point. So you live and learn. Democracy is far from out for the count in America, even if the election did only come down to a choice of the lesser evil.
new-duh-gif-222.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
WaspInWales wrote:So, Trump has changed his mind on Obamacare and prosecuting Hillary. The wall has been downgraded to a fence and he's turned his back on his bigoted supporters.
The twat isn't in office yet and he's managed to come across as a fully fledged politician already. I'm impressed, but I can't imagine all his supporters will be as impressed, especially the ones baying for Hillary's blood!
As if he would've been able to live up to any of the shit he promised to do.
rowan wrote:What's next, I wonder? Marine Le Pen for France? Hollande is looking very weak, while Le Pen is currently polling at 20% of the total vote and seems destined to make it to the final round...
She will be in the second turn, but the FN is still not seen as a democratic party and most will vote for the Democratic candidate: Fillon ( :'( ) .
WaspInWales wrote:No mention of Jill Stein's calls for a recount in Wisconsin and possibly Pennsylvania and Michigan?
If a recount shows Clinton won, what happens then?
How many states would need to show irregularities for it to actually make a difference?
If Clinton won those states, she'd be president-elect.
It would be kinda ironic if that happened thanks to Stein.
I'm unsure on what would happen if it turns out the count is wrong? Will it be in the hands of the lawmakers or will Trump be forced to concede even after Clinton conceded?
These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
jared_7 wrote:These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
Would that be the election where Clinton ended with more votes over Sanders than she has over Trump?
And has been noted, the DNC supported Clinton back in 2007/8, but changed to support Obama when he proved a more popular candidate. This isn't a group looking to support Clinton come what may.
jared_7 wrote:These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
Would that be the election where Clinton ended with more votes over Sanders than she has over Trump?
And has been noted, the DNC supported Clinton back in 2007/8, but changed to support Obama when he proved a more popular candidate. This isn't a group looking to support Clinton come what may.
You do realise the people who work at the DNC change, don't you? DWS and other top positions haven't remained unchanged. They were almost certainly a group who were going to support Clinton come what may, its no longer even opinion after the leaks.
But anyway, this is all irrelevant. My point was there have been signs of fraudulent voting throughout this process, and many of the people screaming from the rooftops now were the same people telling others to "suck it up" just 3-4 months ago. If it wasn't so worrisome I'd say they got a nice dose of karma.
If I lived in the US I would go running for the hills if the result is overturned, all those armed to the rooftops will have lived for this very moment.
jared_7 wrote:These exact discrepancies existed on mass in the Democratic primaries - huge deviations between exit polling and actual results, and deviation between electronic results and paper ballots, combined with the the subsequent unveiling of the DNC's actions behind the scenes - and people were told they were tin foil hat conspiracists and needed to move on.
Would that be the election where Clinton ended with more votes over Sanders than she has over Trump?
And has been noted, the DNC supported Clinton back in 2007/8, but changed to support Obama when he proved a more popular candidate. This isn't a group looking to support Clinton come what may.
You do realise the people who work at the DNC change, don't you? DWS and other top positions haven't remained unchanged. They were almost certainly a group who were going to support Clinton come what may, its no longer even opinion after the leaks.
But anyway, this is all irrelevant. My point was there have been signs of fraudulent voting throughout this process, and many of the people screaming from the rooftops now were the same people telling others to "suck it up" just 3-4 months ago. If it wasn't so worrisome I'd say they got a nice dose of karma.
If I lived in the US I would go running for the hills if the result is overturned, all those armed to the rooftops will have lived for this very moment.
The DNC supported Clinton when Sanders couldn't win. They'd have been negligent not to turn their minds to the general election at that point.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I don't know why one would consider the DNC would support Clinton come what may when just one nominee before they didn't support her and instead supported Obama once Obama started bringing in the votes. There not only no history of the DNC supporting Clinton no matter what transpires there's the exact opposite.
Not surprising, really. Though Clinton's foreign policy looked a lot more dangerous, you never know what's going to happen after the election, and it's difficult to see the US changing course, regardless who's in the White House. Look at Obama, got the Nobel Peace Prize then spent every single day of his two-term presidency waging war on other countries. Anyway, my preference was Stein, not Trump, but in regards to foreign policy Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
That's a strange comment, even from you. Russia and China have actually strengthened their relationship this year. & who is Russia's mouthpiece supposed to be? Trump - because he doesn't want to start WWIII with them like a certain other candidate in the recent US elections?
Oookay...
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Not surprising, really. Though Clinton's foreign policy looked a lot more dangerous, you never know what's going to happen after the election, and it's difficult to see the US changing course, regardless who's in the White House. Look at Obama, got the Nobel Peace Prize then spent every single day of his two-term presidency waging war on other countries. Anyway, my preference was Stein, not Trump, but in regards to foreign policy Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.
Every single person knew and repeatedly told you that he was an international liability.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
rowan wrote:Not surprising, really. Though Clinton's foreign policy looked a lot more dangerous, you never know what's going to happen after the election, and it's difficult to see the US changing course, regardless who's in the White House. Look at Obama, got the Nobel Peace Prize then spent every single day of his two-term presidency waging war on other countries. Anyway, my preference was Stein, not Trump, but in regards to foreign policy Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen.
Every single person knew and repeatedly told you that he was an international liability.
Oh, so suddenly you're imagining I'm a Trump supporter and that you and every other person on this planet told me something I didn't know. I see Even though I never supported him, never even took him seriously, in fact. I supported nobody but Stein, and simply wrote that Clinton was a bigger liability than Trump - which remains true. This issue is a storm in a tea cup. You just can't wait to find fault in Trump and parade this as 'indisputable proof' that you were right and anybody who doesn't think as you do was wrong. But if you think Trump is a bigger liability in terms of foreign policy than Clinton, you are still wrong - very wrong.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
