Learn up on some politics.
Learn up on some politics.
Learn up on some politics.
Learn up on some politics.
you live in the U.S?
Learn up on some politics.
Video?????This is the end.... my only friend, the end.
lmao this chart
Like, it doesn't even have Cruz right, since he's much further right than any of those people there.
As a liberal, I can't wait to be able to vote for either a centrist, right of center candidate or an extreme far right candidate for the presidency in the November general election . It's so amazing that we live in a country that offers such a wide selection of competing political candidates who represent a myriad of political views like my own and countless others. Yay for Democracy.
I like how you don't even try to provide context for this graph.
Style more than substance separates Trump from Hillary Clinton. After all, Trump was a generous donor to Clinton's senate campaigns, and also to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is nevertheless disingenuously promoting herself as the centrist between an extreme right-winger (Trump) and an 'extreme left-winger' (Sanders). Abortion and gay marriage place her on a more liberal position on the social scale than all of the Republicans but, when it comes to economics, Clinton's unswerving attachment to neoliberalism and big money is a mutual love affair.
How is HRC a centrist?
Fracking has turned my state into the earthquake capital of the world and its putting our drinking water at risk. I lost my job due the financial crisis in 08 and i dont think telling them to "knock it off" is going to help protect us in the future, and western intervention in the middle east rarely works out and usually just makes things worse.
I'm not confident in her helping with any of these issues.
This is where liberals can get it so wrong.
The country does not move any direction very quickly. In fact, it slowly moves left. Incremental change isn't exciting, but it's how the country works. Vote for progressives at the local level and stay engaged for the mid terms. Complaining about the President not being far left enough to enact more liberal policies isn't realistic.
I'll provide it straight from the same website:
Yes, that's really what they wrote.
Clinton didn't pay off her debt from her 2008 run until the end of 2013. But she loaned her campaign a lot of money, i don't Bernie has done that
Learn up on some politics.
I'll provide it straight from the same website:
Yes, that's really what they wrote.
That's pretty accurate though. I would say on the whole they've had relatively decent charts, but more inclined towards a European or more progressive idea or understanding of political leanings. I suspect many Americans would strongly disagree with it, simply because the political culture and landscape in the US is still behind compared to many other Western nations. It's amusing to me that so many actually think Hillary is left wing, by European or international standards, she absolutely is not.
I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on. Obviously you could argue that US politics in general are more right wing and less .developed .but that doesn't change her political alignment comparative to most standards.
She is not for fracking if it causes drinking water issues.
Learn up on some politics.
That's pretty accurate though. I would say on the whole they've had relatively decent charts, but more inclined towards a European or more progressive idea or understanding of political leanings. I suspect many Americans would strongly disagree with it, simply because the political culture and landscape in the US is still behind compared to many other Western nations. It's amusing to me that so many actually think Hillary is left wing, by European or international standards, she absolutely is not.
I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on. Obviously you could argue that US politics in general are more right wing and less….developed….but that doesn't change her political alignment comparative to most standards.
Ah, yeah I should have included that.
Here is a realistic comparison of candidates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html
The only real difference between Sanders and Clinton is on defense. And even then, Sanders is not all that isolationist as many suspect if you look at his voting record. He seems to like it if it helps his state too.
Ah, yeah I should have included that.
Here is a realistic comparison of candidates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html
The only real difference between Sanders and Clinton is on defense. And even then, Sanders is not all that isolationist as many suspect if you look at his voting record. He seems to like it if it helps his state too.
Learn up on some politics.
So she's ok with the hundreds of earthquakes that they cause every single year?
I honestly wonder if you are capable of sounding any more condescending if you tried.
I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.
I think that's a symptom of the two party system and democracy as a whole. It's gong to be slow n steady progress and while that kind of sucks there also won't be any rapid regressions. Unless of course there's ample motivation and broad consensus then things go fast.
People barely even remember the people that make it to the general and lose in most cases. I think its a bit of wishful thinking to expect that Bernie would have some special place in the mind of those in the future.
You really need to remember that he is less popular among the populace than she is. He is LOSING the popular vote because more people want Hillary as opposed to him. I reckon when this election is looked back on in the past it will be "First female president" and "LOL Donald Trump" and not much about Bernie Sanders.
That's just how it goes.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH
I swear it's babies first election for some of you people.
Bernie is the failed "populist" candidate we get at least 1 every cycle.
I know you're banned now, but basically my entire professional experience is in that field. I'm a lawyer after all ;P
the irony here is, you are trying to redefine america's definition of political leanings.
I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.
The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right.
It's tough to tell if the bigger earthquakes were caused by fracking. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/
.
Bernie should probably drop out. I love the guy to death, but he's not able to win at this point. Staying in doesn't promote his views as much as taints the popular opinion of social democracy. If I was Bernie, I'd concede the primary and use that hot, hot Sanders cash to prop up progressive legislators.
It's close enough to November that Bernie staying in might weaken Clinton against the Republican opposition.
I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.
But Europe does?
Come on.
Just letting you know, not even the republicans in Oklahoma deny that fracking is causing the earthquakes because its so blatantly obvious.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/23/oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking/
By that you mean a more internationally and widely accepted definition. I am perfect fine with that. I believe cultural and political isolation and/or insular outlooks can be hugely detrimental and lend to a lack of progress in the said areas.
By that you mean a more internationally and widely accepted definition. I am perfect fine with that. I believe cultural and political isolation and/or insular outlooks can be hugely detrimental and lend to a lack of progress in the said areas.
Do people actually believe this "establishment" BS? I mean, its basically "If you're in politics, you're establishment. Unless I like you, then you're not establishment".The problem is he has these two corrupt cronies manipulating him into signing two more months worth of paychecks.
Which leads me to a question I've been wondering. If his campaign is being run by two guys who literally define establishment politics (except always on the losing side) how was he going to pull off the whole outsider thing? Would they have gotten jobs in his administration?
Just letting you know, not even the republicans in Oklahoma deny that fracking is causing the earthquakes because its so blatantly obvious.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/23/oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking/
Which leads me to a question I've been wondering. If his campaign is being run by two guys who literally define establishment politics (except always on the losing side) how was he going to pull off the whole outsider thing? Would they have gotten jobs in his administration?
But Europe does?
Come on.
Y
Let's see. Do I trust "Eco Watch" or a Dot Gov site more?
I am sick and tired of this. it is borderline trolling at this point.
Bernie's intent right now is to save the Democratic party, but it might be too late. By winning enough delegates he can make demands for what issues become the party's platform. I'm surprised nobody has figured out his strategy yet.
If the Democratic party fails to oblige we could very well see a third party candidate pull the rug from under the establishment's feet this election.
He didn't win because all of the rigging. 126k+ people have their registration changed in New York's closed election. Bernie never under performs, so when he did in New York it shot off a bunch of red flags. We had a lawsuit to switch it to an open primary, but we lost that.
I'm young, but I've seen time and time again how the system is rigged to go against the will of the people. It all starts with recognizing these parties as private entities and then process of funding elections.
What generation are you in? Maybe you ought to recognize things are different. Your generation has failed this country, mine is fixing it.
Fixing it... by having your candidate lose?
Bold tactic.
Ail 126K would have voted for him? the Clintons knew years in advance that Bernie would be a problem and rigged shit? Not even batman has that kind of preptime, Black Panther maybe