Bernie Sanders in McDowell County

For anyone who thinks Trump’s victory last November signaled a marked shift to the Right in American politics:
According to a Fox News poll, Senator Bernie Sanders– a self-styled democratic socialist– is apparently the most popular politician in America.


[ltr]
View image on Twitter
[/ltr]

 Follow
Dave Weigel 

✔@daveweigel
[ltr]Favorable ratings from Fox poll:Bernie +29[/ltr]


[ltr]Planned Parenthood +25
Warren +8
Pence +4
Obamacare +3
Trump -9
Ryan -10[/ltr]

10:32 PM - 15 Mar 2017

Sanders appeared this week at a town hall in McDowell County, West Virginia, the poorest county in the state, which voted 74 percent for Trump over Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the audience represented the county’s radical leftwing fringe, but it’s remarkable to watch how Sanders connected with people in a way that Clinton never could.

I’ll admit I scoffed at the idea that Sanders could have defeated Trump if he had been the Democratic candidate for president last year. Now I wouldn’t have bet on him losing.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/03/16/bernie-sanders-in-mcdowell-county/

Right. Pundits agree. They say the mood of the country was not left or right, but a shitfest in which the voters just wanted to shake things up.

Quite possibly, with that motive, voters could have gone for either Trump or Sanders. McDowell County is receiving a lot of attention because of this.

Oddly enough, at 75, Sanders does represent the future of the Democratic Party. In a way, he also represents its past -- when Democrats were the proud, fight-in-the-trenches party of the working class, thumbing their noses at Wall Street and corporations.

I think where Sanders and Trump got a bit ahead of the curve as opposed to the Democratic leadership is that they recognized that the American public is no longer turned off by proposals of government economic intervention. A good portion of Trump's platform is economic intervention, after all -- you literally cannot bring jobs to or keep jobs in America without jumping into the economy and becoming a player.

What's sad is that Trump not only hijacked a dusty Democratic plank just when the American public was ready to embrace it, but he has no intention of doing it the way the Democrats would have -- i.e. to benefit the American people. Instead, he's using the plank the way Republicans have traditionally used things like abortion or gay rights -- campaign on them, use them to gain power, then ignore them and count on the public tuning out after the election is over.

whinge whinge ....

wheres the attribution and acknowlegement to your signature...or are you claiming it as your own work?

whinge whine .........

after all Tommy got roasted for omitting a reference not so long back....

Ben Reilly wrote:Oddly enough, at 75, Sanders does represent the future of the Democratic Party. In a way, he also represents its past -- when Democrats were the proud, fight-in-the-trenches party of the working class, thumbing their noses at Wall Street and corporations.

I think where Sanders and Trump got a bit ahead of the curve as opposed to the Democratic leadership is that they recognized that the American public is no longer turned off by proposals of government economic intervention. A good portion of Trump's platform is economic intervention, after all -- you literally cannot bring jobs to or keep jobs in America without jumping into the economy and becoming a player.

What's sad is that Trump not only hijacked a dusty Democratic plank just when the American public was ready to embrace it, but he has no intention of doing it the way the Democrats would have -- i.e. to benefit the American people. Instead, he's using the plank the way Republicans have traditionally used things like abortion or gay rights -- campaign on them, use them to gain power, then ignore them and count on the public tuning out after the election is over.

Do you remember a while back Ben when you dismissed Sanders due to his age and backed Clinton?

Clearly many Democrats backed the wrong candidate in Clinton, when they wrongly saw her as the safe bet. Yet what it did was divide the democrat vote. With many Sanders supporters failing to turn out and vote for Clinton.

He was always the safer bet, even if again I do not share his foreign policies views.

You should have listened to me on this and not dismissed him due to his age.

Ben wrote:Oddly enough, at 75, Sanders does represent the future of the Democratic Party. In a way, he also represents its past -- when Democrats were the proud, fight-in-the-trenches party of the working class, thumbing their noses at Wall Street and corporations.

I think where Sanders and Trump got a bit ahead of the curve as opposed to the Democratic leadership is that they recognized that the American public is no longer turned off by proposals of government economic intervention. A good portion of Trump's platform is economic intervention, after all -- you literally cannot bring jobs to or keep jobs in America without jumping into the economy and becoming a player.

What's sad is that Trump not only hijacked a dusty Democratic plank just when the American public was ready to embrace it, but he has no intention of doing it the way the Democrats would have -- i.e. to benefit the American people. Instead, he's using the plank the way Republicans have traditionally used things like abortion or gay rights -- campaign on them, use them to gain power, then ignore them and count on the public tuning out after the election is over.

Xltn points.  Democrats are populists, and remember that Trump was once a Democrat.  His instincts are populist, although he is definitely a northeast mercantile-minded businessman.

This is all part of the fracturing of the Republican Party.  Ryan is a straight-out no-government conservative.  Trump is sympathetic to populism, although Trump lacks the intelligence to create a consistent ideology of his own.

Anyway, the Russian connection is confusing everything now.  Trump has deeper threats, closer to his pocket book.  He's not even in it for politics; he's busy trying to save his ass.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Oddly enough, at 75, Sanders does represent the future of the Democratic Party. In a way, he also represents its past -- when Democrats were the proud, fight-in-the-trenches party of the working class, thumbing their noses at Wall Street and corporations.

I think where Sanders and Trump got a bit ahead of the curve as opposed to the Democratic leadership is that they recognized that the American public is no longer turned off by proposals of government economic intervention. A good portion of Trump's platform is economic intervention, after all -- you literally cannot bring jobs to or keep jobs in America without jumping into the economy and becoming a player.

What's sad is that Trump not only hijacked a dusty Democratic plank just when the American public was ready to embrace it, but he has no intention of doing it the way the Democrats would have -- i.e. to benefit the American people. Instead, he's using the plank the way Republicans have traditionally used things like abortion or gay rights -- campaign on them, use them to gain power, then ignore them and count on the public tuning out after the election is over.

Do you remember a while back Ben when you dismissed Sanders due to his age and backed Clinton?

Clearly many Democrats backed the wrong candidate in Clinton, when they wrongly saw her as the safe bet. Yet what it did was divide the democrat vote. With many Sanders supporters failing to turn out and vote for Clinton.

He was always the safer bet, even if again I do not share his foreign policies views.

You should have listened to me on this and not dismissed him due to his age.

It wasn't just his age by a long shot (Clinton is just a few years younger). I favored Clinton over Sanders for these reasons:

1. Clinton promised incremental improvement to Obamacare. Sanders promised universal Medicare. Her proposal would have had far more realistic chances in Congress. Other differences in policy underscored Clinton's realism vs. Sanders' idealism, such as universal college education.

2. Clinton has a vast amount of foreign policy experience and was in the situation room during the raid on bin Laden's compound. Obama referred to her this way: "... I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman—not me, not Bill, nobody—more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America."

3. Clinton served in the U.S. Senate and lived in the White House, giving her far more experience with the workings of Washington D.C. than Sanders.

4. Sanders was speaking in revolutionary terms when America clearly did not need a revolution. The country was under 5 percent unemployment, had relatively few military entanglements and had recently ensured that 20 million more people had health insurance. The country needed a dial-tweaker, not a man with a sledgehammer, and the fact that Clinton won the popular vote underlines that that's how the American people felt, too.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Do you remember a while back Ben when you dismissed Sanders due to his age and backed Clinton?

Clearly many Democrats backed the wrong candidate in Clinton, when they wrongly saw her as the safe bet. Yet what it did was divide the democrat vote. With many Sanders supporters failing to turn out and vote for Clinton.

He was always the safer bet, even if again I do not share his foreign policies views.

You should have listened to me on this and not dismissed him due to his age.

It wasn't just his age by a long shot (Clinton is just a few years younger). I favored Clinton over Sanders for these reasons:

1. Clinton promised incremental improvement to Obamacare. Sanders promised universal Medicare. Her proposal would have had far more realistic chances in Congress. Other differences in policy underscored Clinton's realism vs. Sanders' idealism, such as universal college education.

2. Clinton has a vast amount of foreign policy experience and was in the situation room during the raid on bin Laden's compound. Obama referred to her this way: "... I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman—not me, not Bill, nobody—more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America."

3. Clinton served in the U.S. Senate and lived in the White House, giving her far more experience with the workings of Washington D.C. than Sanders.

4. Sanders was speaking in revolutionary terms when America clearly did not need a revolution. The country was under 5 percent unemployment, had relatively few military entanglements and had recently ensured that 20 million more people had health insurance. The country needed a dial-tweaker, not a man with a sledgehammer, and the fact that Clinton won the popular vote underlines that that's how the American people felt, too.

Well as seen you picked the wrong horse and to your cost Ben

Now you have Trump..

Clinton was never somebody to be trusted.

You did though at the time dismiss him due to his age, remember?

What I will concede, however, is that another big lesson the Democrats should take out of this election is that you have to engage the electorate on an emotional level, or you're at a big disadvantage. Obama did that, and to a lesser and much darker degree, so did Trump.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Do you remember a while back Ben when you dismissed Sanders due to his age and backed Clinton?

Clearly many Democrats backed the wrong candidate in Clinton, when they wrongly saw her as the safe bet. Yet what it did was divide the democrat vote. With many Sanders supporters failing to turn out and vote for Clinton.

He was always the safer bet, even if again I do not share his foreign policies views.

You should have listened to me on this and not dismissed him due to his age.

It wasn't just his age by a long shot (Clinton is just a few years younger). I favored Clinton over Sanders for these reasons:

1. Clinton promised incremental improvement to Obamacare. Sanders promised universal Medicare. Her proposal would have had far more realistic chances in Congress. Other differences in policy underscored Clinton's realism vs. Sanders' idealism, such as universal college education.

2. Clinton has a vast amount of foreign policy experience and was in the situation room during the raid on bin Laden's compound. Obama referred to her this way: "... I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman—not me, not Bill, nobody—more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America."

3. Clinton served in the U.S. Senate and lived in the White House, giving her far more experience with the workings of Washington D.C. than Sanders.

4. Sanders was speaking in revolutionary terms when America clearly did not need a revolution. The country was under 5 percent unemployment, had relatively few military entanglements and had recently ensured that 20 million more people had health insurance. The country needed a dial-tweaker, not a man with a sledgehammer, and the fact that Clinton won the popular vote underlines that that's how the American people felt, too.

Well as seen you picked the wrong horse and to your cost Ben

Now you have Trump..

Clinton was never somebody to be trusted.

You did though at the time dismiss him due to his age, remember?

Why exactly would I not trust Clinton? Or, let me rephrase -- why would I trust Clinton less than Obama or her husband?

And I never dismissed him merely on the basis of his age, though I did say that would not be a strength in the election. I would prefer to see every presidential candidate, all things being equal, be in their 40s or 50s. One eye on the needs of the aging, but not that far removed from the concerns of the young.

Ben Reilly wrote:What I will concede, however, is that another big lesson the Democrats should take out of this election is that you have to engage the electorate on an emotional level, or you're at a big disadvantage. Obama did that, and to a lesser and much darker degree, so did Trump.

Well, I would have been interested to see how the Trump propaganda machine would have attempted to deligitimize Sanders and how it could have badly backfired on them.
I think Sanders did reach out to voters on an emotional level.
I just think you bought into Clintons policies to easily and never gave his a chance

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well as seen you picked the wrong horse and to your cost Ben

Now you have Trump..

Clinton was never somebody to be trusted.

You did though at the time dismiss him due to his age, remember?

Why exactly would I not trust Clinton? Or, let me rephrase -- why would I trust Clinton less than Obama or her husband?

And I never dismissed him merely on the basis of his age, though I did say that would not be a strength in the election. I would prefer to see every presidential candidate, all things being equal, be in their 40s or 50s. One eye on the needs of the aging, but not that far removed from the concerns of the young.

You did at the time Ben
You said he was too old and I called you ageist for doing so.
Do you not remember?
I would not trust the Clintons or someone who stays with their husband, when he is banging every single woman that breaths.
Where was her dignity and integrity?

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:What I will concede, however, is that another big lesson the Democrats should take out of this election is that you have to engage the electorate on an emotional level, or you're at a big disadvantage. Obama did that, and to a lesser and much darker degree, so did Trump.

Well, I would have been interested to see how the Trump propaganda machine would have attempted to deligitimize Sanders and how it could have badly backfired on them.
I think Sanders did reach out to voters on an emotional level.
I just think you bought into Clintons policies to easily and never gave his a chance

I agree 1,000,000,000 percent with Sanders' policies! But they wouldn't be realistic with the GOP in charge of the House. There was no way he was going to get a tenth of his agenda across. I went with the realist.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well, I would have been interested to see how the Trump propaganda machine would have attempted to deligitimize Sanders and how it could have badly backfired on them.
I think Sanders did reach out to voters on an emotional level.
I just think you bought into Clintons policies to easily and never gave his a chance

I agree 1,000,000,000 percent with Sanders' policies! But they wouldn't be realistic with the GOP in charge of the House. There was no way he was going to get a tenth of his agenda across. I went with the realist.

Which is like I said, you never gave him a chance. Who is to say, if you and others had of done?

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well as seen you picked the wrong horse and to your cost Ben

Now you have Trump..

Clinton was never somebody to be trusted.

You did though at the time dismiss him due to his age, remember?

Why exactly would I not trust Clinton? Or, let me rephrase -- why would I trust Clinton less than Obama or her husband?

And I never dismissed him merely on the basis of his age, though I did say that would not be a strength in the election. I would prefer to see every presidential candidate, all things being equal, be in their 40s or 50s. One eye on the needs of the aging, but not that far removed from the concerns of the young.

You did at the time Ben
You said he was too old and I called you ageist for doing so.
Do you not remember?
I would not trust the Clintons or someone who stays with their husband, when he is banging every single woman that breaths.
Where was her dignity and integrity?

I have no idea how the Clintons navigated that and don't particularly care. I would never, ever, EVER cast a cheated-upon wife who forgives her husband as having no dignity or integrity -- that's a shitty thing to say.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well, I would have been interested to see how the Trump propaganda machine would have attempted to deligitimize Sanders and how it could have badly backfired on them.
I think Sanders did reach out to voters on an emotional level.
I just think you bought into Clintons policies to easily and never gave his a chance

I agree 1,000,000,000 percent with Sanders' policies! But they wouldn't be realistic with the GOP in charge of the House. There was no way he was going to get a tenth of his agenda across. I went with the realist.

Which is like I said, you never gave him a chance. Who is to say, if you and others had of done?

I'm here to tell you now -- we have a Congress completely controlled by the Republicans, along with a conservative Supreme Court. Sanders would have been rendered utterly ineffectual in that scenario.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You did at the time Ben
You said he was too old and I called you ageist for doing so.
Do you not remember?
I would not trust the Clintons or someone who stays with their husband, when he is banging every single woman that breaths.
Where was her dignity and integrity?

I have no idea how the Clintons navigated that and don't particularly care. I would never, ever, EVER cast a cheated-upon wife who forgives her husband as having no dignity or integrity -- that's a shitty thing to say.

Its not shitty, but 100% true.
Many women would not respect her for doing so and why would they?
They basically lead separate lives anyway.
A strong and bold woman, would have divorced him for what he did to her.
It sends out all the wrong messages to those who are prolific cheaters and those who suffer through this.
You are not the judge to claim what is shitty.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Which is like I said, you never gave him a chance. Who is to say, if you and others had of done?

I'm here to tell you now -- we have a Congress completely controlled by the Republicans, along with a conservative Supreme Court. Sanders would have been rendered utterly ineffectual in that scenario.

I am here to tell you now, that you are a defeatist.

You have zero hope or belief in people, by the above

Trump winning, might have made you realise that

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You did at the time Ben
You said he was too old and I called you ageist for doing so.
Do you not remember?
I would not trust the Clintons or someone who stays with their husband, when he is banging every single woman that breaths.
Where was her dignity and integrity?

I have no idea how the Clintons navigated that and don't particularly care. I would never, ever, EVER cast a cheated-upon wife who forgives her husband as having no dignity or integrity -- that's a shitty thing to say.

Its not shitty, but 100% true.
Many women would not respect her for doing so and why would they?
They basically lead separate lives anyway.
A strong and bold woman, would have divorced him for what he did to her.
It sends out all the wrong messages to those who are prolific cheaters and those who suffer through this.
You are not the judge to claim what is shitty.

Yeah, I am -- if you get to judge that she has no dignity or integrity for keeping her family together, even though you have absolutely no information on how they worked through it, what was said, what was done, what promises were made, etc., then I at the very least get to say it's a shitty thing to say. That's how free expression works -- two-way street.

As far as other cheaters, it is nobody else's responsibility to do anything about their behavior!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not shitty, but 100% true.
Many women would not respect her for doing so and why would they?
They basically lead separate lives anyway.
A strong and bold woman, would have divorced him for what he did to her.
It sends out all the wrong messages to those who are prolific cheaters and those who suffer through this.
You are not the judge to claim what is shitty.

Yeah, I am -- if you get to judge that she has no dignity or integrity for keeping her family together, even though you have absolutely no information on how they worked through it, what was said, what was done, what promises were made, etc., then I at the very least get to say it's a shitty thing to say. That's how free expression works -- two-way street.

Wow so she stays for the sake of the children and continues to suffer out of this. What you are saying then is that single parents and divorced parents cannot raise children well.
Now that is a shitty thing to stay.
To excuse her staying for the children is as low as you can get, how dare you.
She has zero integrity for staying married to someone who treated her like a piece of shit.
You have just proven, you are not fit to judge on this, when you just insulted countless parents, who you have deemed unfit, because to you they must stay with prolific cheaters, in order to raise their children.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not shitty, but 100% true.
Many women would not respect her for doing so and why would they?
They basically lead separate lives anyway.
A strong and bold woman, would have divorced him for what he did to her.
It sends out all the wrong messages to those who are prolific cheaters and those who suffer through this.
You are not the judge to claim what is shitty.

Yeah, I am -- if you get to judge that she has no dignity or integrity for keeping her family together, even though you have absolutely no information on how they worked through it, what was said, what was done, what promises were made, etc., then I at the very least get to say it's a shitty thing to say. That's how free expression works -- two-way street.

Wow so she stays for the sake of the children and continues to suffer out of this. What you are saying then is that single parents and divorced parents cannot raise children well.
Now that is a shitty thing to stay.
To excuse her staying for the children is as low as you can get, how dare you.
She has zero integrity for staying married to someone who treated her like a piece of shit.
You have just proven, you are not fit to judge on this, when you just insulted countless parents, who you have deemed unfit, because to you they must stay with prolific cheaters, in order to raise their children.

I never said anything of the sort, you're twisting my words. I said she chose to keep her family together. I never condemned people with children who get divorced.

You're looking really desperate.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wow so she stays for the sake of the children and continues to suffer out of this. What you are saying then is that single parents and divorced parents cannot raise children well.
Now that is a shitty thing to stay.
To excuse her staying for the children is as low as you can get, how dare you.
She has zero integrity for staying married to someone who treated her like a piece of shit.
You have just proven, you are not fit to judge on this, when you just insulted countless parents, who you have deemed unfit, because to you they must stay with prolific cheaters, in order to raise their children.

I never said anything of the sort, you're twisting my words. I said she chose to keep her family together. I never condemned people with children who get divorced.

You're looking really desperate.

Nothing twisted.
You are saying that a family must stay together out of love and unhappy, for the sake of the children, by keeping them together.
IE, thus, that is the best way to raise children.
That means any other way is worse
And then you end with a copout deflection, grow up.
So you are defending her staying off the worst excuse going and that the family could not clearly do well, if they divorced.
That places her with zero integrity

There were a few threads around at the time of the US election and I criticised Clinton for staying with her husband for the reasons mentioned.

However, didge, you was an active member on Flap at the time and so never gave your opinion on this over here, (Quill and I often debated it), but I think, no Im pretty certain that you'd have condemned me for saying that and taken the stance that Ben has taken now.

eddie wrote:There were a few threads around at the time of the US election and I criticised Clinton for staying with her husband for the reasons mentioned.

However, didge, you was an active member on Flap at the time and so never gave your opinion on this over here, (Quill and I often debated it), but I think, no Im pretty certain that you'd have condemned me for saying that and taken the stance that Ben has taken now.

So since I have never commented, as I was not here. How can you come to that piss poor conclusion, as I have now given my view here?
Seriously, do you defend Ben, when wrong, simply due to you getting on so well, that you just invent lies about my views?
Why would I condemn you on this, please list your reasons and they better be good?
As otherwise I think I deserve an apology

Because I've seen you condemn lots of people on here for having opinions on people - you often preach on others judging people.

I'm not actually defending Ben (I would if you were being disrespectful) -and I don't even agree with him on this about Clinton (thought I'd just made that clear?) but what I am doing, is pulling you up for what I believe to be true: if I'd said Clinton would lose a lot of women's respect ergo votes, because of staying with her lying, cheating husband, you would have jumped all over me. You would have accused me of being "judgemental and jealous" (you say it ALL the time).

And I will prove it to you the very next time you do it because you do it often.

And didge? If you challenge others, expect to be challenged yourself.

eddie wrote:Because I've seen you condemn lots of people on here for having opinions on people - you often preach on others judging people.

I'm not actually defending Ben (I would if you were being disrespectful) -and I don't even agree with him on this about Clinton (thought I'd just made that clear?) but what I am doing, is pulling you up for what I believe to be true: if I'd said Clinton would lose a lot of women's respect ergo votes, because of staying with her lying, cheating husband, you would have jumped  all over me. You would have accused me of being "judgemental and jealous" (you say it ALL the time).

And I will prove it to you the very next time you do it because you do it often.

And didge? If you challenge others, expect to be challenged yourself.

So you have no reasons other than on judgement, not anything on prolific cheaters of divorce

You are defending him, because your only defense is that I say its wrong to be judgmental.

It is wrong to judge, that does not mean sometimes I judge also and do so on here also and quite often in fact. I even did today already

It only makes me a hypocrite when judging, not on my views of those who stay with prolific cheaters

You owe me an apology for lying on my views

You want to call me a hypocrite, fine

I owe you an apology, for what? For my opinion?
No. I don't say sorry often but when I do I mean it and I certainly don't owe you an apology.

You can disagree with me by all means but it's not going to change my mind and I think you may also know it's true anyway.

eddie wrote:I owe you an apology, for what? For my opinion?
No. I don't say sorry often but when I do I mean it and I certainly don't owe you an apology.

You can disagree with me by all means but it's not going to change my mind and I think you may also know it's true anyway.

You claimed I would have judged you on something I would have agreed with you on.

You owe me an apology and it shows your poor bias coming out here is based on emotion and not reason

I would not have condemned you on this and have agreed on things where you have judged people before

Of which you know to be true also

So you are being disingenuous here Eddie and badly

At least I understand you place friendship over reason here

Not concerned that you do not apologize, it was simply a test and you failed.

Oh do bore off with your 'testing and failing' bollocks, I'm not a car and you're not performing an MOT. I gave an opinion on you and you disagree with my opinion - like you were ever going to admit it - and I'm supposed to apologise for what, exactly?

Give it up. I obviously hit a nerve.

eddie wrote:Oh do bore off with your 'testing and failing' bollocks, I'm not a car and you're not performing an MOT.  I gave an opinion on you and you disagree with my opinion - like you were ever going to admit it - and I'm supposed to apologise for what, exactly?

Give it up. I obviously hit a nerve.

No nerve hit.
Now you made a claim and as seen its wrong.
I can prove I have already judged people today, which means I fall foul of doing so.
That was the only bases for your accusation, that I think its wrong to judge. Not anything on my actual views.
Now you have also claimed its wrong to judge, which would make you placed into the same position as me.
You made a poor accusation, not out of reason but out of the defense of a friend.
Noble, but in doing so you made a falsified accusation, which you even now are defending.

Now again I agree with you on the position of people who stay with prolific cheaters.

I don't want or need you to apologise, only humble and honest people do that. When they know they were wrong. You know my position on this and whether I judged or not, my view would be in agreement with you.

I am happy to leave you feeling silly here. On what must go down as the worst defense for someone you disagree with (Ben) on this and where you agree with me on this and yet chose to openly lie or were mistaken here, accusing me.

Hey ho

What a load of waffle. I told you my reasons but still you make your own up. You don't need someone to be present in a debate really, do you?

eddie wrote:What a load of waffle. I told you my reasons but still you make your own up. You don't need someone to be present in a debate really, do you?

You had one reason, which as seen was based on judging people, not any views.
I have and do judge daily, which proves your opinion wrong.
What is even worse. Is for you to think I would support parents staying together, in a loveless marriage especially with a prolific cheater. When I know so much about psychology and the many possible consequential problems,of where people stay together for the sake of the kids.
That more than anything is why you are so wrong, insulting and to even accuse me on this is as seen. Is based not on reason but because you did not like me being in disagreement with Ben.

Only one way to describe you for this here.

Pathetic

Your post above proves you have no idea what we are talking about. I give up.
You're totally not listening.

eddie wrote:Your post above proves you have no idea what we are talking about. I give up.
You're totally not listening.

Really, so you think its good for unhappy couples or people cheated on to stay with the kids or not?
No, you are being dishonest Eddie and made a hole for yourself you have not the decency to admit you were wrong on.

Read my first post Didge because that is what we are discussing. Jesus Christ.

Ben Reilly wrote:What I will concede, however, is that another big lesson the Democrats should take out of this election is that you have to engage the electorate on an emotional level, or you're at a big disadvantage. Obama did that, and to a lesser and much darker degree, so did Trump.

I think didge makes a good point, tho: the Democrats had no good candidate. Sanders would have suffered the same fate as George McGovern: old man, unorthodox ideas; marginal enthusiasm, but not a plurality. But if this election taught us one thing, it is that America will never elect a woman for president. The American presidential role is theater, and it's a male role. Any way Clinton played it, she was going to look like a female trying to fill out a size 44 suit. Pelosi, bless her heart, suffers the same fate, but she is chosen by fellow legislators.

Effectively, that left the Democrats without a candidate, which is didge's point. And...they still don't have one.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:What I will concede, however, is that another big lesson the Democrats should take out of this election is that you have to engage the electorate on an emotional level, or you're at a big disadvantage. Obama did that, and to a lesser and much darker degree, so did Trump.

I think didge makes a good point, tho: the Democrats had no good candidate.  Sanders would have suffered the same fate as George McGovern: old man, unorthodox ideas; marginal enthusiasm, but not a plurality.  But if this election taught us one thing, it is that America will never elect a woman for president.  The American presidential role is theater, and it's a male role.  Any way Clinton played it, she was going to look like a female trying to fill out a size 44 suit.  Pelosi, bless her heart, suffers the same fate, but she is chosen by fellow legislators.

Effectively, that left the Democrats without a candidate, which is didge's point.  And...they still don't have one.

Its not all my point, but a major point.
When you have two strong candidates, it can effect the voting outcome, on then who is chosen to be the candidate. And this did actually happen.
So thank you Quill

eddie wrote:Read my first post Didge because that is what we are discussing. Jesus Christ.

Eddie, I have no problem with you having opinions.
You made a claim, of which you cannot back up.
Like I said, you dug a hole and its so deep, you cannot get out of.

I would not have judged you for your views on this to Ben or Quill.

In fact, I would have defended you.
Show some integrity for goodness sake

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You did at the time Ben
You said he was too old and I called you ageist for doing so.
Do you not remember?
I would not trust the Clintons or someone who stays with their husband, when he is banging every single woman that breaths.
Where was her dignity and integrity?

I have no idea how the Clintons navigated that and don't particularly care. I would never, ever, EVER cast a cheated-upon wife who forgives her husband as having no dignity or integrity -- that's a shitty thing to say.

Its not shitty, but 100% true.
Many women would not respect her for doing so and why would they?
They basically lead separate lives anyway.
A strong and bold woman, would have divorced him for what he did to her.
It sends out all the wrong messages to those who are prolific cheaters and those who suffer through this.
You are not the judge to claim what is shitty.

Why do you expect a western woman to dump a cheating husband but make excuses for a Muslim women keeping a abusive husband ??

Hypocrisy and double standards

Both women have choices that have consequences and NEED to make a choice and then live with the consequences of that Choice (like everyone else)

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not shitty, but 100% true.
Many women would not respect her for doing so and why would they?
They basically lead separate lives anyway.
A strong and bold woman, would have divorced him for what he did to her.
It sends out all the wrong messages to those who are prolific cheaters and those who suffer through this.
You are not the judge to claim what is shitty.

Why do you expect a western woman to dump a cheating husband but make excuses for a Muslim women keeping a abusive husband ??

Hypocrisy and double standards

Both women have choices that have consequences and NEED to make a choice and then live with the consequences of that Choice (like everyone else)

Wow yet more lies.
Show me anywhere, that I have stated that a Muslim woman should stay with her cheating Husband>
Then go wash your mouth out with soap
As I never have.
I said many are unable to do so, due to fears of being ostracized, murdered etc.
Then I also expect you to apologies.

Wow some Moderators are showing up how incompetent and liars they are of late lol

I did original PM this to you Eddie, but as you were being a liar, I thought, stuff it. I am just going to prove you lied. As I do judge others and by defending you.

Thorin wrote:

nicko wrote:The only problem I have with you is you saying you don't give a fuck about our[your] country,when many men died so that you could say what you like without fear of being arrested,   but of course you didn't think of that did you?

Nicko you are bang out of order to Eddie here.

She has not served or would even feel how you feel and you expect her to feel as you do.

Just like I told off sassy for this, you should not expect others to understand how or what you go through.

Some won;t and even I will find it difficult, but I can at least attempt to try to.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t20015-nicko-have-your-say