181–190 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that, you should probably bet against her. The oddmakers have her as a pretty significant favorite right now.
Ah yes, do you remember when Jeb! Bush was going to be the Republican nominee? Everyone was very certain about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, do you remember when Jeb! Bush was going to be the Republican nominee? Everyone was very certain about it.
Yeah, before a single vote was cast. The votes are almost entirely in right now, and Sanders would need a miracle.
Its pretty unlikely that either candidate will have a sufficient number of pledged delegates. Hillary seems far ahead because of early statements of support from superdelegates, made at a time when her support numbers (both overall and within the party) were much higher, and here unfavorable ratings with the general election electorate much lower, when no one could imagine any other Democratic candidate garnering anywhere close to as much support through the primary and caucus process, and before she was roundly out fundraised by Sanders.
Now, while the media coverage of delegate counts has largely treated these superdelegate statements of support as equivalent to pledged delegates awarded through the primary and caucus process, they are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump is probably our only chance at stopping this from becoming a reality.
I honestly cannot tell if that is serious, a joke or some kind of irony. I'm not american so really not my business however narcissists do not make good social leaders. They make really terrible & dangerous social leaders.
In actuality, your statement in addition to Pew's research is unfounded and extremely fuzzy. Where do you and others get off on deriving a person's social leadership capabilities with their individual psychological leanings?
Funny to see FDR right near the top of the list, because it has always been a surprisingly unpopular view of his presidency that his Trump-like ability to manipulate the media to his advantage (his fireside chats and his rather quotable speeches) led to the American peoples' renewed confidence in the markets even though it took WWII to truly end the economic hardships more than a decade later. If do wish to wholly agree that narcissism does not make good social leadership, we must then question and re-align the most widely-held views of the 20th century in the US.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/14/the-most-nar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're saying is "statistics might tell one story, but let me tell you, without citing sources or evidence, those statistics are wrong".
No, what he's saying is "your metrics are measuring the wrong things and so it does not matter what numbers pop out of them; they are completely meaningless when it comes to answering the question which is actually important".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>this is what we get when countries still want to dominate each other. The most peaceful, prosperous, and healthy period known in human history?
You're repeating propaganda. May be there's less violence, but the amount of suffering has skyrocketed over the years. A more than significant amount of people are dependent on tranquilizers and anti-depressants to make their life bearable, because for them it has become mundane and meaningless without. Statistiscs may tell a story of less violence, and people getting older and having more material possessions, but t…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War
Your ignorance of history is outstanding and on display. Whatever the TTIP is, it is most certainly not a secret agreement to allow Opium into the Chinese economy to wreak the common people.
We are better and more civilized people today than we were back then. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Afghanistan was always an awful place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War
And there are certainly fewer outright rebellions like the Boxer Rebellion going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion
Of course, Imperialism doesn't actually happen anymore. We don't go to war on 100% false pretenses (yeah, WMDs were bad, but "Remember the Maine to Hell with Spain" was significantly worse)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
The reasoning of the 1900s was that "War is good. Social Darwinism at its finest". Survival of the fittest, lets fight. World War 1 was fought not out of necessity, but out of curiosity. We had new weapons, and we wanted to use them on each other. It was finally time for the great Powers of the World to compete in the glory of War.
We are a hell of a lot more peaceful today. No country actually has the appetite for the amount of warrant-less killing that Imperialism creates. We actually are connected to every other country in the world and care about the citizens of other countries.
In the late 1800s, we didn't even give a damn about the natives of our own country, or Black people, or even Women. (See Jim Crow laws).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
gdp per capita growth as well as sustainable financial situation so that German state can meet its social obligations without a fiscal crisis like in Greece
I live (now) in a country with a GDP per capita an order of magnitude less than the US. Having just come come back from the US. I can say without doubt. There is much less poverty here. The average citizens quality of life here is an order of magnitude better than the us. Funnily enough. Money isn't everything. Stuff like personal freedoms. Social interaction. Inequity are much more important IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're repeating propaganda. May be there's less violence, but the amount of suffering has skyrocketed over the years. A more than significant amount of people are dependent on tranquilizers and anti-depressants to make their life bearable, because for them it has become mundane and meaningless without. Statistiscs may tell a story of less violence, and people getting older and having more material possessions, but t…
"May be there's less violence, but the amount of suffering has skyrocketed over the years. A more than significant amount of people are dependent on tranquilizers and anti-depressants to make their life bearable, because for them it has become mundane and meaningless without." I don't think this is very accurate. People get hooked on painkillers usually because they had some sort of accident and need them for pain...…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
The Treaty of Nanking was basically crafted so that British Merchants can continue to get China hopped up on Opium. Because it was so profitable.
And people think today's trade deals are bad...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm now wondering is, can the WTO bully US and EU states in the way it can bully third world countries? What if renegade states across both sides of the Atlantic decided to disregard the treaty and the fines that will follow immediately? What will the WTO do then? Sanction them?
I need help in argumenting: What's the difference between the EU-US WTO agreements and the TTIP, apart from the former being from the XXth century. Aren't we happier and wealthier since the WTO exists? Please don't tell me about how a treaty should be voted on by the people, because I already agree about this part.
Direct democracy in diplomacy and trade negotiation sounds like a really terrible idea. It would just be constant protectionism, xenophobia and probably ruin economic growth and everyone will be the worse of for it. Sometimes giving more people a voice does not result in positive outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most likely outcome of this is that exports are sold at the price they are at now, not cheaper. The workers are paid the same as they are now, (which is the market rate). And the difference in what's normal and cost savings from TTIP will go to company bottom line. And the top officers at the company will collect a performance bonus. The unlikely scenario is that the price comes down and more units are sold and/o…
And the company and the executives pay taxes from the bottom line Thus, according to your own logic, the state, which pays social security and benefits is better off and is more fiscally sound
Seems the companies want to have it both ways. Not pay much and have the state provide assistance for underpaid workers (see Walmart) and then complain about taxes too high.