Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
El Presidente Trump
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yeah I agree. I deleted my post as I realized you weren't implying he was directly involved.
Would be a pretty crazy conspiracy
Trump < Assange > Putin
What do you think of Assange's reward money and subtle hints Seth Rich was the leaker?
Personally I think it carries some weight given the timeline with the leaks and that he wasn't robbed but murdered, shot in the back. He was patriotic if his pictures around the net are anything to go by. A guy associated with Assange said the leaker was disgruntled by how Bernie was flipped over and the corruption within the DNC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
0 -
-
-
Hank Scorpio wrote: »Yeah I agree. I deleted my post as I realized you weren't implying he was directly involved.
Would be a pretty crazy conspiracy
Trump < Assange > Putin
What do you think of Assange's reward money and subtle hints Seth Rich was the leaker?
Personally I think it carries some weight given the timeline with the leaks and that he wasn't robbed but murdered, shot in the back. He was patriotic if his pictures around the net are anything to go by. A guy associated with Assange said the leaker was disgruntled by how Bernie was flipped over and the corruption within the DNC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html[/url
Hm, I'll need to read more on it. I must admit, I'm cautious about anything that suggests assassinations and other nutty business. I'm not saying it never happens - look at Alexander Litvinenko; that was a story that came right out of James Bond with the whole polonium business!
I am very wary of taking Assange's word on the whole thing. Not just out of bloody-mindedness, but because Assange -cannot- give away his sources if Wikileaks is to survive. It goes against all sense for him to give up one of his sources and it would make people seriously think twice or three times before going to him again. It is convenient to hold up someone who's dead as a possible source when people are this focussed on Russia. It's possibly the only way out of the really difficult questions.
Mind you, none of this -means- that it's not true. It might be true. -At the moment-, I'd say there's less evidence for this explanation than it is for the Russian one, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I am less sure but definitely possible. Trump was complimentary to Sanders when he was losing to hurt Clinton. If Sanders had won I imagine we would have had "commie" Sanders repeated by Trump supporters and could have been enough to spook voters away from Sanders. I agree that Sanders was the best candidate I just have less faith in the American public.
As for my little pony. The dnc did screw him but he fought all his life for social justice causes for minorities which means Clinton was the better candidate. I mean we have had race baiting from Trump on the campaign about Mexican's and Muslims and a homophobic vice (though as Morgan Freeman says he isn't scared of gay people, he is just an ***hole).
He has also fought against the poor being ruled by the rich. Certainly this is my big issue with Clinton but she would have been no where near as bad as Trump who is nearly nominating people to positions based on their bank balances. He had to go for Clinton in that two horse race. Whatever the dnc did to him Trump is a stain on humanity. He was able to put his principles ahead of his ego and pride.
Clinton was the obvious choice of the pair (hear me out!
) in terms of experience and relative unexceptionalism. She fit the mold, she would take the safe routes, she'd continue the work (foreign policy was always a bit of a pulling up point, but generally, she was a pretty status quo candidate and generally people like status quo candidates). Mind, she's never been good at public speaking. She's not got the natural touch with the populace and never has. This means nothing as to who she is and how she approaches things, it's just a very useful talent that some people have naturally, some have to strive for and some never gain. She's worked on it, but it'll never be as smooth or easy as Bill Clinton's or Trump or Obama or even Sanders. Rather remarkable in its own way that she got that far with such a handicap.
Sanders was a wild card. Older and looked it, "dangerously" socialist ideals. Bit of a maverick. Not a Democrat (until now), the feeling of the DNC being used for personal reasons by an outsider. Unfortunately that is just how the game is set up in a two-party system though. He was an unknown quantity and the DNC played safe in a dangerous year. And this year was the one year where it couldn't work. It would have been odd to think that it could have been a "Not-Quite-A-Republican" vs "Not-Quite-A-Democrat" and would probably have put the collective noses of both the NCs out of joint.
The RNC or DNC -can- lean more towards one candidate than another. This is all internal so far. The president can campaign on behalf of one candidate over another. It smacks of interference, it smacks of dishonesty to the public, which is why they generally try not to in the NCs cases (the president has always been able to speak for one or other). It really backfired this year because turned out what the public wanted was change in a difficult and worrying world. They wanted someone who'd tell them it would all be okay. Trump did that. Clinton couldn't, she could only tell them what she could change or at least try to.
Note, btw, that I'm avoiding the scandals on either side bar touching on the DNC. This is an underlying thing before all the unpredictable lunacy broke out. Crime of complacency maybe, or of too confidently predicting what might have been true in almost any other election cycle but exploded this time.
Edit: just to be clear before someone dives off on this tangent, I absolutely don't agree with the DNC's mucking around. They thoroughly shot themselves in the foot.0 -
-
-
HellSquirrel wrote: »Clinton was the obvious choice of the pair (hear me out!) in terms of experience and relative unexceptionalism. She fit the mold, she would take the safe routes, she'd continue the work (foreign policy was always a bit of a pulling up point, but generally, she was a pretty status quo candidate and generally people like status quo candidates). Mind, she's never been good at public speaking. She's not got the natural touch with the populace and never has. This means nothing as to who she is and how she approaches things, it's just a very useful talent that some people have naturally, some have to strive for and some never gain. She's worked on it, but it'll never be as smooth or easy as Bill Clinton's or Trump or Obama or even Sanders. Rather remarkable in its own way that she got that far with such a handicap.
Sanders was a wild card. Older and looked it, "dangerously" socialist ideals. Bit of a maverick. Not a Democrat (until now), the feeling of the DNC being used for personal reasons by an outsider. Unfortunately that is just how the game is set up in a two-party system though. He was an unknown quantity and the DNC played safe in a dangerous year. And this year was the one year where it couldn't work. It would have been odd to think that it could have been a "Not-Quite-A-Republican" vs "Not-Quite-A-Democrat" and would probably have put the collective noses of both the NCs out of joint.
The RNC or DNC -can- lean more towards one candidate than another. This is all internal so far. The president can campaign on behalf of one candidate over another. It smacks of interference, it smacks of dishonesty to the public, which is why they generally try not to in the NCs cases (the president has always been able to speak for one or other). It really backfired this year because turned out what the public wanted was change in a difficult and worrying world. They wanted someone who'd tell them it would all be okay. Trump did that. Clinton couldn't, she could only tell them what she could change or at least try to.
Note, btw, that I'm avoiding the scandals on either side bar touching on the DNC. This is an underlying thing before all the unpredictable lunacy broke out. Crime of complacency maybe, or of too confidently predicting what might have been true in almost any other election cycle but exploded this time.
Edit: just to be clear before someone dives off on this tangent, I absolutely don't agree with the DNC's mucking around. They thoroughly shot themselves in the foot.
Yeah they both had different points. I disagreed with Bernie's more isolationist ideas in terms of trading but felt he would fight harder for things like free health care and free education. I figured he would have his hands full with those to go much more socialist with the job. Clinton might agree with both but I didn't expect either to be a major point of her presidency (well maybe health care to build on obamacare). Similarly for social welfare. I wouldn'the have had a massive issue with Hillary. Just Sanders is a little closer to my own point in the spectrum.
A lot of Bernie's ideas wouldn'the be countered by even the most right wing parties in Ireland at this point so I see him as much left wing than the Americans. Granted realistically Democrats would be seen as centrist or slightly to the right by most European countries.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement