Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

132 Excellent

About sucit

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That has been true. Bernie is coming closer than anyone to breaking that rule however. We will see how it turns out you very well may be right yet again. I hope not.
  2. You do not need to go through studies. There are charts online showing you US healthcare outcomes are worse while they spend more than the countries with single payer and government run systems like NHS. It is a known fact to everyone in the world, except certain people in the US for reasons I am sure we all know.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. I would like to see these two in a head on head debate. I think it would be close. Which is kinda pathetic for Trump.
  7. Right. I think most posters have figured as much on many topics you participate in.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. She just wont endorse Bernie. I don't think she would endorse Trump.
  14. Easy to predict. Her and everything she represents is put at risk if Bernie is president. She has even gone as far as to say she may not endorse him against Trump as well. Another thing that would be easy to call beforehand. These are some of the lowest people on earth. 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, and Bernie represents a threat to that. Bernie is not funded by corporations, he is funded by people.
  15. I don't think that is accurate. It is not sour grapes. The system was set up in part to be a deterrent to say a Hitler type figure gaining momentum in the general populace. It is a fail safe because electoral votes can actually go to the person who does not win the state. They wanted the system to elect the person who got the popular vote, but this was the best compromise they could come up with. I would agree they all know the rules before they start, but in my opinion the system was set up in an attempt to elect the person who gets the popular vote.
  • Create New...