UPNetwork

UPNetwork (http://forums.upnetwork.net/index.php)
-   Debate (http://forums.upnetwork.net/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   American Politics (http://forums.upnetwork.net/showthread.php?t=4569)

deoxys 04-08-2016 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercutio (Post 741881)
Yeah it's not entirely unreasonable to make that assessment in this particular case because Sanders doesn't really gain much of a material advantage.

And yet if it had been the other way around the narrative would be completely different.

Doppleganger 04-08-2016 05:46 AM

A 13% win margin when there are three candidates is, in fact, a more impressive win than when there are two. The Republican race is legitimately a three horse derby.

deoxys 04-08-2016 10:18 AM

So Bernie was personally invited to speak at the Vatican, being the first candidate this has ever happened to.

Emi 04-08-2016 10:24 AM

https://i.imgur.com/sYu7iE8.png

Doppleganger 04-08-2016 07:06 PM

It's no secret Pope Francis can relate a lot to Bernie. That political cartoon highlights the exact reason why, even.

deoxys 04-08-2016 08:11 PM

And with one article, Politifact ceased being relevant

Quote:

Given this disagreement, and the fact that it’s impossible to know how Sanders would vote if a similar legislation concerning the toy industry were to arise, we rate Clinton’s claim Half True.
This is the most ridiculous verdict I've ever given Politifact. I just... what the fuck? This almost reads like an Onion parody. This is actually hilarious.

Muyotwo 04-09-2016 07:39 AM

Finally a little something to give you hope. He's almost certainly not going be president.

Jerichi 04-09-2016 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys (Post 742053)
And with one article, Politifact ceased being relevant



This is the most ridiculous verdict I've ever given Politifact. I just... what the fuck? This almost reads like an Onion parody. This is actually hilarious.

I'll admit, that is a pretty sensationalist interpretation of a pretty sensationalist quote, at least for Politifact.

deh74 04-10-2016 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muyotwo (Post 742222)
Finally a little something to give you hope. He's almost certainly not going be president.

Thing is though, didn't people also really not like David Cameron? And didn't David Cameron's Conseratives then proceed to win an actual majority governing mandate.

Ironthunder 04-10-2016 02:46 AM

Yes, but Cameron only won because nobody really wanted the other guy (Miliband?) in power.

deh74 04-10-2016 03:37 AM

Well I mean Trump's most likely Democratic opponent is Hillary Clinton, and she isn't very well liked either. It's going to be a long, dirty election.

Mercutio 04-10-2016 04:16 AM

Comparing the two is completely pointless I'm afraid,due ti the radically different way in which the two systems operate and the divergent political culture of the two countries.

But actually no. People tend to like Cameron more than his party.

Doppleganger 04-10-2016 11:17 AM

I'm withdrawing my support for Trump. His campaign post-Rubio hasn't gone in a way that suggests to me clever political savvy - rather, it seems like he had an idea for a first step but not how to go further.

Hoping for a brokered convention that selects Kasich. No more establishment! But I would vote Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton, as much as I dislike Cruz.

deoxys 04-10-2016 10:48 PM

Yeah there is no way Trump will get the nomination at this point. It's mathematically impossible. He'll go in with the majority of delegates but not the required amount. And most of his delegates will not vote for him on the second round of voting.

I doubt Kasich will get it, even though I'd be perfectly fine with that (best outcome honestly). The party is far more likely to ask delegates to cast Paul Ryan into the ring to be voted for and it's entirely possible he will come out the nominee. But that would piss off a lot of people for a lot of reasons...

Shuckle 04-11-2016 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muyotwo (Post 742222)
Finally a little something to give you hope. He's almost certainly not going be president.

Still feeling a little Trumpy here - he made missteps to get here and can salvage this if he starts moving towards the center. Otherwise, though, I have been cooling off on him since he hasn't had any kind of response to accusations of bigotry or racism - you'd think someone who has demonstrated as much public-image savvy would have SOME retorts cooked up to avoid seeming racist, and I originally liked him despite his weakness as a general candidate because of his seeming ability to prepare, build a team, and rally support. Since he hasn't DONE that in a while...

Bernie has continued to impress me but I'm still worried that Clinton will steamroll him and leave Trump or (god forbid) Cruz as the only one who can keep her out of office. Keep it up Bernie you can do this!

Edit: Kasich will ruin education and by extension the country. He scares me even more than Shillary. Just because his platform is "I'm not a crazy bigot like them" doesn't mean he isn't completely nuts.

deoxys 04-11-2016 10:20 AM

>Edit: Kasich will ruin education and by extension the country. He scares me even more than Shillary. Just because his platform is "I'm not a crazy bigot like them" doesn't mean he isn't completely nuts.

Oh the irony.

Concept 04-11-2016 11:26 AM

American education iz already, by and large, a bit pants compared to the rest of the developed world (for under 18's, bunch of world class universities obviously). Significant variation at State level means some States perform admirably though.

Will confess to knowing next to nothing about Kasich's education policy.

Miror 04-15-2016 01:03 AM

Well, looks like we're done with debates until the general election ones unless another one gets thrown in, which, by the looks of tonight and the issues with scheduling leading up to it, seems unlikely to happen. What do y'all think of the debate system in and of itself, do you see it as effective ways of displaying the candidates' stances, views, strengths, weaknesses? Or do you see it as just a way for the best orators to shine? And what of the amount of debates, where in 2008 the Democrats had 26 debates, starting as early as April of 2007, or in 2012 where the Republicans had 27, having had three in a seven day period several times, in comparison to now, where Republicans had 12 and Democrats had 10? Do you think the more tight-knit schedule is better or the larger amount?

deh74 04-16-2016 03:01 AM

I'll say that I'm fine with a small amount of debates run by the party directly, as long as candidates aren't barred from participating from debates put on by other groups.

deoxys 04-19-2016 10:06 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/J65ZjChGzU6is/giphy.gif

Doppleganger 04-19-2016 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deoxys (Post 744423)

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...rimary-win.jpg

Miror 04-19-2016 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 744425)

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...Krath/vvvv.jpg

Snorby 04-19-2016 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger (Post 744425)

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oFyCZ...OcRq/giphy.gif

Heather 04-19-2016 11:17 PM

Hillary has no right to say anything about "fighting for us." It's pretty clear that she can be bought.

Shuckle 04-19-2016 11:32 PM

Nooooo

Bitch has absolutely 0 chance against trump why do the democrats think this is a good idea??? She could throw Trump a hundred bones in the election and still not make a dent in her pile of skeletons in her closet.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.