The Polls
- Thread starter salsim
- Start date
the million-dollar question: will Qatar and Kuwait follow in the footsteps of French President Macron?
US president's written words.
Several retired US generals have already spoken out that secretary of war Hegseth can be seen as a war criminal. I was shocked that day I learned that Hegseth has a "Deus vult" tattoo. From that day on I suspected this can end badly.
The Tennessee Holler on Instagram: "Retired Major General Randy Manner on Hegseth: “Those are the words of a potential war criminal.”"
7,334 likes, 150 comments - thetnholler on March 25, 2026: "Retired Major General Randy Manner on Hegseth: “Those are the words of a potential war criminal.”".
www.instagram.com
Retired U.S. Lieutenant General Says Hegseth's Iran War 'Rule' Puts Missing Pilot's Life At Risk
Russel L. Honoré noted that there's "a direct relationship" between the rhetoric from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the safety of American troops.
I’m a philosopher. I’m convinced that Trump isn’t lying − he’s doing something worse
The admission that Trump lies appears to have had little impact throughout his political career
www.independent.co.uk
No one really believes that Trump has stopped eight wars, defeated inflation, brought gasoline prices below US$2, cut a deal with the CEO of Sharpie or has 100% approval for his military incursion in Iran – all things he has said.
Both supporters and opponents of Trump realize it intuitively but one has articulated it better:
From my perspective as a political philosopher, these and other similar claims indicate he is speaking falsely as a way of demeaning or taunting his detractors. By resolutely asserting unbelievable falsehoods, Trump is expressing contempt. He is deriding the enterprise of journalism, in effect forcing reporters to write stories about his incredible statements, thereby indirectly controlling the news cycle.
As he is not attempting to deceive, Trump isn’t lying when he makes such claims. Rather, he is doing something else entirely, something arguably more pernicious.
It seems to me that his purpose is not to convince anyone, but rather to declare to the press, and perhaps also to his opposition, “You cannot stop me.” For a political movement rooted in the idea that U.S. politics is a swamp in need of draining, Trump’s defiant style has been successful.
But here’s the catch. It appears that Trump’s supporters are now beginning to feel that they, too, are on the receiving end of his contempt.
One of the things Trump has mastered is trolling the media and his opponents. Then he goes from trolling to actually backing it up with actions after all the reactions and outrage.
Last edited:
All true. But Trump won the elections because the democrat party was in such a lousy state that they presented very unpopular candidates. Coming up with Hillary or Harris made it possible for Trump to win. Trump would never have won against a convincing candidate like Obama 2008 or Bill Clinton in the 90s ( I say convincing as candidates - if they were good presidents is answered differently). The question "How was that possible?" points to the democrats. Many known politicians left them and switched to the republicans hoping to find better, and many voters did the same.I’m a philosopher. I’m convinced that Trump isn’t lying − he’s doing something worse
The admission that Trump lies appears to have had little impact throughout his political career
No one really believes that Trump has stopped eight wars, defeated inflation, brought gasoline prices below US$2, cut a deal with the CEO of Sharpie or has 100% approval for his military incursion in Iran – all things he has said.
Both supporters and opponents of Trump realize it intuitively but one has articulated it better:
From my perspective as a political philosopher, these and other similar claims indicate he is speaking falsely as a way of demeaning or taunting his detractors. By resolutely asserting unbelievable falsehoods, Trump is expressing contempt. He is deriding the enterprise of journalism, in effect forcing reporters to write stories about his incredible statements, thereby indirectly controlling the news cycle.
As he is not attempting to deceive, Trump isn’t lying when he makes such claims. Rather, he is doing something else entirely, something arguably more pernicious.
It seems to me that his purpose is not to convince anyone, but rather to declare to the press, and perhaps also to his opposition, “You cannot stop me.” For a political movement rooted in the idea that U.S. politics is a swamp in need of draining, Trump’s defiant style has been successful.
But here’s the catch. It appears that Trump’s supporters are now beginning to feel that they, too, are on the receiving end of his contempt.
One of the things Trump has mastered is trolling the media and his opponents. Then he goes from trolling to actually backing it up with actions after all the reactions and outrage.
I guess the next elections the democrats can come up with any bad candidate and still win. But in the long run they must reorganize to avoid repeating such a downfall. Will they be able to do it? I doubt it.
1derpalm
Son Montuno
I'm fairly certain he won because rainbow flags.
Hillary was not very unpopular. If I remember she lost by a whisker. About 40,000 votes in total across swing state. You have to remember that Comey did a stupid thing a few days before election, Obama administration failed to recognize extent of Russian interference, and press gave a Trump lot of free coverage assuming he wouldn’t win, and some of the Sanders voters were sour that Hillary won the primary fair and square. However the biggest reason was some Americans couldn’t see a woman as a president. She was one of the most qualified person to ever run for the presidency. You can dislike her personally but you can’t deny she would have been a far better president than almost anyone at that time (including Obama). White nationalism feeling was a reaction to Obama getting elected twice. Hillary won the popular vote. That’s hardly very unpopular. The American press had been consistently portraying negative image of her since 1990s.
Problem for Harris was she was thrown in at the last minute. As they say in American press she was unknown to the people. Her refusal to throw any daylight between her and Biden was her downfall. She was too deferential to Biden. She was beating Trump in the polls till democratic convention. Unlike Trump she was too beholden to her political advisors. She made several mistakes including picking wrong person as a VP candidate.
However electing a person like Trump speaks more about those who voted for him than the two women.
After a Dark Week, Americans Should Turn to Jimmy Carter’s Malaise Speech
Carter was panned at the time, and long after, but has been vindicated.
www.liberalcurrents.com
"Anybody but Hillary" was the slogan amongst many democrats during campaign. That's the opposite of popular.
"I can't think of a candidate more out of step with the country's populist mood"
Anybody but Hillary? The case for Warren-Webb in 2016.
With a Hillary Clinton candidacy looking weaker by the day, it's time for Democrats to consider other options
theweek.com
"Anybody but Hillary" was the slogan amongst many democrats during campaign. That's the opposite of popular.
"I can't think of a candidate more out of step with the country's populist mood"
Anybody but Hillary? The case for Warren-Webb in 2016.
With a Hillary Clinton candidacy looking weaker by the day, it's time for Democrats to consider other options
Hillary may have been the problem, But EW was definitely NOT the solution. Hillary got the nomination b/c she was more popular and thus got more votes than Warren whose wish list included having a transgender kid vet the Sec of Education. You think that's gonna go over well in flyover country? She would've been smoked in the general election.
This article was written in March 2015 I think. I don’t remember who had already made announcement to run that early. However as you can see the tone of the article is arrogant. Sanders phenomenon of 2016 was not anywhere on the horizon."Anybody but Hillary" was the slogan amongst many democrats during campaign. That's the opposite of popular.
"I can't think of a candidate more out of step with the country's populist mood"
Anybody but Hillary? The case for Warren-Webb in 2016.
With a Hillary Clinton candidacy looking weaker by the day, it's time for Democrats to consider other options
If it was written in 2016 Hillary was already a front runner by then. Fair and square. It was becoming clearer that Trump was front runner on the Republican side to surprise of everyone including Trump himself.
In hindsight you can see why this opinion writer and his ilk were so wrong. People (Democrat voters) like him are the reason for very narrow win for Trump in 2016. The first two paragraphs of the article echo what I said. She was the most qualified candidate to have run for presidency.
The rest of the baggage of hers use to be a constant refrain of main press media. The Republican committee searched and investigated Benghazi for over two years and came up with nothing to pin Clinton on. The chair admitted it was a political witch hunt and strategy to weaken Clinton as a presidential candidate. The email scandal was much ado about nothing. If you know anything about technology, you would know that any one of Clinton’s age would hardly understand technicalities of someone setting up an email server. If know anything about 90s and 2000s politics in the USA, Hillary Clinton was second most hounded Democrat by Republicans. To survive that kind of attacks day in and day out can create certain kind of mentality. The most hounded was Bill Clinton ofcourse. And Hilllary Clinton was attributed guilty by association.
When you read that article today and look at what has gone since 2016 to 2020 and 2024 onwards, you will see how pathetic the follies ascribed to Clinton look in hindsight today. Btw what you read in that article was repeated very often during the 2015 election cycle.
In 2015, everyone expected to Clinton to win. Including Trump. There was no one on the Democratic side that would have got more votes than Clinton. Except if Obama could have run. Sanders and Warren would have lost badly. USA is not going to elect likes of Sanders and Warren even today.
My original rebuttal was your statement that she was “very unpopular”. The facts are:
1. She secured around 66 million total votes.
2. Until then only Obama had got more votes.
3. Which means she secured more votes than any other Presidential candidate in the USA history not named Obama. Let that sink in.
4. In most other democracies she would have been declared winner. It is quirk of the USA electoral system that she lost.
5. Clinton lost Michigan by margin of 10,700 votes which was 0.23% margin if I recall had she won the Michigan she would have been president. That is how close it was.
Factually you are wrong to say she was “very unpopular”.
Trump’s approval ratings have been one of the lowest of any President in both terms if I am not wrong. Only Truman, Nixon, Carter and Bush had lower approval rating than Trump (33%) in their worst polling years. Trump’s highest approval rating across two term stands at 49%. But Truman (87%), Nixon (67%), Carter (75%), Bush (90%) had peaks that blow away Trump. Nixon, who is considered most unpopular President in modern USA history handily beats Trump in peak popularity.
Both Warren and Sanders, and any progressive candidate would have got smoked in 2016. Unless a Trump like figure emerges on the left, only centrist Democrat candidate win Presidential election.
Donald Trump gives Giorgia Meloni a problem from hell
The Italian prime minister was caught on Monday between loyalty to the U.S. president and risking her political capital with conservative Catholic voters.
www.politico.eu
Trump always causes problems for anyone who supports him. At home or abroad.
I don't even know who Warren is, never heard that name. I should have clarified I chose this article from google because it summarized the "Anybody but Hillary" concerns. If this Warren candidate indeed had "wish list included having a transgender kid vet the Sec of Education" then this shows how detached the democrats were from the majority of voters.
She lost against - Trump
That still doesn’t square with being “very unpopular”. Many popular mainstream republicans lost primary to Trump too in 2016 cycle.She lost against - Trump
Now I think you are trolling because you haven’t provided any factual basis to support your assertion
My mistake, EW didn't actually run in 2016 although there was support...she did run in 2020.
www.foxnews.com
Warren says she wants 'young trans person' to interview, approve her Education Secretary pick
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., vowed over the weekend that she would allow a "young trans person" to interview her choice for Secretary of Education, potentially granting them veto power over a key Cabinet official.