Jump to content

US Elections 2016


JamboX2

Recommended Posts

Speak for yourself, not the SNP's fault that the unionist parties don't have anyone to match Sturgeon 

point stands, she's a bit in front in the list of sheite politicians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    422

  • niblick1874

    242

  • alwaysthereinspirit

    153

  • Maple Leaf

    150

Ah but you have the problem that conspiracy theorists ignore. Half of the ideas are about the ruling elite and how they run everything and presidents and PMs are just puppets. However there are also all the ideas about what presidents and PMs have done on their own. 

 

 

Ah, I see now. Their all out to get us!

 

I just hope nibs is in the welcome party for all the first world refugees fleeing to Canada when his man gets in. I'm sure he will have no problem explaining to them why the right man got the gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

its not that he's appealing, he might be absolutely shit but he's the best shit they've been offered. the party's pick a candidate, they dont need him to be an outstanding politician he just needs to win a vote. as the party picks all the candidates your basically being offered little choice in regards quality. once the candidates picked its dems v reps for the whitehouse and thats a (we always vote ****) and its only a minority that has to be swayed one way or other. if the climate is a radical mood then you pick a radical candidate to appeal to that group along with your regular vote its a job done, if its a liberal mood, you pick a liberal candidate etc, whatever gets the job done. the leader position is more symbolic, its the party that runs the show.

 

You don't actually read the news, do you?

 

Husband is a serial shagger. Gets caught with his penis in the mouth of young intern and she still stays married to him. That's unhinged to me. Lots more but would get automatic rsi if I kept on typing

 

So setting aside the weird understanding of marriage that the Clintons are unusual in working through infidelity and staying married, have you looked into any of Trump's (exceedingly public) personal life?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Also, I'm no moderator, but just making a request, could we leave the conspiracy theory stuff to the conspiracy theory thread (and ignore those who continue to push it here)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

You don't actually read the news, do you?

 

 

So setting aside the weird understanding of marriage that the Clintons are unusual in working through infidelity and staying married, have you looked into any of Trump's (exceedingly public) personal life?!?

Yes. Hence I don't want either to get the keys to the Whitehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

niblick1874

Also, I'm no moderator, but just making a request, could we leave the conspiracy theory stuff to the conspiracy theory thread (and ignore those who continue to push it here)?

Because you do not know about stuff or don't want it discussed doesn't turn fact into conspiracy theory. There have been several on this thread that have brought up, or asked why people say (millions in America and around the world) Clinton as president is not a good idea and just because you will not find it in the news you put so much faith in (you don't actually read the news do you) does not make it a theory.

 

Just because you are a big Clinton supporter does not mean that you can stop others pointing out why people are saying it is a bad idea to vote for her. I do not want ether anywhere near the Whitehouse but as you say, Trumps stuff is out there where as you will not come across Clintons stuff in the MSM. You are trying to stop debate on one of the two (soon to be three I would suggest) that are going to be running for president and that is wrong.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Because you do not know about stuff or don't want it discussed doesn't turn fact into conspiracy theory. There have been several on this thread that have brought up, or asked why people say (millions in America and around the world) Clinton as president is not a good idea and just because you will not find it in the news you put so much faith in (you don't actually read the news do you) does not make it a theory.

 

Just because you are a big Clinton supporter does not mean that you can stop others pointing out why people are saying it is a bad idea to vote for her. I do not want ether anywhere near the Whitehouse but as you say, Trumps stuff is out there where as you will not come across Clintons stuff in the MSM. You are trying to stop debate on one of the two (soon to be three I would suggest) that are going to be running for president and that is wrong.    

 

You are not posting anything I haven't seen before -- I'd say 1/3 of it is relevant but misinterpreted, 1/3 is true but blown out of proportion, and 1/3 is tinfoil hat stuff.

 

What frustrates me is that there *are* legitimate things to be worried about -- the influence of the Koch brothers, white working class decline turning into authoritarian anger, a very cliquish and tone-deaf Democratic establishment, the studied ineffectiveness of the American left, and the collapse of Lincoln's party into farce and revanchism.  All of these are critical points of conversation, and if we were actually talking about them in an interesting way I'd be all in.  But instead, you keep dragging it back to X Files and David Ickes crap like "I can't help but feel we're all being manipulated. . . "  You want something to research and look into?  Start here then look in the mirror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

Yes, the Democratic party infrastructure absolutely paved the way for Clinton -- that's what parties do, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the point person on it.  She was also bad at it -- that's the thing about conspiracy theorists, they forget that sometimes the people in charge of maintaining the shadow government or whatever are sometimes stupid and incompetent.  Jeb Bush didn't spend $157 million to be the most expensive flop candidate in history as part of some grand diversion -- he and his cronies were actually trying to buy the Presidency, and he did a terrible job of it.

 

I am not a "big Clinton supporter."  I voted for her this past Tuesday but without much enthusiasm.  I think she's the best candidate available but am far more interested in down-ballot races like the upcoming Democratic primary for US Senate.

 

I realize I've been really intemperate towards you on this thread, as well as in this post.  It's one of those things -- ignorant people bug me, but not that much.  Smug people bug me, but not that much.  Ignorant people who are also smug annoy the living shit out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

For more on actual ways in which the insiders primary played out this year, this is a really good article, and gets to why I mistakenly thought Trump would have imploded by now.  In short, party insiders never got on the same page, and Trump shot the gap.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21693910-2016-campaign-putting-most-influential-political-science-book-recent-memory?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/pushback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Are there only two party's in the US?  Democrat & Republican.

There has to be other political party's surely but are they so small and ineffectual that they barely register on the political landscape.

 

The reason I ask is, if the American electorate are so fed up with the mainstream party's and want change, then why doesn't somebody set up a new party, it's happened in the UK before but does that sort of thing not happen over in the USA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Are there only two party's in the US?  Democrat & Republican.

There has to be other political party's surely but are they so small and ineffectual that they barely register on the political landscape.

 

The reason I ask is, if the American electorate are so fed up with the mainstream party's and want change, then why doesn't somebody set up a new party, it's happened in the UK before but does that sort of thing not happen over in the USA?

 

Lots of reasons for this -- the bizarre and poorly understood Electoral College system that decides the Presidency, a non-Parliamentary system, the system of federal and state governments, and so on.  Multiple third parties have taken a whack at it, but basically there's only room in the political realm for two parties, so a third party is only successful when it replaces another one of the two parties, particularly one that's dying, and the last time that happened was when Lincoln brought the Republicans to power.

 

What happens instead is, when the electorate gets fed up with the parties, a movement takes over one of the two parties, usually the weaker one at the time.  This has happened multiple times in the past 150 years, and political scientists call it a "realignment."  The Republican Party's strongholds used to be the northeast and California, while the Democrats were dominant in the southeast.  Now it's the opposite.  (The mountain west has been and continues to be Republican, the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley states continue to be "swing states.")

 

Basically the two parties represent semi-durable coalitions of subgroups.  The current Democratic coalition is white urban liberals, what's left of the old Left, unions, African-Americans, Latinos, and a high proportion of women.  The Republican coalition tends to be business owners, white collar workers, those in finance, rural voters, older voters, and of course evangelical Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For more on actual ways in which the insiders primary played out this year, this is a really good article, and gets to why I mistakenly thought Trump would have imploded by now.  In short, party insiders never got on the same page, and Trump shot the gap.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21693910-2016-campaign-putting-most-influential-political-science-book-recent-memory?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/pushback

 So far, this has been a fascinating race.  There is a possibility that the shadowy billionaires will end up having nothing to show for the hundreds of millions they are pumping into the election.  Trump lacks the basic skills needed to be President of the world's most powerful country, and is probably a racist and misogynist to boot.

 

But, I have to admit, that I will be delighted to see those billionaires with egg on their faces if he wins the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Lots of reasons for this -- the bizarre and poorly understood Electoral College system that decides the Presidency, a non-Parliamentary system, the system of federal and state governments, and so on.  Multiple third parties have taken a whack at it, but basically there's only room in the political realm for two parties, so a third party is only successful when it replaces another one of the two parties, particularly one that's dying, and the last time that happened was when Lincoln brought the Republicans to power.

 

What happens instead is, when the electorate gets fed up with the parties, a movement takes over one of the two parties, usually the weaker one at the time.  This has happened multiple times in the past 150 years, and political scientists call it a "realignment."  The Republican Party's strongholds used to be the northeast and California, while the Democrats were dominant in the southeast.  Now it's the opposite.  (The mountain west has been and continues to be Republican, the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley states continue to be "swing states.")

 

Basically the two parties represent semi-durable coalitions of subgroups.  The current Democratic coalition is white urban liberals, what's left of the old Left, unions, African-Americans, Latinos, and a high proportion of women.  The Republican coalition tends to be business owners, white collar workers, those in finance, rural voters, older voters, and of course evangelical Christians.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

 So far, this has been a fascinating race.  There is a possibility that the shadowy billionaires will end up having nothing to show for the hundreds of millions they are pumping into the election.  Trump lacks the basic skills needed to be President of the world's most powerful country, and is probably a racist and misogynist to boot.

 

But, I have to admit, that I will be delighted to see those billionaires with egg on their faces if he wins the nomination.

 

Yes, it would be completely hilarious and entertaining if it weren't for the fascistic language he's been using.  The sheer amount of money dumped into Bush's campaign that would have been put to better use as $100 bill confetti at a party has to be hurting someone quite a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still fascinating that the Democratic Party have gone from being huge in the South and all about States' rights to being the North East and Pacific liberal party - and one of big federal spending. A complete volte face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large amounts of utter drivel on this thread today, and it's not just from the conspiracy theorists.

 

Several Friday night political analysts just home from the pub I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen the delegate count in full for the Democrats. Is it possible at all for Sanders to overturn the deficit?

 

He seems to be influencing the debate and forcing Clinton to respond on his terms, but not winning the states in turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Just seen the delegate count in full for the Democrats. Is it possible at all for Sanders to overturn the deficit?

 

He seems to be influencing the debate and forcing Clinton to respond on his terms, but not winning the states in turn.

 

Unless he starts winning African-American voters at a much, much higher rate than he is now (which is basically almost not at all), no.  

 

He's looking like he might win Michigan tonight, which would be a big upset given where the polls are, but he needs a lot more than that. Meanwhile, Clinton's going to win Mississippi with like 85% of the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless he starts winning African-American voters at a much, much higher rate than he is now (which is basically almost not at all), no.  

 

He's looking like he might win Michigan tonight, which would be a big upset given where the polls are, but he needs a lot more than that. Meanwhile, Clinton's going to win Mississippi with like 85% of the vote.

 

Pretty astonishing result win for him. Some polls had him 30 points behind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo

Pretty astonishing result win for him. Some polls had him 30 points behind!

It seems that the polls vastly underestimated the number of young people who voted in Michigan (Sanders generally does very well with under 30s). For example, at least one poll only phoned people with landlines (therefore excluding most young voters). He also did better with African Americans than expected (albeit he still only got 28% of the African American vote). Finally, Hilary didn't campaign much outside of The East side of the State. That came back to bite her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Gordons Gloves

Another Republican debate on the telly tonight.  Yeah, i can't wait. I can't believe the number of ****in debates so far.  Telling everyone nothing but that doesn't matter, it's all about the exposure.

 

FWIW, i'm liking Bernie more and more.  I've always been more centrist in my political opinions so the republicans are just ridiculous to me and Hillary just does absolutely nothing for me in terms of leadership and political thinking.  Funnily enough, i probably stand to lose more financially under Bernie but i like his approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that hasn't been touched upon is the isolationist approach of Sanders on foreign policy. Almost Ron Paulesque. For me it is as worrying as NapalmemCruz approach and people only need to look to the last half decade at how other actors fill the void (Putin, IS) if you are seen to be indecisive or weak. What's more, he's followed the moronic student union yell of 'follow the money' panacea to IS which suggests he has even less a grasp of the realities of the ME than Trump.

 

The next four years could be some of the most pivotal in the post war era and no experience populists from each end of the spectrum are not a risk worth taking. So Hillary all the way pls even if house of cards is starting to look more like that pairs' biopic by the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Something that hasn't been touched upon is the isolationist approach of Sanders on foreign policy. Almost Ron Paulesque. For me it is as worrying as NapalmemCruz approach and people only need to look to the last half decade at how other actors fill the void (Putin, IS) if you are seen to be indecisive or weak. What's more, he's followed the moronic student union yell of 'follow the money' panacea to IS which suggests he has even less a grasp of the realities of the ME than Trump.

 

The next four years could be some of the most pivotal in the post war era and no experience populists from each end of the spectrum are not a risk worth taking. So Hillary all the way pls even if house of cards is starting to look more like that pairs' biopic by the day.

Alternatively, an isolationist US might encourage more proper bilateral negotiation between, say, Germany and Russia. The end of hiding behind America's shirt tail could be a good thing.

 

 

N.B. That's not an endorsement of Wiggo. It's an endorsement of America no longer being the world's policeman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

michael_bolton

Anyone else watching the Republican debate on just now?

 

Due to work it's the first time I've been able to watch one. It's quite incredible. Trump simply doesn't have a meaningful answer to any question or a solution to anything. It's all soundbites. I know it's been done to death, but it's incredible that people are buying this.

 

I'm not a fan of Rubio or Cruz, but next to them Trump has the depth of a puddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Pretty astonishing result win for him. Some polls had him 30 points behind!

 

Indeed.  The turnout models were messed in Michigan because of a pie fight over delegates that happened eight years ago (and no Democratic primary four years ago).

 

I said Sanders had to start winning African-American voters.  He's not winning them in the south (84-16 in Mississippi is jaw dropping), but he won about half of them in Michigan.

 

Ohio and North Carolina the next big tests.  Clinton is predicted to romp them the same way she was predicted to romp Michigan.  If she does as well as her polls, the race looks to be winding down.  If Sanders pulls one or possibly two upsets in them, we've got a live race on our hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. The turnout models were messed in Michigan because of a pie fight over delegates that happened eight years ago (and no Democratic primary four years ago).

 

I said Sanders had to start winning African-American voters. He's not winning them in the south (84-16 in Mississippi is jaw dropping), but he won about half of them in Michigan.

 

Ohio and North Carolina the next big tests. Clinton is predicted to romp them the same way she was predicted to romp Michigan. If she does as well as her polls, the race looks to be winding down. If Sanders pulls one or possibly two upsets in them, we've got a live race on our hands.

Could that difference not be down to there being different reasons for poor southern, largely rural (correct me if I'm wrong here) african-americans and intercity northern african-americans in how they view themselves and how to tackle poverty?

 

Sanders seems to offer a more city centric, east coast challenge to poverty and inequality than that of the southern US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could that difference not be down to there being different reasons for poor southern, largely rural (correct me if I'm wrong here) african-americans and intercity northern african-americans in how they view themselves and how to tackle poverty?

 

Sanders seems to offer a more city centric, east coast challenge to poverty and inequality than that of the southern US.

 

In theory, but there's not much rural or Southern about Clinton either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik

Could that difference not be down to there being different reasons for poor southern, largely rural (correct me if I'm wrong here) african-americans and intercity northern african-americans in how they view themselves and how to tackle poverty?

 

Sanders seems to offer a more city centric, east coast challenge to poverty and inequality than that of the southern US.

 

This is just educated guessing, but I chalk it up to two things.  First, more to the presence of unions in the north (or more specifically their absence in the south), and second, similarly, greater job losses due to industrial decline in the northern cities.

 

President Clinton was a major proponent of free trade deals, which turned a slow decline of US manufacturing into a rapid decline.  Rural southern African-Americans will have suffered considerably less in that regard (partially because they were in worse poverty to begin with).  So, Sanders' anti-Wall Street, anti-trade deal rhetoric hits a much deeper note in the north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Bernie Sanders and his heart is definitely in the right place but in his desperation to win more of the black vote he's been coming out with some stupid shit recently. 'When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor'.

 

:cornette:

 

Come on Bernie, you're better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Bernie Sanders and his heart is definitely in the right place but in his desperation to win more of the black vote he's been coming out with some stupid shit recently. 'When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor'.

 

:cornette:

 

Come on Bernie, you're better than that.

How would he know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Riots in Chicago.

 

And bother in St. Louis as well.

 

Saying on the news that this has been coming for a while.

I think basically because Trump has attracted a lot of the loonies and crazies amongst the US populous and we've all seen how some Trump supporters have treated protesters at his rallies. 

 

Campaign groups are now saying that they will disrupt every Trump rally from now on, whether that happens remains to be seen.

If that did happen however, I think that may hand the Republican hierarchy an opening to use against Trump.

Edited by Jambo-Jimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would he know?

Not sure what you mean? How would he know about the millions of poor white people in America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean? How would he know about the millions of poor white people in America?

He's white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's white.

Indeed. But his quote was 'if you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor'. That's clearly untrue in a lot of cases and probably highly offensive to the millions of poor white people in America who know exactly what it's like. Not all white people in America are rich and not all black people are poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. But his quote was 'if you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor'. That's clearly untrue in a lot of cases and probably highly offensive to the millions of poor white people in America who know exactly what it's like. Not all white people in America are rich and not all black people are poor.

Aye, I'm well aware both poverty and wealth aren't racially exclusive.

 

Mine was just a throwaway (and not entirely serious) remark in reaction to his stupid comment- he is white, so what qualifies him to talk about poverty in first place?

Edited by Peebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And bother in St. Louis as well.

 

Saying on the news that this has been coming for a while.

I think basically because Trump has attracted a lot of the loonies and crazies amongst the US populous and we've all seen how some Trump supporters have treated protesters at his rallies. 

 

Campaign groups are now saying that they will disrupt every Trump rally from now on, whether that happens remains to be seen.

If that did happen however, I think that may hand the Republican hierarchy an opening to use against Trump.

These protests could work in Trump's favour. 

 

In addition to the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, freedom of speech in the USA is protected by the first amendment.  Trump could turn these events into a claim that his opponents are denying him his constitutional rights.  And that could make him appear like the poor, beleaguered underdog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These protests could work in Trump's favour.

 

In addition to the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, freedom of speech in the USA is protected by the first amendment. Trump could turn these events into a claim that his opponents are denying him his constitutional rights. And that could make him appear like the poor, beleaguered underdog.

My head is starting to spin thinking about this. Isn't the right to protest also at the heart of the same amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alwaysthereinspirit

Riots in Chicago.

Not quite riots. Depends on who reported it. Watched it live on TV last night. I've seen worse on Gorgie/London Road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And bother in St. Louis as well.

 

Saying on the news that this has been coming for a while.

I think basically because Trump has attracted a lot of the loonies and crazies amongst the US populous and we've all seen how some Trump supporters have treated protesters at his rallies.

 

Campaign groups are now saying that they will disrupt every Trump rally from now on, whether that happens remains to be seen.

If that did happen however, I think that may hand the Republican hierarchy an opening to use against Trump.

Did you see one of Trumps supporters punching a protester the other day, a thug.

Cops have charged him. Trumps racism has come home to roost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite riots. Depends on who reported it. Watched it live on TV last night. I've seen worse on Gorgie/London Road.

Was it exaggerated?.

Typical BBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge of Djoum

Aye, I'm well aware both poverty and wealth aren't racially exclusive.

 

Mine was just a throwaway (and not entirely serious) remark in reaction to his stupid comment- he is white, so what qualifies him to talk about poverty in first place?

:what:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alwaysthereinspirit

Was it exaggerated?.

Typical BBC

If they were calling it riots then most definitely exaggerated. A few idiots getting inside to disrupt it for the people there to listen to Trump.

Thousands outside, also there to show disdain for Trump but doing it legally on the sidewalks. It only takes a few from both sides facing off with each other and its on. I guess they've announced they'll try to disrupt all future Trump town meetings. I'd guess it's only going to heighten tension. Install a few infiltrators pretending to be Trump supporters and you'll get exactly what you want live on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

Rubio with a measured yet stinging attack on Trump today. Does make you wonder why he couldn't speak that way months ago or if he'll continue to speak like that in Oct/Nov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These protests could work in Trump's favour. 

 

In addition to the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, freedom of speech in the USA is protected by the first amendment.  Trump could turn these events into a claim that his opponents are denying him his constitutional rights.  And that could make him appear like the poor, beleaguered underdog.

 

Freedom of speech is your right to not be prosecuted by the government for what you say, it has nothing to do with other people being forced to listen to your clumsy, vapid bullshit  :sunny:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Did you see one of Trumps supporters punching a protester the other day, a thug.

Cops have charged him. Trumps racism has come home to roost.

 

Yes, a 78 year old ffs, but it's what he said after he'd punched the guy which is the alarming part.

 

He said that he punched him because the protester wasn't acting like an American.

He also said that "the next time we see him we might need to kill him".

 

In other words I can only think that this 78 year old man was thinking that as the protester was protesting against Trump then he wasn't a patriot and therefore wasn't a true American and saying the next time we see him we might need to kill him is clearly an inference that he's a terrorist as he's not an American.

Notice the use of the word 'we' as opposed to the word 'me', might not mean anything but then again it might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...