You Boys in Green Homepage YBIG Shop
Forum Home Forum Home : Other Forums : Whatever!
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S Politics
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

U.S Politics

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 215216217218219 221>
Author
Message
pre Madonna View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
I am MALDING

Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Location: Trumpton
Status: Offline
Points: 41161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pre Madonna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 11:50am
If Biden has done absolutely nothing then why doesn't he open the boxes fully?
And why has nobody credible suggested that wasn't Tara Reade's mother on Larry King.

Eva Murray isn't relevant because I'm not trying to bring her into anything here: you are. 

I'm not equating anything. You have implied that she can't have been assaulted because her story changed. Then it was because her story changed too much and because she lied in the past. That's nonsense, regardless of what happened here and will be used against all women. Surely men should rape women with a history of lying then? 
You don't believe her, and, as I have repeatedly said, that's fine, but to use reasoning that is applicable in all cases is dangerous.

As for historical abuse? Yeah, no assault victim has ever, ever been afraid to bring up an assault at the time out of fear, or respect or any of a hundred different psychological issues. If you don't mention within five minutes, to someone with a 100% record and suitable political views, then you are lying.

Woe betide you would, instead of using general language, repeatedly, that's incredibly dangerous, about a specific case.

If it is the Walter Mitty story you say it is he would have dismissed it immediately,  would open up the boxes without question and there would be people who know Reade's family coming forward to say that isn't her mother. Until that happens there will be doubts.

The reason people talk about hypocrisy is because of the constant 'what about Trump' that keeps being brought up, such as above. Just because Trump is a **** with history in this regard doesn't mean Biden isn't.  That clearly isn't taking this case on its merits. 

Just to be even clearer: that isn't ignoring the Russian angle or anything like it. We all know where the agenda is being pushed from here or how this case has being used;  that's unnecessary waffle at this stage. Everyone knows how it is being used, but that doesn't mean nothing happened at all and until Biden does everything possible to clear his name it will hang around. This smear campaign only happened because of Biden and his previous actions and history. It may be that you are correct and it is entirely fabricated,  although that seems unlikely at present, but they wouldn't, or couldn't,  have tried to smear it on any other candidate. 

Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.
Back to Top
MC Hammered View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 5239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MC Hammered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 12:22pm

This wasn't what I was expecting to hear when I saw it was Jesse "The Body" Ventura commenting on the use of torture by the US military. 

El Puto Amo
Back to Top
Mulvanystrasse View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Location: Boston USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1808
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mulvanystrasse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by reddladd reddladd wrote:

That black security guard was shot by the black husband of the black woman that got into a verbal confrontation with the security guard over a face mask. Apparently the security guard 'insulted' the wife. Someone posted that they would bet anything on the fact that the likely killer was not black. Can't remember who posted it.  

Flint, Michigan.
For some background I recommend watching the Michael Moore documentaries “Roger and Me” from 1989 and “Fahrenheit 11/9” from 2018. 
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 2:53pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

No I didn’t say that. And do you know why? Because Obama, as a credible candidate beat her in the race, and proceeded to beat another credible candidate, John McCain in November 2008. The slate of Democrats and Republicans ensures a credible race between credible candidates, where the most credible (particularly the entire slate (VP) won.

You might notice, I mentioned other factors. Trumpians turned most of those endorsements etc into a negative, and it stuck. The fact that she had experience to burn and Trump didn’t also didn’t make a difference. Her campaign was presumptive and misguided, and expected victory in States like Michigan. Politico did an excellent article about this a few months after the election, which illustrated deficiencies in her campaign.

But there was undoubtedly a gender aspect to it too. 

I'm not going to re run the election again, but I believe her gender had nothing to do with the result. She had every advantage going into it, she was the only politician going for a political job, against someone with no prior experience in any political capacity. Moreover, it was her second shot at it, and she still lost. It's not because of her gender, it's because she led a dreadful campaign, with no selling point to offer. She and her support base should have taken the result on the chin, rather than blaming everyone and everything from the Russian government, to content farms in Macedonia, for why she couldn't beat a novice. 
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Online
Points: 5958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 3:02pm
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

No I didn’t say that. And do you know why? Because Obama, as a credible candidate beat her in the race, and proceeded to beat another credible candidate, John McCain in November 2008. The slate of Democrats and Republicans ensures a credible race between credible candidates, where the most credible (particularly the entire slate (VP) won.

You might notice, I mentioned other factors. Trumpians turned most of those endorsements etc into a negative, and it stuck. The fact that she had experience to burn and Trump didn’t also didn’t make a difference. Her campaign was presumptive and misguided, and expected victory in States like Michigan. Politico did an excellent article about this a few months after the election, which illustrated deficiencies in her campaign.

But there was undoubtedly a gender aspect to it too. 

I'm not going to re run the election again, but I believe her gender had nothing to do with the result. She had every advantage going into it, she was the only politician going for a political job, against someone with no prior experience in any political capacity. Moreover, it was her second shot at it, and she still lost. It's not because of her gender, it's because she led a dreadful campaign, with no selling point to offer. She and her support base should have taken the result on the chin, rather than blaming everyone and everything from the Russian government, to content farms in Macedonia, for why she couldn't beat a novice. 

Just because people believe in Santa Claus doesn’t make him real. There remains a difficult, yet real objection to women taking on powerful roles, and that is something that is sadly ingrained in people’s head. And in many respects it was the claims made against Hillary’s personality which stuck. Claims that if they were made about a man would be turned into positives.

Funny enough, playing the political game against somebody like Trump means her past experience counted for little, especially in debate. How could you face down somebody who contradicted himself constantly, or was outrageous as he was? It wasn’t a level playing field because how dirty the fight could get no longer had limits. How the heck do you compete with “lock her up”.

I accept she was a poor candidate. I accept that the Democrats seemed to have some tunnel vision about her being the chosen one, which they couldn’t shake off. If it had come to it, I wouldn’t have ruled out her running again, and the Democrats going for her again. But, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t factors relating to her gender which played a role.
Back to Top
Jackal View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane
Avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Status: Online
Points: 331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jackal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 6:09pm
Originally posted by reddladd reddladd wrote:

That black security guard was shot by the black husband of the black woman that got into a verbal confrontation with the security guard over a face mask. Apparently the security guard 'insulted' the wife. Someone posted that they would bet anything on the fact that the likely killer was not black. Can't remember who posted it.  
I think it was deleted probably for racism.
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 7:38pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Just because people believe in Santa Claus doesn’t make him real. There remains a difficult, yet real objection to women taking on powerful roles, and that is something that is sadly ingrained in people’s head. And in many respects it was the claims made against Hillary’s personality which stuck. Claims that if they were made about a man would be turned into positives.

Funny enough, playing the political game against somebody like Trump means her past experience counted for little, especially in debate. How could you face down somebody who contradicted himself constantly, or was outrageous as he was? It wasn’t a level playing field because how dirty the fight could get no longer had limits. How the heck do you compete with “lock her up”.

I accept she was a poor candidate. I accept that the Democrats seemed to have some tunnel vision about her being the chosen one, which they couldn’t shake off. If it had come to it, I wouldn’t have ruled out her running again, and the Democrats going for her again. But, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t factors relating to her gender which played a role.

It played no role whatsoever. She got more votes than him, which you would expect a politician to get for a political job. Their system put Trump into office, and it does not recognise someone's suitability for the job. It's a simple case of arithmetic. Whoever gets 270 votes, be they male or female, gets the gig. As women do, she played the woman card to her advantage when it suited her, and blamed it when it didn't. There are women all over the world in powerful positions. Some of them are running entire countries. Others are heads of state. She had everything she needed to win that election, it was her fault that she didn't. The woman card was not a valid excuse in this case. 

If someone says something about Trump, he issues a response within hours. The professional politician knows when it's in their interests to step in to an argument and when best to stay out, but Trump still has his say, regardless whether he should or not. He always fights his corner, even when it's a battle he can't win.
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Online
Points: 5958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Just because people believe in Santa Claus doesn’t make him real. There remains a difficult, yet real objection to women taking on powerful roles, and that is something that is sadly ingrained in people’s head. And in many respects it was the claims made against Hillary’s personality which stuck. Claims that if they were made about a man would be turned into positives.

Funny enough, playing the political game against somebody like Trump means her past experience counted for little, especially in debate. How could you face down somebody who contradicted himself constantly, or was outrageous as he was? It wasn’t a level playing field because how dirty the fight could get no longer had limits. How the heck do you compete with “lock her up”.

I accept she was a poor candidate. I accept that the Democrats seemed to have some tunnel vision about her being the chosen one, which they couldn’t shake off. If it had come to it, I wouldn’t have ruled out her running again, and the Democrats going for her again. But, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t factors relating to her gender which played a role.

It played no role whatsoever. She got more votes than him, which you would expect a politician to get for a political job. Their system put Trump into office, and it does not recognise someone's suitability for the job. It's a simple case of arithmetic. Whoever gets 270 votes, be they male or female, gets the gig. As women do, she played the woman card to her advantage when it suited her, and blamed it when it didn't. There are women all over the world in powerful positions. Some of them are running entire countries. Others are heads of state. She had everything she needed to win that election, it was her fault that she didn't. The woman card was not a valid excuse in this case. 

If someone says something about Trump, he issues a response within hours. The professional politician knows when it's in their interests to step in to an argument and when best to stay out, but Trump still has his say, regardless whether he should or not. He always fights his corner, even when it's a battle he can't win.

I have no time for arguments made about the system proving anything. Arguments that Hillary “won” by getting more of the popular vote are disingenuous. But arguing that the system elected Trump are equally wide of the mark as you need to get the superior number of votes in states, in order to win. Getting a huge vote in one state is irrelevant, if that doesn’t influence the college as a swing state or whatever. So votes in places like Florida made a huge difference. The personal votes for Trump won it in specific states, not the system.

But there was certainly influence as a result of the gender issue. It was part of the jigsaw that elected Trump. The invective that was often thrown at Hillary was dog-whistle stuff, or leveraged  Mysogyny about women who seek out power. Yes, there are women in power, but this cycle again shows how difficult it is, when good candidates like Elizabeth Warren end up getting passed over.


Edited by Het-field - 05 May 2020 at 8:09pm
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 May 2020 at 10:58pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

I have no time for arguments made about the system proving anything. Arguments that Hillary “won” by getting more of the popular vote are disingenuous. But arguing that the system elected Trump are equally wide of the mark as you need to get the superior number of votes in states, in order to win. Getting a huge vote in one state is irrelevant, if that doesn’t influence the college as a swing state or whatever. So votes in places like Florida made a huge difference. The personal votes for Trump won it in specific states, not the system.

But there was certainly influence as a result of the gender issue. It was part of the jigsaw that elected Trump. The invective that was often thrown at Hillary was dog-whistle stuff, or leveraged  Mysogyny about women who seek out power. Yes, there are women in power, but this cycle again shows how difficult it is, when good candidates like Elizabeth Warren end up getting passed over.

The votes Clinton got are not to be argued with, they are fact. As regards the system, we were told she only had to win Florida and it was hers. She didn't win Florida, or many of the other swing states, because she was an awful candidate who assumed she had it in the bag, and left with her career in tatters. 

Is it difficult to get elected? Of course it is, because it's supposed to be. Bloomberg thought he could bypass a few states this time, and still win the nomination. That's the thing with Democrats. They assume things, and when it doesn't go as planned, then obviously it must be someone else's fault, never theirs. 

Just because she is a woman does not entitle her, or any woman for that matter to be elected. Like male candidates, they go through the process, put themselves forward, and if they have something to offer, they will get the votes. If they have nothing to offer, they will be found out. Warren was a joke candidate. All she had to offer was anti-Trump noise, and when the public stopped listening, she left the stage to someone else, like the rest of them. 
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Online
Points: 5958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2020 at 9:57am
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

I have no time for arguments made about the system proving anything. Arguments that Hillary “won” by getting more of the popular vote are disingenuous. But arguing that the system elected Trump are equally wide of the mark as you need to get the superior number of votes in states, in order to win. Getting a huge vote in one state is irrelevant, if that doesn’t influence the college as a swing state or whatever. So votes in places like Florida made a huge difference. The personal votes for Trump won it in specific states, not the system.

But there was certainly influence as a result of the gender issue. It was part of the jigsaw that elected Trump. The invective that was often thrown at Hillary was dog-whistle stuff, or leveraged  Mysogyny about women who seek out power. Yes, there are women in power, but this cycle again shows how difficult it is, when good candidates like Elizabeth Warren end up getting passed over.

The votes Clinton got are not to be argued with, they are fact. As regards the system, we were told she only had to win Florida and it was hers. She didn't win Florida, or many of the other swing states, because she was an awful candidate who assumed she had it in the bag, and left with her career in tatters. 

Is it difficult to get elected? Of course it is, because it's supposed to be. Bloomberg thought he could bypass a few states this time, and still win the nomination. That's the thing with Democrats. They assume things, and when it doesn't go as planned, then obviously it must be someone else's fault, never theirs. 

Just because she is a woman does not entitle her, or any woman for that matter to be elected. Like male candidates, they go through the process, put themselves forward, and if they have something to offer, they will get the votes. If they have nothing to offer, they will be found out. Warren was a joke candidate. All she had to offer was anti-Trump noise, and when the public stopped listening, she left the stage to someone else, like the rest of them. 

I don’t disagree with your assessment of the Democrats in the second paragraph. Martha Coakley’s famous “Fenway” gaffe during the 2010 Special Election is probably the best example of Democratic arrogance, but also being politically tone deaf. Labour in the UK have the same problem. “We won the argument” being the latest incarnation of such an argument.

But the rest I don’t agree with. Warren is an economic expert. She isn’t trying to dismantle the economy, but to change it. She comes from an intellectual point of view. That’s a harder sell, when you don’t live on sound bytes about strong economies, which have now been blown to bits. Clinton was a poor candidate, and suffered from a lack of being liked by the wider electorate, but ingrained at the top is a difficulty for women. It’s constantly obvious, particularly when a highly smart woman like Warren comes along, and with none of the baggage of Clinton. 
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2020 at 11:51pm
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

I won't expect you to make any reference to Trump.

That's because this whole issue is not about Trump, it's nothing to do with him, except in your head. I have edited the rest of the spam out in the quote, because that's what it is. 

This is the first bimbo eruption over Biden, I'm sure there will be more as the election gets closer, there usually is in Presidential races. No doubt you'll  dismiss them all, as you have in this case. I have no opinion on it, or any of the other unrelated sht you keep throwing around. Frankly, it doesn't matter who or what I believe. It's up to the Yanks to make up their minds when they go to cast their vote. The rest of us have no say in the matter.

All I'm doing is showing up the rank hypocrisy from the left. Now the tripe they threw at Trump for the past 4 years has come to their door, and Biden has to answer tough questions. Surprise surprise you don't like it, coming up with all sorts of irrelevant crap about "credibility", and long winded, whataboutery waffle. When the rest of us question it, you respond as you always have, by playing the man not the ball. (or woman in this case) A tell tale sign that you are losing the fight, as you have in the past, and will in the future.
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2020 at 11:53pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

But the rest I don’t agree with. Warren is an economic expert. She isn’t trying to dismantle the economy, but to change it. She comes from an intellectual point of view. That’s a harder sell, when you don’t live on sound bytes about strong economies, which have now been blown to bits. Clinton was a poor candidate, and suffered from a lack of being liked by the wider electorate, but ingrained at the top is a difficulty for women. It’s constantly obvious, particularly when a highly smart woman like Warren comes along, and with none of the baggage of Clinton. 

She had nothing to offer, and she was found out. Any time I see her, she is howling at the moon on her soapbox over Trump, and has no opinion on any other subject. If she wants to spend her life doing that, that's her choice. It doesn't however entitle her to be elected, over anyone else. 

I've nothing against women running for office, and getting elected. We had female heads of state for 21 years in this country, and the roof didn't cave in. In our country, they even enjoy the benefit of a quota system to get on the ticket and onto the ladder, for no other reason than simply being a woman.  No political background is required. What I have an issue with is people playing the woman sob story card, just because she lost. This is not a theocracy in the Middle East where women have no rights at all. In this part of the world, a woman candidate has the same right as a man, to put herself forward and argue her case. The electorate are perfectly entitled to hear her case and make their choice, not be held responsible for why the woman candidate(s) didn't get what she wanted when she wanted it.  
VAR: Cutting the crap out of football.
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Online
Points: 5958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2020 at 11:57am
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

But the rest I don’t agree with. Warren is an economic expert. She isn’t trying to dismantle the economy, but to change it. She comes from an intellectual point of view. That’s a harder sell, when you don’t live on sound bytes about strong economies, which have now been blown to bits. Clinton was a poor candidate, and suffered from a lack of being liked by the wider electorate, but ingrained at the top is a difficulty for women. It’s constantly obvious, particularly when a highly smart woman like Warren comes along, and with none of the baggage of Clinton. 

She had nothing to offer, and she was found out. Any time I see her, she is howling at the moon on her soapbox over Trump, and has no opinion on any other subject. If she wants to spend her life doing that, that's her choice. It doesn't however entitle her to be elected, over anyone else. 

I've nothing against women running for office, and getting elected. We had female heads of state for 21 years in this country, and the roof didn't cave in. In our country, they even enjoy the benefit of a quota system to get on the ticket and onto the ladder, for no other reason than simply being a woman.  No political background is required. What I have an issue with is people playing the woman sob story card, just because she lost. This is not a theocracy in the Middle East where women have no rights at all. In this part of the world, a woman candidate has the same right as a man, to put herself forward and argue her case. The electorate are perfectly entitled to hear her case and make their choice, not be held responsible for why the woman candidate(s) didn't get what she wanted when she wanted it.  

Nobody is “entitled” to be elected. But I didn’t say she was. So that’s a strawman and can be ignored. The idea that Warren had nothing to offer, shows you actually are not particularly aware of her platform, or what she stood for. Or her history for that matter, including the hamburger lunch she had with Hillary years ago. She is an economics wonk, but with ideas about personal credit and large scale banking. It’s convoluted, but that doesn’t mean that it is not unique. It’s different to sanders and different to Trump.

And comparing women’s issues to the Middle East is disingenuous. There are entire nations based around the subjugation of an entire gender, while also treating minorities abominably and having no interest in human rights. We had a female president, sure. But we’ve yet to have a female leader of the two main parties. And an observation that has been made is that when women have been handed the top jobs, it’s often at a time when people don’t want them. May in the UK is a prime example, and was doomed to failure from the beginning as she had to navigate Brexit territory. There a numerous major parties in the world that have never had a female leader either, which in turn precludes them from top jobs. It’s subtle, but needs to be acknowledged.
Back to Top
sid waddell View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton

On a dark desert highway

Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 8519
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sid waddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2020 at 12:12pm
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

I won't expect you to make any reference to Trump.

That's because this whole issue is not about Trump, it's nothing to do with him, except in your head. I have edited the rest of the spam out in the quote, because that's what it is. 

This is the first bimbo eruption over Biden, I'm sure there will be more as the election gets closer, there usually is in Presidential races. No doubt you'll  dismiss them all, as you have in this case. I have no opinion on it, or any of the other unrelated sht you keep throwing around. Frankly, it doesn't matter who or what I believe. It's up to the Yanks to make up their minds when they go to cast their vote. The rest of us have no say in the matter.

All I'm doing is showing up the rank hypocrisy from the left. Now the tripe they threw at Trump for the past 4 years has come to their door, and Biden has to answer tough questions. Surprise surprise you don't like it, coming up with all sorts of irrelevant crap about "credibility", and long winded, whataboutery waffle. When the rest of us question it, you respond as you always have, by playing the man not the ball. (or woman in this case) A tell tale sign that you are losing the fight, as you have in the past, and will in the future.
Wow, the hatred of women just drips off every one of your posts.

The only thing thing I agree with you on is that "we" are indeed losing the fight. 

Fascism tends to win its fights, because it's inherently dictatorial and creates a paralllel universe of propaganda in which reason cannot survive.

Politics rooted in reason is indeed losing the fight to fascism, just as it did in the 1930s. 

When eejits like you would have been cheering the Nazis on and crowing about how you were "winning". 
Get the pints in
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2020 at 8:50pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Nobody is “entitled” to be elected. But I didn’t say she was. So that’s a strawman and can be ignored. The idea that Warren had nothing to offer, shows you actually are not particularly aware of her platform, or what she stood for. Or her history for that matter, including the hamburger lunch she had with Hillary years ago. She is an economics wonk, but with ideas about personal credit and large scale banking. It’s convoluted, but that doesn’t mean that it is not unique. It’s different to sanders and different to Trump.

And comparing women’s issues to the Middle East is disingenuous. There are entire nations based around the subjugation of an entire gender, while also treating minorities abominably and having no interest in human rights. We had a female president, sure. But we’ve yet to have a female leader of the two main parties. And an observation that has been made is that when women have been handed the top jobs, it’s often at a time when people don’t want them. May in the UK is a prime example, and was doomed to failure from the beginning as she had to navigate Brexit territory. There a numerous major parties in the world that have never had a female leader either, which in turn precludes them from top jobs. It’s subtle, but needs to be acknowledged.

If Warren had anything significant to offer, she would have lasted much longer in the nomination race than she did. 

You give the impression that more women must be elected. The reality is more women will be elected if more of them run and win the trust of the electorate by the same method as men do. The largest party in Ireland has a woman leader. The public believed in her and her far left socialist agenda at the last election, and if she ran more candidates, she would be our Prime Minister today. But she didn't, so she's not. That's not an error of gender, that's an error of judgement, and it's not the public's fault. May failed because she was incompetent, and couldn't count, which is a rather fundamental flaw in politics. When she entertained the idea of a second referendum, the Brexiteer vultures started to circle and she had to resign within days. It's not because she is a woman, it's because she couldn't enforce "Brexit means Brexit". By contrast, Merkel has been running Germany for over a decade. So simply being a woman hasn't done her any harm tbh. Nor should it either. 
Back to Top
Het-field View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 08 Mar 2016
Status: Online
Points: 5958
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Het-field Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 May 2020 at 8:59pm
Originally posted by planning planning wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Nobody is “entitled” to be elected. But I didn’t say she was. So that’s a strawman and can be ignored. The idea that Warren had nothing to offer, shows you actually are not particularly aware of her platform, or what she stood for. Or her history for that matter, including the hamburger lunch she had with Hillary years ago. She is an economics wonk, but with ideas about personal credit and large scale banking. It’s convoluted, but that doesn’t mean that it is not unique. It’s different to sanders and different to Trump.

And comparing women’s issues to the Middle East is disingenuous. There are entire nations based around the subjugation of an entire gender, while also treating minorities abominably and having no interest in human rights. We had a female president, sure. But we’ve yet to have a female leader of the two main parties. And an observation that has been made is that when women have been handed the top jobs, it’s often at a time when people don’t want them. May in the UK is a prime example, and was doomed to failure from the beginning as she had to navigate Brexit territory. There a numerous major parties in the world that have never had a female leader either, which in turn precludes them from top jobs. It’s subtle, but needs to be acknowledged.

If Warren had anything significant to offer, she would have lasted much longer in the nomination race than she did. 

You give the impression that more women must be elected. The reality is more women will be elected if more of them run and win the trust of the electorate by the same method as men do. The largest party in Ireland has a woman leader. The public believed in her and her far left socialist agenda at the last election, and if she ran more candidates, she would be our Prime Minister today. But she didn't, so she's not. That's not an error of gender, that's an error of judgement, and it's not the public's fault. May failed because she was incompetent, and couldn't count, which is a rather fundamental flaw in politics. When she entertained the idea of a second referendum, the Brexiteer vultures started to circle and she had to resign within days. It's not because she is a woman, it's because she couldn't enforce "Brexit means Brexit". By contrast, Merkel has been running Germany for over a decade. So simply being a woman hasn't done her any harm tbh. Nor should it either. 

I’m not giving that impression at all. The fact that you keep returning to “Warren had nothing to offer, therefore she wasn’t elected” is just superficial.

Would MLM be Taoiseach with extra seats? Chances are, she wouldn’t, as those seats would have been at the expense of other “left wingers”, who would be needed to prop her up. The fact that you refer to a “far left socialist agenda” actually would suggest you never paid any attention to the election, the campaign or their manifesto. So we can park that.
Back to Top
MC Hammered View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 5239
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MC Hammered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2020 at 9:46am
El Puto Amo
Back to Top
planning View Drop Down
Ray Houghton
Ray Houghton

Football version of Comical Ali.

Joined: 17 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 3201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote planning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2020 at 3:09pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

I’m not giving that impression at all. The fact that you keep returning to “Warren had nothing to offer, therefore she wasn’t elected” is just superficial.

Would MLM be Taoiseach with extra seats? Chances are, she wouldn’t, as those seats would have been at the expense of other “left wingers”, who would be needed to prop her up. The fact that you refer to a “far left socialist agenda” actually would suggest you never paid any attention to the election, the campaign or their manifesto. So we can park that.

As a social conservative, I don't pay attention to left wing manifestos, and don't vote for their parties. I also can't vote for any FG candidate until they  have a proper leader in charge. All the seats in my constituency went to angry left wingers howling at the moon, who all want our economy to be what it was before we joined the EU in exchange for a "fairer" society, so obviously none of the candidates I voted for were elected. 

She would be leading the government if she ran more candidates, and having to explain to the public why taxes must rise, why houses can't be built, and why her manifesto had to be ripped up and thrown in the bin. After all, "isn't that what you say at election time?" But she didn't, so she can spend the next couple of years playing the tooth fairy to those who will listen, sweep to power at the next election, then let them all down. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 215216217218219 221>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.