hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 Once again I am not accusing him of hate crime. I said you could argue, not that I was. Yes I do have an idea of what that argument would look like as I am sure you would do if you googled as I suggested. It appears he feels the same about Latinos as he does Muslims. If you want more information I suggest you seek out the half a million people who signed the petition seeking to ban him from the UK. So actually you have no example to give me just a request that I should Google to look for your argument. So you could argue but you give no examples? Great. Thankfully he wasn't banned for something so ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 (edited) It has been used to keep several extreme radical Muslims out so I don't have a problem with it also keeping a barking mad white supremist out too. Not that he will be banned of course. Edited 20 January, 2016 by sadoldgit sp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 It has been used to keep several extreme radical Muslims out so I don't have a problem with it also keeping a barking mad white supremist out too. Not that he will be banned of course. If you ban trump for saying something stupid the you leave the whole system wide open to abuse. The argument that he is guilty of a hate crime is flimsy at best and those who support silencing those whose crime is saying something they disagree with should be laughed at. This isn't inciting racial hatred and thankfully the government and lawmakers agree. Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 We should only ban people who present a direct security threat to the UK. Banning people for expressing political views is a really sllppery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 We should only ban people who present a direct security threat to the UK. Banning people for expressing political views is a really sllppery slope. Precisely. You have to guess that those who support this course of action haven't really considered the longer term consequences. Par for the course on here though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 I like the thought of banning him just because it would be awesome for the little old UK to ban a possible future President of the US of A. I really don't have a problem with him coming here and showing himself up for the racist bigot he is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picard Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 American broadcaster Michael Savage was banned from entering the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390738/Barred-Shock-jock-Michael-Savage-U-K-ban-reaffirmed.html The goverment said he had broadcasted statements that were a threat to national security though they didn't specify which statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 I like the thought of banning him just because it would be awesome for the little old UK to ban a possible future President of the US of A. I really don't have a problem with him coming here and showing himself up for the racist bigot he is though. So not really a serious or well thought through suggestion at all. If you wanted to discuss this issue on those terms then you should have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 We should only ban people who present a direct security threat to the UK. Banning people for expressing political views is a really sllppery slope. I think we have banned people for their political views though, albeit extreme views. I wonder how we would feel if it were Mohamed Trump, an aspiring leader of a radical Middle East country who was talking about banning Christians from entering the country? Would we still feel happy about him coming here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 I think we have banned people for their political views though, albeit extreme views. I wonder how we would feel if it were Mohamed Trump, an aspiring leader of a radical Middle East country who was talking about banning Christians from entering the country? Would we still feel happy about him coming here? Not sure that's a great example. We've welcomed leaders from the Middle East who've done a lot worse than ban people from entering their country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 Not sure that's a great example. We've welcomed leaders from the Middle East who've done a lot worse than ban people from entering their country Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 (edited) I see today that the heavyweight political force known as Sarah Palin has come out (surprise surprise) and given her considered support to the Trumpster in his Presidential campaign. This is kind of like discovering that Hitler was a big fan of Jack the Ripper ... This is a truly hilarious clip Edited 20 January, 2016 by whelk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 20 January, 2016 Share Posted 20 January, 2016 (edited) This is a truly hilarious clip Half expecting the Clintons to come storming in -Bill to loosen his tie, throw off his jacket and smash Trump over the head with his saxophone- and the four to get it on camp WWE-stylee. Desperately farcical stuff. Edited 20 January, 2016 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 Half expecting the Clintons to come storming in -Bill to loosen his tie, throw off his jacket and smash Trump over the head with his saxophone- and the four to get it on camp WWE-stylee. Desperately farcical stuff. Indeed, luckily they are used to speeches full of nonsense over there. Good to see that whomever gets the keys to the Whitehouse, speaking without engaging the brain will continue... With the follow up: [video=youtube;NDF-oN3B1PA] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 (edited) Indeed, luckily they are used to speeches full of nonsense over there. Good to see that whomever gets the keys to the Whitehouse, speaking without engaging the brain will continue... You'd have to be a sad ****er to try to make political capital out of innocuous remarks like that. Edited 21 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 You'd have to be a sad ****er to try to make political capital out of innocuous remarks like that. Did you watch the follow up? I broadly agree with your point on the first video, but instead of just admitting he misspoke, Obama briefed his Press department to deny and obfuscate into parody. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 (edited) instead of just admitting he misspoke, Obama briefed his Press department to deny and obfuscate into parody. Incredible. You know that do you? Do you seriously think the President personally briefs his press department on what to say? You should watch more of these things live. The formula is always the same. There will be a routine press conference about dull stuff with no story in it. The assembled press hacks will try to harry the press officers into interpreting or putting a new angle on to what the President / Prime Minister / Head EU etc said so they have a front page. The story will then either be 'President shrugs off concerns about slayings' or 'Oval Office in total disarray as staff scramble to cover up'. Edited 21 January, 2016 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 Indeed, luckily they are used to speeches full of nonsense over there. Good to see that whomever gets the keys to the Whitehouse, speaking without engaging the brain will continue... With the follow up: [video=youtube;NDF-oN3B1PA] Did you watch the follow up? I broadly agree with your point on the first video, but instead of just admitting he misspoke, Obama briefed his Press department to deny and obfuscate into parody. Incredible. I thought Obama spoke sensibly and I wondered what the hell point you were making. Then I watched the snidey journalist and realised I didn't even notice Obama even said the word random. If you're trying to pretend that Obama making considered, sensible (albeit fairly anodyne) points as being comparable to the ranting drivel of Sarah Palin or Trump then I pity you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 If you really want to know how truly scary this all is.......You just have to imagine it happening in the country where you live. I don't think Trump will get even close to the Presidency, but then again, I didn't think Bush would get a second term. I'm officially worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSaint Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 If you really want to know how truly scary this all is.......You just have to imagine it happening in the country where you live. I don't think Trump will get even close to the Presidency, but then again, I didn't think Bush would get a second term. I'm officially worried. Even if Trump wins the Primaries, I just don't see that he'll be able to sway the swing states in a general election. Plus, the Latino voters will be out in force. But then again, it's worrying because there's never been anyone quite like Trump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 You know that do you? Do you seriously think the President personally briefs his press department on what to say? The President gives them areas to avoid. Both the Washington post and the New York Times have quoted Daniel Benjamin, U.S. State Department coordinator, on the policy from the Commander in Chief not to mention radical Islamic terrorism, in fact, 'religious extremism' was given as the term to be used instead. It wasn't hard to find this information from reputable sources, as it's not a big secret. You should watch more of these things live. I've watched thousands. Hundreds a as part of my degree, and hundreds since. Also been behind the scenes on Parliamentary Placement. But thanks for the advice. The formula is always the same. There will be a routine press conference about dull stuff with no story in it. The assembled press hacks will try to harry the press officers into interpreting or putting a new angle on to what the President / Prime Minister / Head EU etc said so they have a front page. The formula is most certainly not always the same. Look at Alistair Campbell and his Lobby system, dragging Journalists to Whitehall basements to sit on the floor 9 times a week, compared to the modern conservative strategy, and In the case of Matthew Lee, labelling him a hack is a lazy as it is dismissive. A Veteran Journalist from multiple wars, who was also lauded for his work in exposing lack of Local government transparency In Charlottesville, and now the diplomatic correspondent for the Associated Press. Also a meticulous researcher, who actually prepares for conferences by looking a US policy in international relationships, rather than trying to trip someone up on the day. More of the Nick Davies methodology. The story will then either be 'President shrugs off concerns about slayings' or 'Oval Office in total disarray as staff scramble to cover up'. http://bigstory.ap.org/content/matthew-lee Again, your generalisation doesn't apply. Lee tends to use direct quotes from the source in his headlines, and also the aims of that person. If there is any contradiction in the stated aims with regular policy, he will include it in his reporting. I thought Obama spoke sensibly and I wondered what the hell point you were making. Then I watched the snidey journalist and realised I didn't even notice Obama even said the word random. If you're trying to pretend that Obama making considered, sensible (albeit fairly anodyne) points as being comparable to the ranting drivel of Sarah Palin or Trump then I pity you. I'm not trying to pretend anything. Again, as I was trying to fathom what possible appeal Trump had to certain Americans, I came across several news sites with analysis, (The aforementioned Washington Post and New York Times, along with the Chicago Sun_Times and Boston Globe) and many listed Trumps perceived 'plain speaking' (or I suppose now, that should be 'Palin speaking'?) compared to Obama and linked to earlier articles where Obama had been noted for 'speaking around issues' and downplaying instability. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/us/politics/a-president-whose-assurances-have-come-back-to-haunt-him.html. The link I posted earlier came from these articles. Of course the 'Double talk' narrative from the News Corp-owned outlets doesn't help but analysis from elsewhere helps to clear the rhetoric from the debate https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/16/has-obama-delivered-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history/ while also looking at Obama's record on credibility with the issue of terrorism https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-and-putin-meet-for-talks-in-aftermath-of-paris-attacks/2015/11/16/c38a137a-8c51-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html and how Trump is attempting to conflate plain speaking and national security http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/18/donald-trump-runs-radio-ads-criticizing-obama-on-paris-attacks/ While it may be a joke to the rest of us, given Palin's blustered attempt at rational discourse, her endorsement allows him a genuine shot of winning Iowa. Whereas Obama's preference for inconsistent foreign policy may harm Clinton and Sanders (not enough to land the Whitehouse for the Republicans, IMHO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 21 January, 2016 Share Posted 21 January, 2016 Even if Trump wins the Primaries, I just don't see that he'll be able to sway the swing states in a general election. Plus, the Latino voters will be out in force. But then again, it's worrying because there's never been anyone quite like Trump... Exactly.....Well almost exactly.....The whole sarah Palin thing was more scarey than it should have been during the last election. My head says that this is all ludicrous, my experience tells me to be genuinely worried. I honestly don't feel I can trust the electorate to do the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSaint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Exactly.....Well almost exactly.....The whole sarah Palin thing was more scarey than it should have been during the last election. My head says that this is all ludicrous, my experience tells me to be genuinely worried. I honestly don't feel I can trust the electorate to do the right thing. Palin spoke her mind as well didn't she, but she came unstuck so often, she constantly looked daft and totally out of her depth. Trump manages to shout down criticism of his stupid mistakes so brutally effectively and it just adds fire to his momentum and increase in support. So who would you prefer Ohio, Trump or Cruz? I think I'd feel sicker with someone like Cruz in office. Trump offers some LOLs atleast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Trump becoming President would be really funny for about 5 minutes. Then when reality sets in it would become a really scary proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 January, 2016 Author Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Trump becoming President would be really funny for about 5 minutes. Then when reality sets in it would become a really scary proposition. I completely agree - but if memory serves they said much the same about Ronald Regan ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 I completely agree - but if memory serves they said much the same about Ronald Regan ... They did indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Ha, good find Jamie. Reagan sometimes came across as a bit of an idiot, but thats because he was pretty much deaf by the time he got to be President, maybe even early stages of Alzheimers. If you watch some of his early speeches he was in different league to Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upwind Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Here's a prospect - what if Donald got elected and Boris took the Tory reins............now that would be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 So who would you prefer Ohio, Trump or Cruz? I think I'd feel sicker with someone like Cruz in office. Trump offers some LOLs atleast. The Republicans have nobody in this election that I can even bear to think about getting in. Not because they are republicans, but because they are all simply very poor candidates. I suppose, if pushed, I would have to go for the LOLs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Home and hosed. 40.6% and polls never wrong. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSMTZSAPEC1MDJJ32Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 23 January, 2016 Share Posted 23 January, 2016 He won't be president so it doesn't matter. Don't know how you could make a statement like that. He's still by far the favourite candidate for the party that's most likely to win. The moderates are failing to impress anyone and Cruz is failing to get ahead of him. Clinton doesn't have the charisma to win and Sanders just seems too un-American to stand a chance. I think President Trump is a big possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 Trump fails in Iowa. The ego has landed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSaint Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 (edited) Don't know how you could make a statement like that. He's still by far the favourite candidate for the party that's most likely to win. The moderates are failing to impress anyone and Cruz is failing to get ahead of him. Clinton doesn't have the charisma to win and Sanders just seems too un-American to stand a chance. I think President Trump is a big possibility. Not so sure that Sanders is as unelectable as I thought any more. Great night for him in the primary (although Iowa is not very indicative of the bigger picture) but also as a presidential candidate who polls remarkably well put head to head with trump. I think that Hilary could be torn apart over the email scandal. Republicans are very effective at fear mongering and smear campaigning. Sanders could be the best bet to stand a chance of beating trump or Cruz Edited 2 February, 2016 by LVSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 I cannot see America electing a president who calls himself a socialist. Hilary may be a charisma vacuum, but she'll edge him out. The next president will be a Republican though. It's not a great choice this election. I would vote Sanders, but then, it doesn't work like that. Like most Europeans, I base who I would vote for on experience living in a completely different country. Trump publicly broadcasts how awful he is, but Cruz seems to be at least as bad. They lack a strong moderate candidate, which is all that would seem palatable to most of us over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 I loved this part. The worlds largest democracy in action. "the former secretary of state and first lady will beat Bernie Sanders, the 74-year-old senator from Vermont, by two delegates in Iowa. In five precincts the vote was decided by the toss of a coin - all going to Ms Clinton, according to the Des Moines Register. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35468776 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 So many of the main candidates seem so old this time out. Last time we had Obama and Romney, now we have Trump, who would become president at 70, Clinton, who would be 69 and Sanders who would be 75. Two of those would make the oldest president ever, one would be close behind. Rubio and Cruz are in their forties at least, but they both sound just as worrying as Trump. I really hope I've stopped working altogether by those ages, rather than be thinking about the biggest job in the world. I like Sanders, but a 75 year old president sounds nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 So many of the main candidates seem so old this time out. Last time we had Obama and Romney, now we have Trump, who would become president at 70, Clinton, who would be 69 and Sanders who would be 75. Two of those would make the oldest president ever, one would be close behind. Rubio and Cruz are in their forties at least, but they both sound just as worrying as Trump. I really hope I've stopped working altogether by those ages, rather than be thinking about the biggest job in the world. I like Sanders, but a 75 year old president sounds nuts. Sanders seems to have still got his energy and mental agility though. Churchill was Prime Minister at 80 so theres no reason Sanders couldnt be a good President for at least one term. That said if I was voting I'd probably scrutinise more than usual who his Vice President was going to be, just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 2 February, 2016 Share Posted 2 February, 2016 Interestingly, despite being older Sanders overwhelmingly won the young vote (84% of 17-29 years olds) whilst Clinton pulled in the old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 I cannot see America electing a president who calls himself a socialist. Hilary may be a charisma vacuum, but she'll edge him out. The next president will be a Republican though. It's not a great choice this election. I would vote Sanders, but then, it doesn't work like that. Like most Europeans, I base who I would vote for on experience living in a completely different country. Trump publicly broadcasts how awful he is, but Cruz seems to be at least as bad. They lack a strong moderate candidate, which is all that would seem palatable to most of us over here. On the one hand, you say that the "next president will be republican"; on the other, you acknowledge that the Republicans "lack a strong moderate candidate." If Trump or Cruz is the Republican candidate, the Democrats will win easily. The Republican Party leadership know that they need a centrist candidate. A right-wing extremist, or a boorish demagogue, is not going to do it for them. By the way, Sanders doesn't call himself a socialist, he calls himself a democratic socialist. Big difference. Here's what he said in 2015: “When I use the world socialist—and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it—I’m saying that it is imperative,” Sanders said, that we “create a government that works for all and not just the few." Democratic socialism, Sanders said, is not tied to any Marxist belief or the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal,” he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 Interestingly, despite being older Sanders overwhelmingly won the young vote (84% of 17-29 years olds) whilst Clinton pulled in the old. Yes. Here is a detailed break-down of opinion in Iowa. Interesting (if you're into this much specific data!). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/iowa-entrance-poll/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_iowagraphic-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 If you really want to know how truly scary this all is.......You just have to imagine it happening in the country where you live. I don't think Trump will get even close to the Presidency, but then again, I didn't think Bush would get a second term. I'm officially worried. I'm officially worried about any Republican taking the White House. Their party has completely gone off the deep end, and has been taken over by lunatics and fascists. Trump is actually their saner candidate. Oh, and they are stealing elections too (gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.). Exit polls indicate that they have been doing this systematically since Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Here's just a recent example: http://americablog.com/2015/08/mathematician-actual-voter-fraud-kansas-republicans.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 Cruz scares me more than Trump. Trump would be an embarrassment to the USA and the West in general, but his more 'interesting' political ideas (banning Muslims, building a wall between US and Mexico) will never, ever see the light of day. He's be a one-term President and an aject failure. I do worry about someone that idiotic having their hands on nuclear weapons but if truth be told I think he's too much of a coward to do anything truly horrific. With a Republican congress, Cruz will be able to do pretty much everything he wants. And he's one of those apocalyptic Evangelicals. He'll do whatever his interpretation of Jaysus tells him to do. Also, Cruz could beat Clinton or Sanders easily. Trump would struggle against either as many Republicans want nothing to do with him. Unfortunately this seems to be the new Republican party, where Reagan is cast as a moderate and George W Bush is positively liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 Yes. Here is a detailed break-down of opinion in Iowa. Interesting (if you're into this much specific data!). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/iowa-entrance-poll/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_iowagraphic-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Interesting, thanks! There is a quite a bit of detail there which is counter intuitive - like Clinton has a trust rating of only 10% but is still rated to be far more electable than Sanders - who is seen as trusted but not electable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Force Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 Being an expat in Iowa and ineligible to vote, I am glad I will not be seeing any of the annoying adverts, and second no one will be knocking on my door. Saw Trump, met Obama in 2007, Hillary came to our school, and Santorum met 3 people at our local coffee shop. Good ridance the lot of them (till November as we are a swing state) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Force Posted 3 February, 2016 Share Posted 3 February, 2016 Being an expat in Iowa and ineligible to vote, I am glad I will not be seeing any of the annoying adverts, and second no one will be knocking on my door. Saw Trump, met Obama in 2007, Hillary came to our school, and Santorum met 3 people at our local coffee shop. Good ridance the lot of them (till November as we are a swing state) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 5 February, 2016 Share Posted 5 February, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kmLZQ97JQY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 February, 2016 Share Posted 9 February, 2016 Bernie Sanders is doing far better than expected and Clinton has been feeling the pressure. It seems she expected to pick up far more support from women as she attempts to be the first woman President. It hasnt panned out that way and two prominent supporters prominent supporters demonstrated a very weird take on feminism at the weekend. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright remarked on Saturday at a Clinton rally that “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” as Clinton stood nearby and clapped. This followed nationally known feminist Gloria Steinem’s comment that young women liked Bernie Sanders because “the boys are with Bernie.” There is quite a reaction against those comments http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/08/nobody-involved-in-the-madeleine-albright-gloria-steinem-hillary-clinton-flap-has-much-to-be-proud-of/ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/07/hillary-is-confused-about-feminism-bernie-supporters-say.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 10 February, 2016 Share Posted 10 February, 2016 Won New Hampshire comfortably. Can't pretend I know how significant that is but clearly not seen as the crazy guy by the voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 10 February, 2016 Share Posted 10 February, 2016 Won New Hampshire comfortably. Can't pretend I know how significant that is but clearly not seen as the crazy guy by the voters. Somewhat of a Hobson's choice but Trump > Cruz. Cruz is the proper loon. Trump is all fart and no s**t by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now