Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    04 Jan '17 04:41
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton got 55.2% and Bernie Sanders 43.1% of the votes.
    Hillary Clinton received more than 3.7 million more votes than Bernie Sanders.
    And No1Marauder describes that as a 'rather narrow' margin.

    Does No1Marauder believe a minority of Democratic primary voters should have their
    preference ahead of the majority's when that preference agrees with No1Marauder's?
    No, I don't agree with that non sequitur.

    But I do not agree with your assessment that HRC was more popular than Bernie among all voters since the polling evidence was and is to the contrary.
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '16
    Moves
    8851
    04 Jan '17 10:34
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Does Ash believe that the American people really hate all of the many diverse Republican
    candidates who lost to Donald Trump as much as he wants to believe that they hate Hillary Clinton?

    As I recall in an earlier thread, another anti-Hillary troll claimed that popularity never
    should be measured by counting votes, so Hillary Clinton always should be ...[text shortened]... dices seem to prevent him from being able to count.
    Have his mathematics teachers noticed that?
    I wonder how many votes Hillary would have gotten if Donald trump wasn't the alternative. A half decent Republican would have crucified her. The dnc preferred her because it was her turn to be president.

    The number of votes she got doesn't mean she was popular. The polls showed consistently that they both were the most unpopular candidates in history. The only reason she won the popular vote was because she repulsed some voters less than trump.

    There's a difference between being liked more and hated less.
  3. Joined
    20 Oct '16
    Moves
    8851
    04 Jan '17 10:392 edits
    Duchess, it is my opinion that Donald trump did literally everything in the book that should have guaranteed his defeat.

    Yet he still beat Hillary. This, to me, says something.

    I dislike Hillary for being so useless as to lose to the worst candidate in US history. Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS.

    Let that sink in.

    Just because she couldn't be bothered to campaign in every state. That is an unprecedented level of arrogance.
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jan '17 14:232 edits
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Duchess, it is my opinion that Donald trump did literally everything in the book that should have guaranteed his defeat.

    Yet he still beat Hillary. This, to me, says something.

    I dislike Hillary for being so useless as to lose to the worst candidate in US history. Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS.

    Let that sink in.

    Just because she couldn't be bothered to campaign in every state. That is an unprecedented level of arrogance.
    ===Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS. ===

    Your language brings up an interesting point.

    I'm not trying to be challenging; I'm just curious.

    Why do non-Americans worry so much about who the President of the US is?

    I don't consider myself "stuck" with Theresa May or Justin Trudeau. Sure, I root for certain politicians in non-US elections, but who wins doesn't concern me all that much. I can't stand Jeremy Corbyn, but if the Brits go and make him PM, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Hey, it's their call.

    Is it because of the US' outsized influence on the global economy or its ability to maintain or not maintain world peace? Or is it a cultural thing; i.e., that people get so much of their media from the US that US politics become a global phenomenon?

    Again, not trying to be condescending. I'm just wondering...
  5. Joined
    20 Oct '16
    Moves
    8851
    04 Jan '17 14:351 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS. ===

    Your language brings up an interesting point.

    I'm not trying to be challenging; I'm just curious.

    Why do non-Americans worry so much about who the President of the US is?

    I don't consider myself "stuck" with Theresa May or Justin Trudeau. Sure, I root for certain politicians in non-US elections, b ...[text shortened]... tics become a global phenomenon?

    Again, not trying to be condescending. I'm just wondering...
    Because believe it or not it has an affect on global economies. South Africa has an extremely volatile currency that is affected terribly by global happenings.

    Our currency is affected more by how the US and China's economies are doing than our own.

    Trump promises protectionism which damages us because it upsets global risk sentiment.

    When investors are looking for risk, ZAR is one of the first currencies they snap up. But as such, when risk appetite is upset our currency is the first to be sold off.

    The instability provided by trump is the last thing we need here. The volatility caused by the instability to global risk scares away investors to our country, slows growth, and increases inflation.

    Whenever Janet yellen raises rates our currency plunges the most in world, and if China's economy performs badly then our currency performs badly too. If Trump damages China (as he has promised) we are in for a rough ride.

    On a positive note, Trump will help stop the skills drain on south Africa being sucked by the US because of his immigration policies.
  6. Joined
    20 Oct '16
    Moves
    8851
    04 Jan '17 14:441 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS. ===

    Your language brings up an interesting point.

    I'm not trying to be challenging; I'm just curious.

    Why do non-Americans worry so much about who the President of the US is?

    I don't consider myself "stuck" with Theresa May or Justin Trudeau. Sure, I root for certain politicians in non-US elections, b ...[text shortened]... tics become a global phenomenon?

    Again, not trying to be condescending. I'm just wondering...
    Besides just points about south Africa, the US has the most influence in the world in terms of diplomacy.

    I think trump fails to understand the danger posed by Russia currently. Their navy and submarines have been probing the UK (and the rest of Europe's) defenses. US foreign policy is unfortunately crucial to the stability of the world and now we have such an unstable person at the forefront who had said some worrying things about crucial alliances such as NATO.
  7. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jan '17 15:04
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Because believe it or not it has an affect on global economies. South Africa has an extremely volatile currency that is affected terribly by global happenings.

    Our currency is affected more by how the US and China's economies are doing than our own.

    Trump promises protectionism which damages us because it upsets global risk sentiment.

    When inve ...[text shortened]... top the skills drain on south Africa being sucked by the US because of his immigration policies.
    Thanks.

    Your post is an excellent illustration of why it's so impossible to undo economic globalization. The genie is out of the bottle and even Donald Trump can't put it back in.
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jan '17 15:12
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Besides just points about south Africa, the US has the most influence in the world in terms of diplomacy.

    I think trump fails to understand the danger posed by Russia currently. Their navy and submarines have been probing the UK (and the rest of Europe's) defenses. US foreign policy is unfortunately crucial to the stability of the world and now we have ...[text shortened]... person at the forefront who had said some worrying things about crucial alliances such as NATO.
    I don't think that even Vladimir Putin has any interest in starting a European war. At most, Putin wants the west to tacitly acknowledge that the former USSR is in Russia's sphere of influence and he wants to be able to apply political pressure to Ukraine and the Baltic states without western interference.

    While I think we of the west owe it to the former Soviet Republics to guarantee their independence, compromises can be made. For example, there could be a free and fair referendum in the Crimea and, if the people vote to support the Russian annexation, we could agree to recognize the annexation and lift the sanctions; and in exchange, the Russians guarantee the independence of the rest of Ukraine.

    Yes, that sounds a bit like the Munich Pact, but I truly don't believe that Putin is Hitler. Anyway, we're not up against a clock like the Allies were in 1938 where Germany was gaining on them militarily by the day. The Russians are never (in the near future) going to gain enough military strength to take on NATO. If Putin doesn't stick to a pact, we'll have plenty of time to re-impose sanctions. This is not like 1938 where increase territory is so important geopolitically.

    NATO has to make a decision of whether to do business with Putin or to re-impose the Cold War strategy of containment. I think the former can be tried before we need to resort to the latter.
  9. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    04 Jan '17 15:301 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    ===Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS. ===

    Your language brings up an interesting point....Why do non-Americans worry so much about who the President of the US is? ......Is it because of the US' outsized influence on the global economy or its ability to maintain or not maintain world peace? Or is it a cultural thing; i.e., that people get so much of their media from the US that US politics become a global phenomenon?.....
    Its a bit of both but its mainly about the money.

    Even though you are a citizen of the world's hegemonic superpower, you probably don't have a worldview that includes a consciousness of that reality. I would venture to say that you probably feel that the US should leave the world alone and your view of America's place in the world, is probably informed by an aggregate consensus of a much older generation, where from their perspective America had no business in meddling in affairs of nations outside of its borders.

    Unfortunately for you America has meddled, and America has done well out of that meddling. America is the worlds remaining superpower. America has the worlds reserve currency. America control's the world's oil trade and by association the world's energy trade. America outspends the rest of the world combined, each year on its military.

    The problem with all of those sound bites is that you've heard it all before, so in many ways the impact of what is being said is lost on you. From what can be ascertained the problem is embedded in your education system, where much of what you have learned is focused predominantly on America's exceptionalism and not much in terms of how America's actions especially over the last 60 years has changed the world in ways that can never be undone. When you are on top of the heap you probably are not required to know too much about the world. But when your country acts as an imperial power sitting astride the globe with an impressive armada of overwhelmingly superior fighting force, your sense of history is not overly concerned with how you have exploited the planets resources in your favor, nor do your educators or news media pay too much attention to the way that your country exacts its quid pro quo from the world by keeping its allies safe and protected.

    Given that citizens of any given nation are primarily focused on the internal machinations of their own country, before they show an interest in any other, it is therefore no mystery as to why American's are relatively unaware of their place in the world, or the impact their internal decisions have on other countries. So the truism often repeated outside of America, that when the US sniffles the world gets a cold, its not a characteristic component of your lived experience to understand the import of that statement. Though as the world becomes more globalised and as America becomes more connected to global trade, the converse statement also rings true, that as the world remains sick, America's cold can worsen to become a fully blown chest infection.

    So why are we concerned? Only because the impact your policies have on our bottom line are felt more in our backyard than in yours. Also by not following certain broad strategies, like a wholehearted embrace of renewable energies, America in tying its imperial presence to fossil fuels and the protection of allies and esteemed partners under that fossil fuel energy umbrella, inordinately influences the pace at which fossil fuel is disbanded, with all the regional instability the fight over oil can bring.

    Now you who live inside of the States are always going to be hard pressed to see yourselves from our perspective. If Trump disturbs trade with China, Australia as a loyal partner of the US may have to forgo a profitable ongoing arrangement with China because of its loyalty to its former Allied partner. When America decides to go to war, Australia has followed and will continue to follow, because in the end, that's what friends are for. So yes while we will follow, it would always be preferable for America to adopt a foreign policy that allows for more country's to win. Having a buffoon who thinks it awesome to be a bull in a China shop may be titillating twitter news inside of the States but could signal a serious downturn across multiple industries in a nation like Australia.

    So before I get lost, we who live outside of America are very concerned about the caliber and nature of the politicians you choose for the top job in your land. For you guys its a minor inconvenience that can be changed in 4 years. For us its usually a lot more serious in terms of adverse economic and political outcomes.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jan '17 22:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No, I don't agree with that non sequitur.

    But I do not agree with your assessment that HRC was more popular than Bernie among all voters since the polling evidence was and is to the contrary.
    No1Marauder puts words into my mouth, setting up another 'strawman' to attack.

    My point was that Hillary Clinton showed that she's more popular than Bernie Sanders
    among the voters in the Democratic primary. (Ash apparently prefers not to count votes.)
    I wrote nothing about Hillary Clinton's supposed comparative popularity with Bernie
    Sanders according to various surveys at various times in various contexts.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    04 Jan '17 22:451 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    No1Marauder puts words into my mouth, setting up another 'strawman' to attack.

    My point was that Hillary Clinton showed that she's more popular than Bernie Sanders
    among the voters in the Democratic primary. (Ash apparently prefers not to count votes.)
    I wrote nothing about Hillary Clinton's supposed comparative popularity with Bernie
    Sanders according to various surveys at various times in various contexts.
    YOU said:

    In fact, the voters showed that Hillary Clinton was more popular than Bernie Sanders

    I said:

    But I do not agree with your assessment that HRC was more popular than Bernie among all voters since the polling evidence was and is to the contrary.


    I did not "put words in your mouth" or set up a strawman; I took your assertion at its word and presented evidence to contradict it. IF your statement was poorly worded, that is your fault, not mine.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jan '17 22:542 edits
    For some time, I have noticed several writers insisting, in effect, that Hillary Clinton must
    have been by far the most unpopular candidate in the 2016 US Presidential campaign.
    Some of these writers also seem to insist that details such as actually counting votes
    must be irrelevant to their cherished absolute truth of Hillary Clinton's extreme unpopularity.

    In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton got 55.2% and Bernie Sanders got 43.1% of the votes.
    Some writers here apparently like to conclude that this fact (which might disappear if these
    writers can hurl enough insults at me) proves that Hillary Clinton was much less popular.

    I also have noticed some writers who apparently believe that it would have been wonderful
    (and morally admirable) for the Democratic Party to find a way to deny the nomination to
    Hillary Clinton because with only 55.2% of the vote, she obviously (sarcasm intended)
    was much less popular than Bernie Sanders with his dominant 43.1% of the vote.

    If the Democratic Party had rigged its nomination to insure Bernie Sanders's victory over
    Hillary Clinton (and why would it do much to help a late comer to the Democratic Party?),
    then some writers here (who apparently loathe Hillary Clinton above all others) seem to
    believe that would have guaranteed victory for Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump.
    These writers fail to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton's supporters (the mere majority of voters)
    would have regarded that outcome as deeply anti-Democratic. If Bernie Sanders had
    become the Democratic Party nominee under such circumstances, then many of Hillary
    Clinton's supporters would have refused to vote for him in the general election.

    Now I supported Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton. But in contrast to several
    writers here (whose typical dishonesty is well-known from other threads), I recognize
    that Hillary Clinton enjoyed the popular mandate of the Democratic Party's voters.
    Winning by 12 points (55% to 43% ) is far from a 'rather narrow' (to quote No1Marauder) margin.
    It's a fantasy to suppose that if the Democratic Party could have nominated Bernie Sanders
    (with 43% of the vote) rather than Hillary Clinton, that would have guaranteed victory over Donald Trump.
    Many of Hillary Clinton's supporters (understandably) would have refused to vote for Bernie Sanders.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jan '17 23:004 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    YOU said:

    In fact, the voters showed that Hillary Clinton was more popular than Bernie Sanders

    I said:

    But I do not agree with your assessment that HRC was more popular than Bernie among all voters since the polling evidence was and is to the contrary.

    I did not "put words in your mouth" or set up a strawman; I took your assertion at its w ed evidence to contradict it. IF your statement was poorly worded, that is your fault, not mine.
    The disingenuous No1Marauder attempts to muddy the waters, hoping to confuse the issue
    among the many nearly illiterate 'readers' here.

    Obviously, my usage of 'voters' refers to the people who VOTED in the Democratic primaries.
    'Voters' does *not* refer to anonymous respondents to various surveys at various times.
    Elections are settled in the voting booth, not over the telephone in various surveys.

    Again, in the 2016 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton got 55.2% and Bernie Sanders got 43.1% of the vote.
    No1Marauder's bias is evident when he describes that margin (12 points) as 'rather narrow'.
    Indeed, *if* Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton by a 55% to 43% margin in the
    general election, then the media would have hailed it as a 'landslide' victory.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jan '17 23:112 edits
    Originally posted by Ashiitaka
    Duchess, it is my opinion that Donald trump did literally everything in the book that should have guaranteed his defeat.

    Yet he still beat Hillary. This, to me, says something.

    I dislike Hillary for being so useless as to lose to the worst candidate in US history. Now we are lumped with Trump. For FOUR YEARS.

    Let that sink in.

    Just because she couldn't be bothered to campaign in every state. That is an unprecedented level of arrogance.
    As usual, Ash spews nonsense while remaining absurdly ignorant of the facts.

    "Just because she [Hillary Clinton] couldn't be bothered to campaign in every state.
    That is an *unprecedented* level of arrogance."
    --Ash

    Wrong, In fact, Donald Trump has declared that he avoided campaigning in California.
    (He disingenuously implied that he would have won in California if he had campaigned there.)
    But Ash prefers to attack only Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, for such a strategy.

    In fact, it's a rational strategy to avoid campaigning (conserving time and money) in
    the states where demographics show that it's extremely unlikely for one to win.

    As a self-described teenager, Ash's comprehension of many issues is far feebler than he fantasizes.
    I already know that Ash's far too arrogant to 'let that sink in'. Ash must hope that his
    teachers will have much greater tolerance of his arrogant nonsense than I do.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jan '17 23:191 edit
    Originally posted by sh76 to Ash
    I don't think that even Vladimir Putin has any interest in starting a European war. At most, Putin wants the west to tacitly acknowledge that the former USSR is in Russia's sphere of influence and he wants to be able to apply political pressure to Ukraine and the Baltic states without western interference.

    While I think we of the west owe it to the fo ...[text shortened]... strategy of containment. I think the former can be tried before we need to resort to the latter.
    The issues about Russia and Ukraine are not so simple as Sh76 seems to believe.
    If we accept that the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea has the right to self-determination
    and may vote to secede from Ukraine and return (as before 1954) to Russia, then why
    should not the ethnic Russian majority in much of eastern Ukraine have the same right?

    I doubt that Putin has any wish to invade and attempt to conquer all Ukraine, which would
    result in a bitter protracted war, with Ukrainian resistance tacitly supported by NATO.
    (Look at the difficulty that Russia had in crushing resistance in tiny Chechnya.)
    But Putin may like to detach eastern Ukraine (with a large ethnic Russian population)
    from Kiev's authority.
Back to Top