I don't think Clinton does herself any favours. She appears unashamedly corporatist, a liar due to the Benghazi email scandal, and probably seen as using her husband's kudos to further her own ambitions.
Did you see her victory speech last night? In addition to appear condescending, she actually appeared to be rather drunk; she seems to be slurring somewhat. If she wasn't, she is one awful speaker. Can you imagine her against Trump in a debate? It should be fun to watch.
I don't have much of a view on her. However, how people could decide she is extremely unpleasant merely because she has been in executive office in the USA (ie is part of the establishment) was something that I found curious.
johnhemming2 wrote:I don't have much of a view on her. However, how people could decide she is extremely unpleasant merely because she has been in executive office in the USA (ie is part of the establishment) was something that I found curious.
Absolutely - the extreme nature of many different opinions these days, especially when there's poor data or large uncertainty is curious. How come, as the world has never been more uncertain, people's opinions are so solid and extreme?
Hillary Clinton will seize the nomination. And she will lose to Donald Trump.
Polling Doesn’t Matter
I know, here people are going to say “Look at the polls! They show Hillary winning against Trump!” But there are three big issues here:
First, polling several months prior to a race is not terribly predictive in general.
Second, Trump has consistently confounded polls and projections that predicted he could never win (ditto for Sanders, for that matter). Ceteris paribus, there is no reason to believe these dynamics would fundamentally change in the general election: Trump has been antifragile—rising ever-higher despite (in many respects because of) scandals and gaffes that would have ruined most campaigns. The ridiculous amounts of money being spent on negative ads against him in critical states seem to be totally wasted.
Third, there are currently six candidates in the race, and the hope that another candidate may ultimately win the nomination affects how people perceive theoretical head-to-head matchups. When the only possible candidates are Trump v. Clinton, the public is going to break towards Trump.
Good article which outlines how Trump can win the presidency.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
clv101 wrote:
Absolutely - the extreme nature of many different opinions these days, especially when there's poor data or large uncertainty is curious. How come, as the world has never been more uncertain, people's opinions are so solid and extreme?
I suppose it is akin to the common view (at least a couple of days ago) that Ian Duncan Smith was the spawn of Satan.
This election gets more and more and more ridiculous.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
emordnilap wrote:This election gets more and more and more ridiculous.
It will only get worse as things progress. Did you take a look at any of the samples? It's staggering what wares people will try to haw in this election year...
johnhemming2 wrote:I don't have much of a view on her. However, how people could decide she is extremely unpleasant merely because she has been in executive office in the USA (ie is part of the establishment) was something that I found curious.
It's not just because of her being part of the establishment, John, it's because she is seen to belong to the corporations. Her unwavering support of the Monsantos and Microsofts of this world put her beyond the pale with many voters. Trump and Sanders are seen to be clean in this regard, as is Jeremy Corbyn, and is the reason why they are pulling previously non voting people into contention in elections both in the US and here.
AutomaticEarth wrote:Yes indeed. Americans minds do boggle at our attempts to commit suicide in Europe. My friends in the US cannot believe what has happened.
America has a far, far larger indigenous terrorist problem than Europe... In fact, I bet Americans themselves carry out more attacks per capita than Europe's recent arrivals.
The aim of Islamic terrorism in Europe is specifically to turn European societies against Muslems. So if you're exploiting the Brussels attacks to push your
islamophobic, anti-immigration agenda you are nothing but a useful idiot in the servise of ISIS.
I've never heard of Gary Dunion and from the piece quoted I don't think I need to hear of him again. Anyone who thinks that inviting half the Muslim world into the EU is going to stop Islamic terror is "nothing but a useful idiot in the servise(sic) of ISIS". If we let all those people into Europe with the expectation of jobs and a better life we are going to get violence either from disenchanted immigrants who find that there aren't enough jobs and that we can't afford to give them the wonderful things that they expect or from the disenfranchised poor of Europe who find themselves pushed out of the jobs that have been taken by migrants.
Last edited by kenneal - lagger on 23 Mar 2016, 02:03, edited 1 time in total.
I visited an American friend today. Her mum back in the states had rung her in a panic this morning because she had heard that 'Europe had declared war on ISIS'. My friend is million times more likely to die of her American diet of sugar sweetened with sugar than she is in a terror attack.
I think a larger attack from ISIS or followers is likely at some point in the UK, but I still think I am more likely to be struck by lightning than to be affected directly by it.
PS_RalphW wrote:I visited an American friend today. Her mum back in the states had rung her in a panic this morning because she had heard that 'Europe had declared war on ISIS'. My friend is million times more likely to die of her American diet of sugar sweetened with sugar than she is in a terror attack.
I think a larger attack from ISIS or followers is likely at some point in the UK, but I still think I am more likely to be struck by lightning than to be affected directly by it.
Three man attacks that shut down major airports and subway systems for a day or more cost us a lot of time and money. That is where they plan to bleed us. The body count is of little consequence.
And they want us to up all the "security" crap. Turn us away from being an open society. That would add to the financial cost for sure, but the other (social, trust etc) cost is what they've got their sights set on.
I have my own theory as to why "the west" has it in for Islam, and it's nothing to do with oil, or even energy.
