Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
    If a group such as Al Qaeda is organizing an attack or if AQ does an attack and we find out where they are , then send in a tank brigade to crush the AQ terrorists, or just use a stealth bomber.
    Well, I agree there are appropriate responses short of going to war, but most of the response to terrorist acts during the 80s and 90s was timid at best. Sending a few cruise missiles towards AQ training facilities as a response to the attack on the USS Cole or the WTC bombing in 93 didn't do much to discourage future acts.

    Comment


    • #62
      Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?

      Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?

      I wonder if this could still be a possibility?

      How would it work if the FBI successfully frames Clinton BEFORE the GOP convention in July and she has to drop out or simply can't credibly run?
      Does Sanders automatically get the Democratic nomination?

      Would the Republican high command then allow Trump to run as the candidate, figuring his brand of showmanship demagoguery, loony as it is, would have a very good chance of defeating Sanders suggestion that the US seriously address some of the foundations of capitalism?

      If the FBI successfully frames Clinton AFTER the GOP convention and the GOP has already 'trumped' Trump and someone else is the candidate?

      lodestar ponders?
      2016 the year anything became possible.

      When I was young and teachers or other adults asked about my hopes and dreams for the future I always replied:
      “When I grow up I want to be a compelling narrative.”


      Regards lodestar

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by lodestar View Post
        Could 2016 see Trump and Sanders in a battle for the American soul?

        I wonder if this could still be a possibility?

        How would it work if the FBI successfully frames Clinton BEFORE the GOP convention in July and she has to drop out or simply can't credibly run?
        Does Sanders automatically get the Democratic nomination?

        Would the Republican high command then allow Trump to run as the candidate, figuring his brand of showmanship demagoguery, loony as it is, would have a very good chance of defeating Sanders suggestion that the US seriously address some of the foundations of capitalism?

        If the FBI successfully frames Clinton AFTER the GOP convention and the GOP has already 'trumped' Trump and someone else is the candidate?

        lodestar ponders?
        2016 the year anything became possible.

        When I was young and teachers or other adults asked about my hopes and dreams for the future I always replied:
        “When I grow up I want to be a compelling narrative.”


        Regards lodestar
        Frames? Really? They don’t have to frame they just need to present the evidence for prosecution. No framing needed.
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

        Comment


        • #64
          I agree Tsar... Clinton is clearly guilty of mishandling classified government information. That is a prosecutable offense and given the number of documents involved, and their security classification (after the fact is irrelevant as such material is classified whether it is marked such or not) she did it at a felony level of breach.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Tsar View Post
            Frames? Really? They don’t have to frame they just need to present the evidence for prosecution. No framing needed.
            I saw that word "Framed" as well and was going to post on it, however I had second thoughts, since the OP is Australian the word "framed" may have a different meaning there than it does to us, it may mean have enough proof/evidence to indict, to us it means to falsify evidence to make a person look guilty.
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #66
              The "new" socialism is much different than Marxism in some regards. Marx may have set the ball rolling but it isn't easy to predict where it will go. I think Marx is more for the lower tier socialist, such as professors and local politicians, but not the party elite.

              The Brave New World is fairly close to the utopia of socialism that many believe in. Some of Huxley's prediction are eerily close to reality. Sexual liberation, drugs, breakdown of the family, loss of sexual identity and political correctness would be some examples. I don't give Huxley too much credit however because you can see the same patterns in other successful societies through out history. Marx's vision was less imaginative and failed to predict the increasing class segregation that socialism doesn't seem to prevent.

              Sanders himself has probably not given up on Marxism but he has never been part of the inner circle either. He is definitely not a class A citizen. He is more like a B-1 and therefor not privory to how the Liberal establishment really sees itself.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #67
                If Trump wins it'll be the beginning of uncontrolled mob rule like in the movie "Running Man" where anything goes executions will soon be pay per view events and other criminals will be playing "to the death" competitions for our entertainment.
                It'll be a 21st century Roman Empire.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Trump Vs Sanders??

                  Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                  I saw that word "Framed" as well and was going to post on it, however I had second thoughts, since the OP is Australian the word "framed" may have a different meaning there than it does to us, it may mean have enough proof/evidence to indict, to us it means to falsify evidence to make a person look guilty.
                  I MEAN FALSIFY EVIDENCE!!!
                  For Pete's Sake I thought all right-leaning Americans believed all government was bad (lodestar making a sweeping stereotypical generalisation with breath-taking audacity!).

                  Didn't the DAR frame Oswald? Or was that the DARE (Dykes Against Racism Everywhere), I always get those two mixed up?

                  Seriously though. Do most Americans trust the FBI now-days?
                  I remember back in the '70's many Yanks I encountered in tutorials thought the organisation was sinister, untrustworthy, politically biased, still in the thrall of dead & departed director Hoover and fully 'establishment'
                  (lodestar reliving his ‘70’s glory days as though 40 years had never happened).

                  Anyway my question was what happens if Clinton has to drop out?

                  Essentially if it by an amazing set of chances it somehow comes down to Trump Vs Sanders - who would win?

                  Kinda like those silly comparison on the WWII Sub -Forum I usually avoid:

                  What would win between a Messerschmitt 163 and the Boeing P-26?

                  Was a King Tiger better armed and armoured than a Pershing?

                  Was the StG 44 more kick-ass than the M1 Garand?

                  Get the idea?

                  Regards lodestar

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    About the chances of Trump ,David Plouffe,who managed Obama's campaign in 2008,said the following :


                    "He is clearly bringing people in the process,and Democrats be better very mindful of that because at the end of the day to win a presidential election you have to maximize your turnout . "

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Trump Vs Sanders

                      Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                      About the chances of Trump ,David Plouffe,who managed Obama's campaign in 2008,said the following :


                      "He is clearly bringing people in the process,and Democrats be better very mindful of that because at the end of the day to win a presidential election you have to maximize your turnout . "
                      Yes, an interesting point.
                      Both Trump and Sanders supporters are the most dedicated and motivated in their respective party's camps.

                      Suppose they somehow do go toe-to toe and virtually all Trump supporters and all Sanders supporters actually do bother to vote and they garner roughly the same support (does anyone have figures or a survey on a choice between both candidates?).
                      Are GOP 'non-Trumpsters' more likely to turn out to vote for the Republicans than Democrat non-Sandernistas (sorry couldn't resist) are likely to vote for the Democrats?

                      Above sentence is badly worded but you know what I mean.


                      Regards lodestar

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X