|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump.
That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president.
The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won.
I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point.
|
On March 06 2017 06:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. No you don't; you just need to be a traditionally establishment candidate running during a time when people are fed up with actual politicians. That, and give every reason for people to hate you on top of it. DNC chair colluded to win you the primaries and is now getting ousted by leaks that prove intent as such? Let's put her on the campaign team! Afterwards, pretend that a Putin-Comey alliance, rather than a personal failure, was responsible.
I think that there's plenty of blame to go around, but I definitely agree with you that not distancing herself from DWS was a pretty dumb thing to do.
|
On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point.
You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her.
|
On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her.
Maybe. I think it really doesn't matter at that point.
The reality is that a lot of people voted for a man that is unqualified, has a horrible and crazily unstable personality, and was by all accounts a thousand times worse than Clinton, whichever way you want to look at it; and they are the first responsibles for what's going on.
And I still think that the big story this election is not so much people getting offended by Hillary as people agreeing with Trump's wall, muslim ban, and xenophobic, populistic message.
|
On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her.
Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait!
|
On March 06 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait!
If the Democrats took some personal responsibility for their own faults rather than just blame Russia and the FBI, maybe we wouldn't have to.
|
On March 06 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait! If the Democrats took some personal responsibility for their own faults rather than just blame Russia and the FBI, maybe we wouldn't have to.
if the republicans took some responsibility for their faults we wouldn't have to either. but they didn't.
so you're just continuously trying to heap ALL the blame on hillary/dem side, while endlessly downplaying/ignoring/refusing to mention the faults of the other side. which while it has some merit as a counterbalance to the trend of this thread, is still not sufficiently justified.
your harping is just dumb and unhelpful. all it really does is stink up the thread, and adds nothing to the conversation or understanding.
|
|
|
I also think the Hillary bashing is getting old, and boring. Maybe we can move on, we all understood you thought she was terrible.
|
On March 06 2017 07:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait! If the Democrats took some personal responsibility for their own faults rather than just blame Russia and the FBI, maybe we wouldn't have to. if the republicans took some responsibility for their faults we wouldn't have to either. but they didn't. so you're just continuously trying to heap ALL the blame on hillary/dem side, while endlessly downplaying/ignoring/refusing to mention the faults of the other side. which while it has some merit as a counterbalance to the trend of this thread, is still not sufficiently justified. your harping is just dumb and unhelpful. all it really does is stink up the thread, and adds nothing to the conversation or understanding.
I disagree that it's unhelpful, I think it's important to reinforce this point so that when the next Hillary talks to us about electability four years from now we all know the worth of their argument.
|
On March 06 2017 07:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 07:01 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait! If the Democrats took some personal responsibility for their own faults rather than just blame Russia and the FBI, maybe we wouldn't have to. if the republicans took some responsibility for their faults we wouldn't have to either. but they didn't. so you're just continuously trying to heap ALL the blame on hillary/dem side, while endlessly downplaying/ignoring/refusing to mention the faults of the other side. which while it has some merit as a counterbalance to the trend of this thread, is still not sufficiently justified. your harping is just dumb and unhelpful. all it really does is stink up the thread, and adds nothing to the conversation or understanding. I disagree that it's unhelpful, I think it's important to reinforce this point so that when the next Hillary talks to us about electability four years from now we all know the worth of their argument.
you are wrong. first, kwiz already addressed the actual claims of electability long ago, and that's not what hillary was talking about. she wasn't pushing the idea of electability. it's a perpetuated lie that she was. furthermore, it's not at all clear bernie or others would have done better. that is a supposition, that can be considered carefully if people want to, but that's not anyone is actually trying to do when they bring up the topic.
second, he harps on it over and over, using some unsound points which cause endless fights. the points have already been addressed VERY thoroughly already, many many times.
did you learn anything from this latest discussion that you didn't already know? did anyone learn anything they didn't already know?
If not, then it added nothing but bringing up an old tired point to annoy people.
also, we're starting to get into website feedback territory.
|
On March 06 2017 07:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 07:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 06 2017 07:01 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait! If the Democrats took some personal responsibility for their own faults rather than just blame Russia and the FBI, maybe we wouldn't have to. if the republicans took some responsibility for their faults we wouldn't have to either. but they didn't. so you're just continuously trying to heap ALL the blame on hillary/dem side, while endlessly downplaying/ignoring/refusing to mention the faults of the other side. which while it has some merit as a counterbalance to the trend of this thread, is still not sufficiently justified. your harping is just dumb and unhelpful. all it really does is stink up the thread, and adds nothing to the conversation or understanding. I disagree that it's unhelpful, I think it's important to reinforce this point so that when the next Hillary talks to us about electability four years from now we all know the worth of their argument. you are wrong. first, kwiz already addressed the actual claims of electability long ago, and that's not what hillary was talking about. she wasn't pushing the idea of electability. it's a perpetuated lie that she was. furthermore, it's not at all clear bernie or others would have done better. that is a supposition, that can be considered carefully if people want to, but that's not anyone is actually trying to do when they bring up the topic. second, he harps on it over and over, using some unsound points which cause endless fights. the points have already been addressed VERY thoroughly already, many many times. did you learn anything from this latest discussion that you didn't already know? did anyone learn anything they didn't already know? If not, then it added nothing but bringing up an old tired point to annoy people. also, we're starting to get into website feedback territory.
I don't need Bernie to have done better. The argument isn't "the progressive candidate does better by definition", it's "the centrist candidate doesn't do better by definition". If even Hillary wasn't pushing this then it's all the more reason not to be pushing it next time as centrists were this time, which is my goal.
No, I didn't learn anything, but I'm not the target of this argument so it makes sense that I didn't.
|
On March 06 2017 07:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 07:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 06 2017 07:01 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Four years of re-telling the story of why you got Trump. I can't wait! If the Democrats took some personal responsibility for their own faults rather than just blame Russia and the FBI, maybe we wouldn't have to. if the republicans took some responsibility for their faults we wouldn't have to either. but they didn't. so you're just continuously trying to heap ALL the blame on hillary/dem side, while endlessly downplaying/ignoring/refusing to mention the faults of the other side. which while it has some merit as a counterbalance to the trend of this thread, is still not sufficiently justified. your harping is just dumb and unhelpful. all it really does is stink up the thread, and adds nothing to the conversation or understanding. I disagree that it's unhelpful, I think it's important to reinforce this point so that when the next Hillary talks to us about electability four years from now we all know the worth of their argument. you are wrong. first, kwiz already addressed the actual claims of electability long ago, and that's not what hillary was talking about. she wasn't pushing the idea of electability. it's a perpetuated lie that she was. furthermore, it's not at all clear bernie or others would have done better. that is a supposition, that can be considered carefully if people want to, but that's not anyone is actually trying to do when they bring up the topic. second, he harps on it over and over, using some unsound points which cause endless fights. the points have already been addressed VERY thoroughly already, many many times. did you learn anything from this latest discussion that you didn't already know? did anyone learn anything they didn't already know? If not, then it added nothing but bringing up an old tired point to annoy people. also, we're starting to get into website feedback territory.
Here's the simple breakdown of why Bernie does better. He was far more popular than Hillary, he had far more support among independents and Republicans, and he wouldn't have lost more Democratic votes than Hillary, because the Democrats that would have been disappointed Bernie was the nominee were the same people claiming his supporters had only one reasonable choice, hold your nose and vote for the Dem nominee or get Trump.
The only argument against him doing better than Hillary is, "But Republicans didn't attack him". All the statistics point to the high probability that he would have done better, there's really no statistic that suggests otherwise, and no losing the primary doesn't mean anything, unless the suggestion is that the Hillary supporters saying "unite blue" were full of shit. Basically there's no information suggesting Bernie wouldn't have gotten ~the same amount of Democrat votes as Hillary but a LOT more independents and some more Republicans.
As Neb pointed out, this is getting hammered into people's heads so that they don't trot out the same non-sense in 2020 with Hillary or a Booker/Kaine surrogate.
|
Here's what I don't understand as an outsider. Hillary Clinton had been in the public sphere for decades. Her favorability ratings were actually great right until 2016:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-27-at-9.46.13-AM.png&w=480
Then in the build up of the election she becomes massively disliked because... of an e-mail scandal that was actually sort of bullshit? We've known about the speaking fees and her seemingly unempathetic personality, but only during the election did the American public start to dislike her and now it's fashionable to paint her as a terrible candidate when in reality she was supremely qualified and liked by the vast majority of Americans a couple of years prior to the election.
|
On March 06 2017 07:44 warding wrote:Here's what I don't understand as an outsider. Hillary Clinton had been in the public sphere for decades. Her favorability ratings were actually great right until 2016: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-27-at-9.46.13-AM.png&w=480Then in the build up of the election she becomes massively disliked because... of an e-mail scandal that was actually sort of bullshit? We've known about the speaking fees and her seemingly unempathetic personality, but only during the election did the American public start to dislike her and now it's fashionable to paint her as a terrible candidate when in reality she was supremely qualified and liked by the vast majority of Americans a couple of years prior to the election.
I think it's just that only during the election do (most of the) people start caring about these things. And while I believe that she has always gotten the same shit from Republicans in an attempt to kill her politically for the election to come, once the election actually got closer the average Joe paid attention to it.
Whereas before that time people just didn't care enough for her to drop in approval even when the smearcampaign (probably) was already ongoing for months or years
|
On March 06 2017 07:44 warding wrote:Here's what I don't understand as an outsider. Hillary Clinton had been in the public sphere for decades. Her favorability ratings were actually great right until 2016: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-27-at-9.46.13-AM.png&w=480Then in the build up of the election she becomes massively disliked because... of an e-mail scandal that was actually sort of bullshit? We've known about the speaking fees and her seemingly unempathetic personality, but only during the election did the American public start to dislike her and now it's fashionable to paint her as a terrible candidate when in reality she was supremely qualified and liked by the vast majority of Americans a couple of years prior to the election.
Every time she's run she's started more popular than she's finished. She's just "likable enough" until people get more familiar with things like supporting the coup in Honduras, her habitual "misspeaking", her racist past, etc... The emails thing wouldn't have even been that big of a deal (her server emails) had she just not consistently lied about it the whole time.
|
On March 06 2017 07:44 warding wrote:Here's what I don't understand as an outsider. Hillary Clinton had been in the public sphere for decades. Her favorability ratings were actually great right until 2016: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-27-at-9.46.13-AM.png&w=480Then in the build up of the election she becomes massively disliked because... of an e-mail scandal that was actually sort of bullshit? We've known about the speaking fees and her seemingly unempathetic personality, but only during the election did the American public start to dislike her and now it's fashionable to paint her as a terrible candidate when in reality she was supremely qualified and liked by the vast majority of Americans a couple of years prior to the election.
It's because the election wasn't based on any sort of substance or policy or qualifications... it was based on Trump trolling people and the news sensationalizing/ focusing on nonsense, because that's what audiences want to see and hear. Trump had no policy ideas for months and just agreed with whatever side of an issue he was told to, and he still won. There were absolutely no standards for the candidates, and the Democrats always make the mistake of naively believing that voters will vote in their best interest or actually educate themselves on the issues and candidates.
|
|
|
On March 06 2017 06:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 06:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 06 2017 06:40 LegalLord wrote:
"Worst" is fine. You have to be quite bad a candidate to lose to Trump. That or maybe he was not as bad as a candidate as you think. He played the populist card very well, and apparently being a narcissistic bully that just says anything people want to hear can be a great asset. He just happens to be a potent candidate and an absolutely terrible president. The narrative "Trump was terrible and only won because of how shit Hillary was" only get you so far. Clinton was uber qualified, serious, articulate, and it's very possible any other candidate would have faced the same barrage of insults and hatred she got. If it takes a pseudo scandal like the email server to get a democratic candidate down, nobody would have won. I'm not saying she was perfect, but she was more than decent. It just happened that Trump managed to secure the white working class, which probably no other conservative candidate could have won at that point. You underestimate just how much people here in the states don't like Hillary. She would have been beaten by most Republicans easily. Everyone except Trump was favored against her. Maybe. I think it really doesn't matter at that point. The reality is that a lot of people voted for a man that is unqualified, has a horrible and crazily unstable personality, and was by all accounts a thousand times worse than Clinton, whichever way you want to look at it; and they are the first responsibles for what's going on. And I still think that the big story this election is not so much people getting offended by Hillary as people agreeing with Trump's wall, muslim ban, and xenophobic, populistic message.
The "progressive" upper middle class elite in the usa they live in a bubble,they don't fully understand what is going on outside their bubble,they think everyone is like them and doing well. That is why it was such a big surprise for them that they lost. They still can not fully grasp it.
People did not vote for trump so much,his qualifications where largely irrelevant at that point I think. People voted against a system and a traditional elite,against a direction that the country was going. I will say it again and I can say this a thousand times but most people wont accept it. Current levels of inequality are not sustainable in a western democracy,
This should be an interesting week. The internet media where largely quiet about trump and rusia the past 2 days,you could really notice a difference with the week before. Maybe its the silence before the storm. Futures are lower,thats something new. O well,we will see.
i do second the sentiment expressed in another post on this thread,the americans sure did pick the most funny and entertaining option this election
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
