'Nobody likes him' - Hillary Clinton bashes Bernie Sanders

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

[ukrules]

Unsubscribed.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Nothing wrong with taregted socialist policies. Highly desired and works well in many countries and promotes sharing and support for each other, nothing wrong with that.

What countries? 

[tropo]

Perhaps someone already mentioned it earlier in the thread, but Bernie's reply to a reporter was priceless. 

 

Bernie: "on a good day, my wife likes me". 

[scorecard]

34 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What countries? 

Several Scandinavian countries, the national health service and medibank in Australia and New zealand and I understand similar in Canada. Vietnam today a mixed capitalist / socialist country, and works well, China somewhat similar. And more...

 

Actually I wonder why you ask this question, all of this well known to most people, but perhaps not so well known to Americans where is seems the word / concept of socialism is seem as evil. All of course personal opinion.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by scorecard

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Several Scandinavian countries, the national health service and medibank in Australia and New zealand and I understand similar in Canada. Vietnam today a mixed capitalist / socialist country, and works well, China somewhat similar. And more...

Well which one is the best example? 
 

So it’s your position that the US government should be modeled after China? 
 

If not, which? 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

Nothing wrong with taregted socialist policies. Highly desired and works well in many countries and promotes sharing and support for each other, nothing wrong with that.

I liked that he was going to stick it to the rich, but with policies like that he was always going to be sabotaged. No wonder HRC doesn't like him, being rich and all.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

What countries? 

UK has the best socialised medicine, as I know from personal experience of the NHS. NZ is far from as good.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Well which one is the best example? 
 

So it’s your position that the US government should be modeled after China? 
 

If not, which? 

I'm not going to respond to the way you frame your question.

 

Where did I suggest in any way that the US government should be modelled after China? I didn't. You're taking my comment way out of context and that's dishonest. 

 

I repeat, my initial post had no intent whatever in regard to suggesting what the US should do. 

 

I do wonder if your confusing socialiam / deliberately selected factors of creating / maintaining a balanced civil society / good quality of life with old style communism.

 

I would agree that old style communism (as it was implemented) was a dreadful, hideous and sad failure, partly because authoritarian government came into the mix, and in IMHO a total communist / authoritarian government is never ever acceptable. 

 

Socialist policies are different in pretty much all countries where it exists, in some countries it's just mediciine, in some countries socialist policies are in place over several subject areas (e.g. medical and education (and in regard to education creating more equal opportunity).  In many countries it's a mixed socialist / capitalist society / economy. 

 

I'm not suggesting total capitalist and I never would, I am suggesting selected factors being socialized, and 'the factors' is of course open to what citizens want.

 

I'm not going to suggest a model for the US, that's up to the people of the US and not my business. 

 

My thoughts are not about how a 'government is modelled', my thoughts are about discussing / agreeing / implementing policies on some aspects of creating and sustaining a civil society where everybody has an acceptable / good quality of life and more equal opportunities through some aspects of sharing / socialism.

 

Back to the US; I've joined discussions (in Thailand and in other countries) with farang from many countries (not including US folks) who have commented that they scratch their heads in wonder that very large numbers of Americans life in fear of getting sick because the bills would quickly bankrupt them, and in some cases not seeking medical attention because they know they couldn't pay the bills. Where this involved kids it's very sad and unnecessary (just my opinion, you can believe whatever you want, that's your prerogative).

 

I've also joined discussions (in Thailand etc.) with US folks who espouse the same comments, and of course some who don't and make it plain that they see socialised medicine as totally undesirable. And I have a couple of times asked if their comments really mean communism is not wanted, they their reply is usually YES. But of course ask 20 people from any country and you will get 20 different answers. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by scorecard

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, androokery said:

Just guessing here, but people who hate Hillary and "sort of" like Trump, probably have problems with Hillary being a woman in power who is not very attractive...

Could well be true and I answered all of the reasons that another poster put forward as to why he disliked HC intensely, and they were found to be unsubstantiated..........so go figure.

[sucit]

12 hours ago, rabas said:

The image is breathtaking. Hillary endorsing Trump.

 

She just wont endorse Bernie. I don't think she would endorse Trump. 

[sucit]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

What countries? 

All you have to do is look at a list of the countries with the best healthcare.

 

All the ones at the top of the list. 

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

All you have to do is look at a list of the countries with the best healthcare.

 

All the ones at the top of the list. 

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

Yes, but that wasn’t my question. I was asking someone’s opinion, not for a link to leftist propaganda, by thanks for your response. 
 

 

[sucit]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try again. The electoral college was set up to prevent states with large numbers of people being able to elect presidents that the rest of the country did not want. 

States have a number of electoral college votes commensurate with their population. You don't seem to understand how things work at all. You seem to be saying very large states should not have too much power. No, they should and they do... the larger the state the more electoral votes it gets. If everyone in the country moved to California, California would elect the president. Idaho with its 200 people could do nothing about it like you are saying because they would have few if any electoral votes in that case. 

 

Many of the framers who set this up wanted the popular vote to be the decider. The other camp wanted congress to decide (which would be an absolute nightmare). 

 

The result was a compromise, and what you see today. The electoral college. 

 

As to my former point, if you think about what the framers of these laws were trying to accomplish, they were trying to have a system that appeased their adversaries while at the same time elected the candidate who got the popular vote. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by sucit

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, sucit said:

There were only 3 US states in 1787. I do now know why you are asking me to try again. 

 

Many of the framers who set this up wanted the popular vote to be the decider. The other camp wanted congress to decide (which would be an absolute nightmare). 

 

The result was a compromise, and what you see today. The electoral college. 

 

As to my former point, if you think about what the framers of these laws were trying to accomplish, they were trying to have a system that appeased their adversaries while at the same time elected the candidate who got the popular vote. 

Whether or not it’s better the President be elected rather than appointed is arguable, but one could make the same argument for any position. 
 

Prior to the 27th Amendment, when Senators were appointed rather than elected states rights were much more secure. 

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, sucit said:

If you look into Bill Clinton's speaking fees, there was a dramatic increase while Hilary was secretary of state. It is so obvious in so many ways how these people grease the wheels for their corporate friends,

Yep, no different to the current POS and family, with many examples quoted and this one just yesterday...............

 

Donald Trump's inaugural committee spent more than US$1 million to book a ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in the nation's capital as part of a scheme to "grossly overpay" for party space and enrich the president's own family in the process, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

 

 

[sucit]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 If it were a popular vote, the coasts would dominate the center indefinitely just from population alone.

The USA is about ALL the states, not just a few.

No. Not even close. USA is all about the population of states. The states receive a commensurate number of electoral votes according to their population. 

 

So no, you are wrong. If one state housed almost the entire US population, that state would decide the president.

 

In your example, if the coasts housed all the people (as it actually does in large part in a place like Australia), then the coasts would in fact elect the president. 

 

Only on thaivisa could a post this ridiculous and factually wrong be popular. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by sucit

[scorecard]

33 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, but that wasn’t my question. I was asking someone’s opinion, not for a link to leftist propaganda, by thanks for your response. 
 

 

Well on that stat

 

35 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, but that wasn’t my question. I was asking someone’s opinion, not for a link to leftist propaganda, by thanks for your response. 
 

 

 

"So it’s your position that the US government should be modeled after China? "

 

Is that an open question, or is it in a veiled way of claiming that I was suggesting the US should be modeled after China.  Which in reality I did NOT suggest!

 

I'll put a question to you; 'is your position that the US should totally follow all capitalism policies / mechanisms'?

 

 

 

 

[sucit]

58 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes, but that wasn’t my question. I was asking someone’s opinion, not for a link to leftist propaganda, by thanks for your response. 
 

 

If you want one person's opinion, you need to PM them. 

 

You asked "what countries"? in a public forum.

 

It has now been pointed out to you that all the countries with the best healthcare in the world operate under some type of single payer system. 

 

Facts about which healthcare systems provide better care are only "propaganda" to people who have agendas. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by sucit

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Well on that stat

 

 

"So it’s your position that the US government should be modeled after China? "

 

Is that an open question, or is it in a veiled way of claiming that I was suggesting the US should be modeled after China.  Which in reality I did NOT suggest!

 

Both. I understood you to say that any number of systems of government were better than the US. 
 

I asked you which, and one the the countries you mentioned was China. I pointed out China as I thought it was the silliest.

 

Quote

I'll put a question to you; 'is your position that the US should totally follow all capitalism policies / mechanisms'?

I don’t know what the capitalism policies / mechanisms are, but I believe citizens are generally much better served by capitalism than by government. 
 

[sucit]

32 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Yep, no different to the current POS and family, with many examples quoted and this one just yesterday...............

 

Donald Trump's inaugural committee spent more than US$1 million to book a ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in the nation's capital as part of a scheme to "grossly overpay" for party space and enrich the president's own family in the process, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

 

 

Absolutely. No different democrat to republican. In fact, if you look at some of the best reporters nowadays, they will tend to dish out negative stories about both parties, as opposed to the fox news and cnns who are obviously one sided. 

[sucit]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I don’t know what the capitalism policies / mechanisms are
 

Right. I think most posters have figured as much on many topics you participate in. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by sucit

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, sucit said:

You asked "what countries"?

 

It has now been pointed out to you that all the countries with the best healthcare in the world operate under some type of single payer system. 

 

Facts about which healthcare systems provide better care are only "propaganda" to people who have agendas. 

I didn’t know we were only talking about health care, but when someone links to something by the WHO I don’t put much stock in it. 
 

It would take hours for me to go through the study before I could really comment on how I feel about it. 
 

It has been my experience that the government has done much more to ruin my healthcare than improve it.

 

So is it your position that the WHO and others pushing for socialized medicine have an agenda?

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by mogandave
Added question

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, sucit said:

Right. I think most posters have figured as much on many topics you participate in. 

So why don’t you list them and I’ll address them one by one? 
 

Capitalist systems and policies? Hilarious.

[Baerboxer]

On 1/22/2020 at 9:45 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

She got the most votes from American citizens at the last election.

 

You, like her cling on to that meaningless statistic as if she really won.

 

She lost. Because the American POTUS isn't elected on a simple majority.

 

She lost because many states simply didn't want the corrupt old hag.

 

Get over it.

[Baerboxer]

13 minutes ago, sucit said:

Absolutely. No different democrat to republican. In fact, if you look at some of the best reporters nowadays, they will tend to dish out negative stories about both parties, as opposed to the fox news and cnns who are obviously one sided. 

 

Indeed. I read that Biden's brother's firm were involved in over USD 50m aid given by the US to some South American countries. Again apparently without having any relevant experience.

 

If Trump is acquitted, and re-elected and the Republicans get control of Congress back, maybe they'll start forensic accounting of the Obama years. Could be very interesting. Doubt the Biden clan were the only ones feasting at the trough!

[sucit]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You, like her cling on to that meaningless statistic as if she really won.

 

She lost. Because the American POTUS isn't elected on a simple majority.

 

She lost because many states simply didn't want the corrupt old hag.

 

Get over it.

I think it is more accurate to say she lost because the framers failed to come up with a perfect system, using democratically elected presidents as their base assumption. 

 

Constitutional scholars say as much.

 

The electoral college was just a compromise between two groups, one who wanted the people to elect the president, and the other who wanted congress to vote and elect a president. 

 

I personally do not even care. Cross my heart. Foreign policy is the most important issue and Hilary would probably have been worse and more aggressive than Trump. They are both establishment candidates, although I would term Trump as more of an establishment candidate that need constant prodding. 

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, sucit said:

think it is more accurate to say she lost because the framers failed to come up with a perfect system, using democratically elected presidents as their base assumption. 

She lost because she was the worse of two bad contenders.

 

It seems in every recent western election the choice is between two people that nobody really wants.

Edited January 23, 2020 by BritManToo

[sucit]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Indeed. I read that Biden's brother's firm were involved in over USD 50m aid given by the US to some South American countries. Again apparently without having any relevant experience.

 

If Trump is acquitted, and re-elected and the Republicans get control of Congress back, maybe they'll start forensic accounting of the Obama years. Could be very interesting. Doubt the Biden clan were the only ones feasting at the trough!

Biden, Obama and the Clintons are some of the worst offenders. Along with Pelosi and Schumer. And I am a Democrat! 

 

Obama made the bank bailouts possible. The alternatives were bleak, but he essentially socialized risks and privatized gains for banks. The largest outright theft in world history! 

 

Pelosi and Schumer have their fingers in all sorts of dirty little wall street pies. Biden is the same.

 

They are all tools who do the bidding of corporations in order to stuff their own pockets. 

 

"You can't get rich in politics unless you are a crook". Harry Truman

[sucit]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

She lost because she was the worse of two bad contenders.

She'd probably have lost to Bernie as well.

That is exactly the point, "worse" would imply fewer voters like her in a democracy. 

 

Yet, more voters did in fact like her. 

 

You mean in the primary? She beat Bernie. I wish she hadn't of. Even Americans are not dumb enough to pick Trump over Bernie. Trump over Hillary I can see it for sure.