Soundwave said:
Sanders, Biden, or Obama all would've beaten Trump. This is a guy who lost the popular vote by 2 million, the only reason he won is by razor thin margins in three states Democrats have won the last 3-4 election cycles and that was because Clinton had serious baggage in those states (tied to NAFTA, personality of a chalkboard). He is the most unpopular elected president in US history, no one has ever lost the popular vote by that much and still been able to win a presidency. In general Republicans have lost 6 of the last 7 elections by popular vote. Hilary Clinton wasn't a great candidate at stirring enthusiasm, she is poor at giving speeches and poor at campaigning. On the points you can call them "socialist" but those points stand IMO, the majority of Americans favor all 8 of those, and "but they'll tax the middle class" is the classic con job. There isn't much revenue in taxing middle class people, so yes or no, should ultra wealthy and huge corporations pay more tax? This is unanimously a yes. Companies and rich people get away with it by spinning it into "they might tax you hard wurkin Muricans!", lol, because they know the numbers don't favor them on this issue at all. Also keep the ceremoney "seperate" from a relgious cermoney? I don't think most Americans really give a shit honestly about that. If gay people want to be married in whatever ceremony they want that's their business. |
Do you have any evidence that suggests Sanders would have won? Were there any mock polls before Hillary was nominated at the DNC that unanimously showed that communist would have beated our supreme leader Trump?
I was just showing that you putted a socialist spin on those points. I know very well that you, just like every other socialist, are fully convinced that these policies just reflect human progress in general and that they will be accepted worldwide one day. Like my ex-girlfriend said, "everybody is a leftist in their heart, they just don't know it yet". Who knows.
You may not agree that the middle-class is heavily taxed and I may not either, but at least you acknowledge it's quite a popular opinion in political debate and probably among Americans.
How can you really say that most Americans don't give a shit about the formalities of gay marriage? Again I think it's your radically progressive leftist worldview talking. Even in Sweden our leftist politicians gave a shit and made the homosexual marriage separate from the religious ceremony (although the legal procedure can be enacted by priests) and it has a different name, "registrated partnership", while traditional hetero marriage is called "marriage". And knowing that more people in America are religious than in Sweden I'm sure that many care, even if it's just symbolic.