So what do you Brits make of Trump ? [Archive] - HungAngels

Stavros

09-01-2015, 11:31 AM

At this stage of the Presidential campaign it seems there is always a 'maverick' candidate who wins a lot of polls; Sarah Palin was the woman of the hour however many years and hours (and there were a lot of them) ago that was. I think the more Trump is exposed to cross-examination on policy the more his lack of experience in political office will get tangled up with his sound-bite politics. Because of the way that elections are 'packaged and sold' one may argue that sound-bites can make or break a campaign, but note that where Trump is against this, against that, opposed to them and opposed to that, Obama made the cunning decision to always be positive: Yes, we can is a simple message, but is positive and has no complications. It hits the spot. Change, hope, we are better than this -they appeal to voters who want something to vote for, rather than something -or someone- to vote against. The GOP lost its hold over California because of Proposition 187, and it did so by alienating Hispanic voters in a state where they are not just important, but consider themselves to be as important as every other American. Trump, by isolating people for comment in the manner that he has is taking a huge risk and it begs the question can elections be won on negative campaigning? He is a protest candidate like Bernie Sanders, but I don't think he will win the nomination -he may even drop out of the race in the next 6 months, so I don't think he will win the nomination.

If there is one interesting difference between Trump and the other current Republican candidates, it is his weakness on God and the Bible, for while he has made a point of claiming to be a Presbyterian, his grasp of the Bible doesn't seem secure and has generated some hilarious tweets a couple of which are below if you haven't seen them.

Some funny tweets:

873293

873294

trish

09-01-2015, 06:18 PM

Jesus is huge. I know Jesus. He absolutely loves me! Classy dude. Really classy.

Hemi Royd

09-01-2015, 06:39 PM

Donald Trump,all he is a distraction,Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton will be the runner up for their party,,period,,,,,,,Whatever Donald is spewing,is someone that doesn't want to be recognized,,every word he says,does not affect me,really,We been told more than he has said,,,,,life goes on,,,,,

Laphroaig

09-01-2015, 06:54 PM

Donald Trump and Alex Salmond, two gasbags with enough hot air between them to power the entire country let alone a single windfarm...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13411596.Alex_Salmond__Donald_Trump_is_a_beaten_ma n_after_court_rejects_windfarm_legal_challenge/

It remains the only fight in which I really wanted both sides to take a beating. Salmond may have won the battle this time but if Trump comes back to Scotland to wage war as US President, I'm emigrating...

I imagine his victory stance might look something like this...

873352

flabbybody

09-01-2015, 07:55 PM

broncofan

09-01-2015, 09:11 PM

It would be amusing if a country that gave rise to the greatest playwright ever and whose people tend to use language in a careful and understated way were in love with a crass vulgarian like Trump. I can't think of a bigger stylistic clash than Donald Trump and the British public.

I think the way one speaks and handles criticism can provide insights into how they would deal with crises and how diplomatic they will be.

Laphroaig

09-01-2015, 09:17 PM

The view here is that he's a complete asswig

Corrected that for you...:tongue:

Stavros

09-02-2015, 08:46 AM

Jesus is huge. I know Jesus. He absolutely loves me! Classy dude. Really classy.

I once had a taxi driver in Los Angeles called Jesus, he ripped me off. Is that the guy?

Stavros

09-02-2015, 08:55 AM

Stavros makes a valid point about Trump's shaky bible background but it might not be a liability at all. Americans like to talk about God but at the end of the day we don't really give a rat's ass about our religions.
The defining moment of John Kennedy's campaign versus Richard Nixon in 1960 came when JFK gave a speech at Rice University essentially renouncing his Catholicism and assuring the public he was a secular individual. Obama did much the same thing when he dissociated himself from his long time pastor who had made some dubious comments about America's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
For me personally, I'd be very leery of voting for a truly religious person for president

Interesting point about religion, it often sounds strident here because we are not used to our politicians making any grand statements about their faith, not even from Tony Blair -when he was in office- who is the most extreme in religious terms we have had in recent memory. However, were not Bill Clinton and George W. Bush 'truly religious' Presidents? Or is it a matter of how they link their faith to their policies? Wasn't Bush opposed to stem cell research for religious reasons? Was it a religious reason that got both George W Bush and his brother Jeb involved in the legal decision to re-instate Terry Schiavo's feeding tube in Florida in 2003? However I do suspect you are basically right and that on the day most voters choose the candidate they think will benefit the economy.

flabbybody

09-02-2015, 04:07 PM

"Religion is the fashionable substitute for belief" Oscar Wilde

rodinuk

09-02-2015, 06:48 PM

... and that on the day most voters choose the candidate they think will benefit the economy.

Although they only constitute just over half the electorate...

AshlynCreamher

09-03-2015, 02:53 PM

TheThe Republican Super Delicates will be signing their parties own death certificate if they don't elect Trump as the Republic Nominee

Stavros

09-03-2015, 04:54 PM

TheThe Republican Super Delicates will be signing their parties own death certificate if they don't elect Trump as the Republic Nominee

And if they don't choose him he will run as an independent anyway. Now there's loyalty for you...

Stavros

09-04-2015, 09:48 AM

Since writing the post above, indeed a few hours after it I believe, Mr Trump signed 'a pledge' along with other GOP candidates that he will only run as a Republican, although I do not know if this is a legally enforceable pledge. That candidates have to sign a pledge to 'prove' their loyalty begs the question -will they or won't they? If you want to you can read The Guardian's report on this here:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/03/donald-trump-pledge-independent-president

peejaye

09-04-2015, 11:41 AM

If I may be "blunt" ; The world would be a lot better safer place if he were 6 foot below ground!
I tried watching "The Apprentice USA" once, I've never been so irritated in all my life!

flabbybody

09-05-2015, 12:52 AM

TheThe Republican Super Delicates will be signing their parties own death certificate if they don't elect Trump as the Republic Nominee
At first I believed the exact opposite but now I'm leaning towards agreement. Trump's early success is making some of the GOP power brokers scratching their heads and should he stick around they'll have to make some tough choices

Stavros

09-05-2015, 07:15 AM

At first I believed the exact opposite but now I'm leaning towards agreement. Trump's early success is making some of the GOP power brokers scratching their heads and should he stick around they'll have to make some tough choices

The more obvious question is how, if selected Trump would fare in the race that matters. That of course depends upon whom the Democrats choose. Trump may look daft from this side of the pond, but compare his statements to the one that the no-hoper Rick Perry made- 'A broken clock is right once a day'. Gor blimey, Guv'nor, have you gawn all Gert and Daisy on us?

flabbybody

09-06-2015, 06:42 PM

The latest poll has Trump vs Hillary dead even but Biden edges Trump by a few points.
Of course with a full 14 months from the actual election what does it really mean? And a Biden run might not even happen. But the buzz that Trump's given this campaign so early in its cycle is truly extraordinary. I've never seen so much interest in presidential politics, even when Obama came on the seen in 2007

Jericho

09-08-2015, 04:41 PM

When I first heard it, I though this "Trump for President" malarkey was one of them internet joke type things. Ya know, Go Trump (entirely different thing in the UK)!
Wow! :shrug

martin48

09-08-2015, 05:31 PM

As this thread as aimed at us Brits, feel I should respond. It all just convinces me more that you Yanks (well, about 50% of you) love complete nutters as leaders. I can't really comment as we have Cameron and Boris Johnson - to name just two.

You will have the choice of a nutter or a woman with nuts (probably Bill's)

Fyusian

09-14-2015, 11:25 PM

I think he's a good businessman but he'd probably make a terrible politician. I don't trust any politician or party, no matter who wins, the country always end up in a terrible state anyway. Same case here in England with the choice between Labour, a party that would put us back in debt and Conservative, a party that has increased tax and made huge cut backs. We were screwed no matter who won our election and America seems to be in the same state.

My view of all politicians is that they're all pigs but I give American politicians one thing: at least they have some inkling of personality which is more than could be said for David "Cunt" Cameron or Ed "Dick" Miliband or any of our other mindless politicians. Oh and this just in, Labour just committed suicide by electing some socialist who consorts with holocaust deniers. Say hello to another 10 years of Conservative rule Britain.

I think America could have it worst. They could be us.

Turlington

09-15-2015, 08:13 AM

I hope to god that asshole doesn't become president. Then again, there are folks stupid enough to vote for him.

Laphroaig

09-30-2015, 07:11 PM

880548

fred41

10-01-2015, 02:23 AM

Stavros

10-01-2015, 04:40 PM

Laphroaig

10-01-2015, 08:49 PM

Funny that you brought this up because I just happened to read a news article about the VW scandal right before I came on this site. This should probably be another thread, and I don't mean to derail (though I've done it plenty often without meaning to), but I don't see how this company can get away with this without ANY criminal charges at all.

I came across that picture while looking for more info on the VW scandal. Whatever happens, the cost to the VW group (which includes Audi, Skoda and Seat, all using the same diesel engines...) is going to be enormous, both in monetary terms and in damage to their reputation.

However, I suspect that this may be the tip of the iceberg. Much in the same way as the Mercedes A Class "Elk test" disaster years ago, other car manufacturers are notable by their silence on the matter. I suspect there's a lot of shredding and deleting of hard drives going on at the moment. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a few major recalls for apparently unrelated concerns over the next few months.

I had a passing interest in motorbikes some years ago and it's interesting that if you looked at the power and torque curves measured and published by all the bike magazines back then, they (nearly) all showed either a flat spot or a decrease in power/torque in the rev range in which the emissions tests were performed. I don't know if it's still the case, but at the time it seemed to be the "accepted" way to pass the emissions test.

Recently, in the UK, Fiat had a problem with one of it's 500 range. Owners were reporting that the cars simply couldn't drive up hills over a certain (fairly low) gradient. Again, the "problem" was engine mapping, almost certainly due to tuning the engine to pass emissions regulations.

Maybe you're correct though, this probably should be on a separate thread.

fred41

10-02-2015, 01:22 AM

Maybe you're correct though, this probably should be on a separate thread.

Fuck it, we post where we want to post...we're thread thugs...get out of our way!!!...lol

Interesting bit of info though, thanks.

fred41

10-02-2015, 01:28 AM

Isn't this a perfect topic for Ralph Nader? I think it was on auto safety that he made his name in the 1960s or the 1970s. And I am sure Mr Trump is concerned with emissions...

I think at this point Nader is just busy going off the deep end some where. As to Trump...logic would dictate that he'll burn out, but you never know, people like watching car wrecks..

peejaye

10-02-2015, 04:16 PM

Laphroaig

10-02-2015, 06:57 PM

This man is not only a psychopath but he is an evil psychopath; He tried to prosecute an 87 year old woman in Scotland(UK)for objecting to the golf course he built on some of Scotlands most sacred wildlife land. He said it would create 6,000 jobs, it's created 200 so far proving he is also a passive liar.

If this man is ever elected President of the US; I spare all of you and the rest of the world too!

I think he makes George Bush look an intelligent man & he's also capable of "pushing the button".

This trash belongs 6 foot underground.

I hope this is what you meant to say:

"If this man is ever elected President of the US; I despair of all of you and the rest of the world too!"

Otherwise, maybe you should be posting on the religious thread, preaching forgiveness.... :)

peejaye

10-02-2015, 07:43 PM

That's it Phroaig, ta.

fred41

10-03-2015, 12:47 AM

This man is not only a psychopath but he is an evil psychopath; He tried to prosecute an 87 year old woman in Scotland(UK)for objecting to the golf course he built on some of Scotlands most sacred wildlife land. He said it would create 6,000 jobs, it's created 200 so far proving he is also a passive liar.

If this man is ever elected President of the US; I spare all of you and the rest of the world too!

I think he makes George Bush look an intelligent man & he's also capable of "pushing the button".

This trash belongs 6 foot underground.

Can you please post a link to a news article about that, I tried but couldn't find anything.

(I found articles about the deal, but not the woman)

Stavros

10-03-2015, 01:51 AM

trish

10-03-2015, 02:19 AM

Jesus is huge. I know Jesus. He absolutely loves me! Classy dude. Really classy. ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?95047-So-what-do-you-Brits-make-of-Trump&p=1631149&viewfull=1#post1631149 )

Dreamon just informed me that Jesus doesn't love Trump...or else Jesus isn't a classy dude....I don't know which.

fred41

10-03-2015, 03:10 AM

Molly Forbes (now in her 91st year) and her son refused to sell their property on the estate where Trump's golf course should be. It features in the documentary film by Anthony Baxter A Dangerous Game, discussed in the first link, with an interview with Molly Forbes in the second link. The film also raises questions about the volume of water needed to maintain a golf course and whether or not it makes environmental sense to build them in water deficit areas like Southern California, Las Vegas or Dubai.

Thank you for the links...when you read some of the Trump quotes, they kind of match up with some of the things he says on the campaign trail.
He's a large scale real estate developer...and a successful one.
It's part of what voters have to take into consideration (just like the folks that vote for the politicians that allowed Trump to do it...).
I won't vote for Trump. If I were a supporter of his, I'd be offended by the fact that , until very recently..(and even then it's sparse), he doesn't even bother to try to answer questions with anything even approaching specifics.

flabbybody

10-03-2015, 06:50 AM

don't think I'm alone thinking the Trump thing has peaked. Even Donald himself looks like a little kid beginning to get bored with his new toy. The main question is which of the nitwits will pick up the ball and make a play. Maybe Rubio by default simply because the others are so terrible

Gillian

10-03-2015, 09:00 AM

I can't take Trump seriously as a politician. He used to bludgeoning people to get his on way and that's not how it works in national or international politics. I think the media are only following him to see the inevitable train wreck that is his campaign.

And if I had the chance meet him, I'd want to ask when he plans to stop combing his armpit hair up and over his head ... :D

MrFanti

10-03-2015, 07:45 PM

Trump is definitely not republican. His proposed tax plan increases taxes for the rich and has Blacks and Hispanics paying little or none. This is about as anti-republican as one can get with taxes.

Laphroaig

10-03-2015, 10:41 PM

881154

holzz

10-04-2015, 05:31 AM

I'm British, I don't care. i'm not American, and his election should it happen woulnd't bother me...

peejaye

10-04-2015, 10:50 AM

Well; It should holzz. WAKE UP! This man is a f++king lunatic! It's not only the Americans who will need to sleep with one eye open but the rest of he world too!

peejaye

10-04-2015, 10:56 AM

Hollz; If you're not interested in Politics don't write pointless comments under these threads. If you are interested; be f++king scared of this guy! :nervous:

martin48

10-04-2015, 12:37 PM

So Trump wants to arm teachers and kids! Blames the mental ill - why are they such a problem? Because you have a healthcare system that benefits only those that can afford it. Mental health in the US is managed by the US Prison Service. Why can't people like Trump understand that?

Stavros

10-30-2015, 03:54 AM

I tried to watch most of the latest Republican candidates debate on youtube but the fourth part was not available for copyright reasons. I don't think they discussed gun control (not even its relationship to bacon, see youtube clip below) or foreign policy. The greatest cheer from the public came when I think it was Ted Cruz complained about the 'mainstream media' ganging up on them, and this from a man who claimed he wanted to focus on 'substantive issues'. Where Fox News and the Murdoch press fits into the US media environment I evidently do not know.

My impression is that Trump is losing interest, apart from the usual sarcastic remarks about his competitors he had little to say about policy that showed any grasp of what taxation or social security might look like in detail. But I also wonder how others like Ben Carson and Rand Paul are allowed to promote 'flat tax' ideas which have been considered elsewhere and then dropped -here in the UK the United Kingdom Independence Party used to have a flat tax policy which they dropped because it simply doesn't work in terms of raising tax revenue, and is blatantly unfair.

Jeb Bush came across as someone who has given up the fight, I think he will have dropped out by the New Year. I cannot understand the appeal of Ben Carson who to me is inarticulate and has no grasp of policy, Kasich appears to know what he is talking about and is making extravagant claims for Ohio which may be true for all I know, but does come across as a headmaster lecturing schoolchildren. Chris Christie comes across as a bully and the smart person's favourite, Marco Rubio came out on top, at times he even sounded reasonable, which these days must be an achievement for a Republican.

Most striking is that none were prepared to admit the Party in Congress is divided against itself and may be to blame for the gridlock and caving in to 'special interests' that they insist is why Washington is out of touch with the voters, and none look to me like Presidential material. It may be easy to mock Hillary Clinton and summon the ghosts of the past to rise up and swarm all over her campaign, but she is the only candidate so far who appears to have experience in policy making at the highest level, and a degree of seriousness and application that the others lack.

Though still to early to call, it looks to me like Rubio has the staying power, while most of the others are a waste of time, but who knows how the voters will call it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

flabbybody

10-31-2015, 12:39 AM

Stavros

10-31-2015, 05:36 AM

As always Stavros, your analysis is spot on. Rubio looks like he can pick up the remnants of the inevitable Trump-Carson meltdown and hold on until the finish line. But in the general versus Hillary he'll be drubbed as bad as Goldwater in '64.
BTW. Did you catch the part wher Marco said his kids are getting a proper Christian education? made me wanna barf

Thanks for the compliment, but there is a long way to go and my views divorced as they are from the home ground may be more superficial than most Americans. The comment on the Christian education is par for the course these days, it might even suit the Republican Party to declare itself a Christian party...or, let's not go there.

In the UK press the news today is that a billionaire called David Singer is backing Rubio, which may enable the lad to open campaign offices in various states where none so far exist; while the Republican National Committee has effectively told NBC it won't co-operate with them in the debate scheduled for February because of the 'inane' questions asked by the biased team in Boulder. That sounds to me like a child taking his ball away from a game when he can't score. The problem is the format, as we have noted before, because there isn't enough time to drill down into the details.

Ms Fiorina for example wants to reduce 75,000 pages of tax regulations to 3. I suspect she actually wants to abolish tax on everything other than the armed forces but is too coy to say so, but if there is a serious debate to be had on taxation, at one time the most toxic issue in American politics, a debate featuring seven people with 30 seconds of air time is not the place for it.

Where is the debate on education or science; energy and climate change; agriculture and food? There are a host of hugely important issues that are not raised and maybe yes, it is because the pundits want to create good tv and so it is better (and easy) to bait Trump, and ask fatuous questions like 'What is your greatest weakness? rather than look at the state of California and ask -is the USA facing a long term crisis of food production, and how would you deal with that?

It is just as bad over here a lot of the time.

holzz

11-02-2015, 02:25 PM

don't care...if anything he represents how most Americans are politically. i think we need to end this "special relationship", bring all troops home,and focus on national defence. this includes renewing Trident. Even if Hilary won, or Bush III, or Jindal or anybody else, this "alliance" with the USA doesn't serve us.

rodinuk

11-04-2015, 12:05 AM

... this includes renewing Trident...

Really - one of those U-turns?

On 09-11-2014:

I'm English...I want a yes vote!!

Why?

We don't need Scotland...

We're not a poor country, and we don't need to export oil and gas.

And fuck Trident, I don't see why we need nukes anyhow (Germany hasn't got them, they do fine).

And the Act of Union was only signed out of convenience anyhow. Scotland had fucked up their colonialism and England didn't want a potential ally of France.

Let them go, I don't really give a shit either way.

buttslinger

11-05-2015, 08:17 AM

What do you Brits make of our next first lady?? ha ha ha.

http://s2.postimg.org/u1ygdfu7t/Melania_Trump_2.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
pictures upload (http://postimage.org/)

fred41

11-06-2015, 03:26 AM

To be honest...quite a few of them have attractive wives.

voldo999

11-14-2015, 12:05 PM

Trump is ok. Some questionable views but then again he is American and a Republican at that.

voldo999

11-14-2015, 12:06 PM

At least he is not.bought and sold like the politicians

flabbybody

11-15-2015, 12:11 AM

It'll be interesting to see the new poll numbers, post Paris massacre
could be a big bounce for Trump

Laphroaig

11-15-2015, 10:28 AM

It'll be interesting to see the new poll numbers, post Paris massacre
could be a big bounce for Trump

I seriously fucking hope not!

"Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Saturday that the terror attacks in Paris would have been 'a much, much different situation' had the victims been armed with guns."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-paris-wouldve-been-different-situation-if-victims-had-guns-20151114

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318748/Donald-Trump-says-Paris-attack-different-situation-victims-armed-guns.html

Apparently he said something similar after the Charlie Hebdo attack earlier in the year.

What a total arsehole... (Trump, not you flabby...)

buttslinger

11-15-2015, 04:52 PM

At least if Trump were elected we could have a Military Junta to drag that fool out of the White House around April 2017 and enact Martial Law. After we cleaned up the Middle East's problems through brutal savagery the likes of which the world had never seen, we could take over the Banks and the IRS and reshuffle a few things. Maybe kill a few lawyers for treason. Balance the books to ZERO.

http://s7.postimg.org/3smt6tojf/law.jpg (http://postimage.org/)windows print screen (http://postimage.org/app.php)

Stavros

11-15-2015, 09:12 PM

It'll be interesting to see the new poll numbers, post Paris massacre
could be a big bounce for Trump

The Candidate said this:
"When you look at Paris — the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris — nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody. Nobody had guns," Trump said at a presidential campaign rally in Beaumont, Texas.
Evidently The Candidate has not seen the footage of the gunfight between the Gendarmeries and the gunmen at Le Bataclan concert venue around the junction of the Boulevard Voltaire and the Passage Saint-Pierre Amelot, because the police in Paris are not only armed they even call them the Gendarmeries...when did the average American last take their gun to a rock concert?

Trump has nothing to say about the massacres in Paris that is worth hearing, it is as simple as that. Whether or not what he does say will improve his chances of becoming the Republican Party's candidate I don't know. Talking tough may sound like the best remedy but unless he is prepared to put some detail into it, it will just be another slide in the power point presentation of the kind we got from Sander in the Democrat debate in Iowa. Someone needs to take that man into a room and tell him what is actually happening in the Middle East, he is even more embarrassing than Trump.

fred41

11-15-2015, 11:44 PM

Yeah...on the Democratic side, as shown during their last debate, the transpired events in France may have helped to solidify Hillary Clinton's wavering support...at least I would think so. Her tenure as Secretary of State gives her an edge in experience and at least during the mideast foreign policy portions of the debate, she comes away as the most trust worthy of the three when it comes to situations such as this.
She's definitely going to have the support of moderate Democrats I would think. When people need to feel safe, they might prefer to throw their support behind a candidate who seems to have the gravitas for this. Love her or hate her, of the Democrats, I think Ms. Clinton has this.
Bernie Sanders....................not so much.
Not at all.

broncofan

11-16-2015, 12:13 AM

It'll be interesting to see the new poll numbers, post Paris massacre
could be a big bounce for Trump
The gun stuff notwithstanding, I think a lot of people like tough talk. I have to admit that even though I know Trump is completely full of shit I like to hear someone say they will obliterate ISIS. But in reality, one can be committed to killing them without putting it in such blunt terms. I do kind of get tired of Washington speak, where you say you will degrade them or neutralize them....but the alternative is promising things you can't deliver.

I have not watched the democratic debates. I made up my mind very early on that Hillary was the only reasonable choice...Sanders seems to be a man who has the same answer no matter what the question is. Far too one-dimensional.

buttslinger

11-16-2015, 12:30 AM

It'll be interesting to see the new poll numbers, post Paris massacre
could be a big bounce for Trump

Homer Simpson will be nominated before Trump, .....relax.
I'm thinking European Hard-Liners should be getting more popular due to current events.
Odds for Trump have gone from 100-1 a few weeks ago to 7-1. If Hillary gets indicted by the FBI............then I take back my Homer Simpson joke. America will be great again.

fred41

11-16-2015, 03:40 AM

The terror attack in Paris, either intentional or not, hit young progressives. It also may turn out that some of the participants involved may have gotten there by infiltrating the Syrian refugees...mass acceptance of which is also more of a progressive ideal...and a fear of which would bring out Republican voters big time. It could change the minds of some progressive voters and certainly of progressive Independents. Because of this, I believe that if the elections were held tomorrow, almost any of the Republicans left on the big stage would win the election for President. Its just how politics work.
But there is still a lot of time to go before the election.

broncofan

11-16-2015, 05:31 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/12/hillary-clinton-if-president-could-appoint-4-supre/

This was the closest thing I could find to an all purpose thread for the election. But maybe the biggest thing at stake in the next election is the court. Bader Ginsburg, Scalia, and Kennedy are 80 years old or older and Breyer is 78. The court will be deciding issues such as the constitutionality of banning gay marriage, the affordable care act, and regulation of abortion...the court can always overturn old decisions because it's the highest court in the land. To me, this is the most long-lasting change. If a Democrat appoints four new justices, you have Kagan and Sotomayor plus four more with similar ideological leanings (three will do actually)...equals a majority for quite a long time.

Ben in LA

11-16-2015, 11:12 AM

America will be great again.

America has never been great...for ALL of its residents. In America's past there's always been someone marginalized (Blacks, the Japanese, Jews, LGBT, women, children, the poor)...and electing Heil Toupee won't change that. So miss me with that "Make America Great Again" bullshit.

buttslinger

11-16-2015, 02:33 PM

America has never been great...for ALL of its residents. In America's past there's always been someone marginalized (Blacks, the Japanese, Jews, LGBT, women, children, the poor)...and electing Heil Toupee won't change that. So miss me with that "Make America Great Again" bullshit.

Ben, as I have said before, Obama followed by Clinton really is AS GOOD AS IT GETS for the BLACK and LGBT community.
And they get my vote, I'll be dancing election night....

HOWEVER....if Hillary erased some damning email and the FBI techies can "un-erase" it, then suddenly everything changes.
Sanders, O'Malley, and Biden are all beatable.
And if it came down to Trump, Carson, Rubio, or Cruz.............
Trump V. Sanders???
I dunno!!???????

trish

11-16-2015, 04:31 PM

if Hillary erased some damning email...Don't you just love hypotheticals. You can use them spread all kinds of shit. What if Rubio shot and killed a loan shark who held his mark and the FBI finds out?

The election is a few weeks less than a year away. Anything can happen. Anything might be discovered. What if Jesus descends from the clouds and endorses Frank Oz? Vote for Oz, Christians will.

Stavros

11-16-2015, 05:39 PM

America has never been great...for ALL of its residents. In America's past there's always been someone marginalized (Blacks, the Japanese, Jews, LGBT, women, children, the poor)...and electing Heil Toupee won't change that. So miss me with that "Make America Great Again" bullshit.

On the details you are right; but it is as an idea that America is great. And even with its flaws the USA has been a great success compared to most other states, showing an ability to change which seems close to impossible in, for example, the United Kingdom or France where ossified institutions persist with no regard whatsoever for the social changes taking place around them. That might not be much comfort for Americans who are not really bothered by what happens elsewhere, but it might explain why many people would swap their life in Birmingham for a new one in Birmingham. However quite a few Brits do retire to Florida, which does need some explaining.

Stavros

11-16-2015, 05:40 PM

Don't you just love hypotheticals. You can use them spread all kinds of shit. What if Rubio shot and killed a loan shark who held his mark and the FBI finds out?

The election is a few weeks less than a year away. Anything can happen. Anything might be discovered. What if Jesus descends from the clouds and endorses Frank Oz? Vote for Oz, Christians will.

I don't know who Frank Oz is, but I suspect that if Jesus did descend from the clouds, it would not take long for him to be arrested and end up in in a police cell. What happens after that I dread to think for a man with long hair, a beard and of Middle Eastern appearance...

buttslinger

11-16-2015, 07:32 PM

Don't you just love hypotheticals.

In this case I guarantee you that damning emails were erased. And the FBI is looking for them. So it's not really that hypothetical.
They actually vetted Rubio for a possible vice-president position last election and they found stuff.

trish

11-16-2015, 08:07 PM

The voice of Yoda, Frank Oz is. Emails erased guarantees there are none.

Stavros

11-16-2015, 10:44 PM

The voice of Yoda, Frank Oz is. Emails erased guarantees there are none.

Hmmm...there are times when I realise I must live a sheltered life. I will assume Yoda is a brand of yoghurt.

dreamon

11-16-2015, 11:35 PM

Ben, as I have said before, Obama followed by Clinton really is AS GOOD AS IT GETS for the BLACK and LGBT community.

By almost any measure, Obama has been terrible for minorities (especially African-Americans).

Under Obama:

Black Poverty Rate has gotten worse
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-blacks-poverty-education/2014/01/08/id/545866/

Black Unemployment Rate is virtually unchanged, still worse than overall unemployment rate
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/racial-double-standard-black-unemployment-under-barack-obama

Minorities' Median Household Income has sharply dropped
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Black Household Median Net Worth has fallen by a fifth, and is 1/13th that of white households
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2015/07/23/under-obama-blacks-are-worse-off--far-worse-n2028985/page/full

Black Home Ownership is down, despite white home ownership going up
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378087/black-americans-are-worse-under-obama-deroy-murdock

dreamon

11-16-2015, 11:36 PM

However quite a few Brits do retire to Florida, which does need some explaining.

Simple, Florida has much better weather.

buttslinger

11-17-2015, 07:37 AM

Izz gonna git HOTT for ISIS, you betcha, don't worry France, don't worry Downtrodden, TRUMP is ON THIS!!!!

http://s7.postimg.org/q11g8cinf/trumpff.jpg (http://postimage.org/)upload photos (http://postimage.org/)

martin48

11-17-2015, 04:08 PM

Why not just build a bloody great wall.

Plan attached

Laphroaig

11-17-2015, 04:48 PM

Why not just build a bloody great wall.

Plan attached

If you're planning a direct tunnel between the US and England, then I want Hadrian's wall rebuilt...

Ben in LA

11-18-2015, 02:17 PM

By almost any measure, Obama has been terrible for minorities (especially African-Americans).

Under Obama:

Black Poverty Rate has gotten worse
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-blacks-poverty-education/2014/01/08/id/545866/

Black Unemployment Rate is virtually unchanged, still worse than overall unemployment rate
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/racial-double-standard-black-unemployment-under-barack-obama

Minorities' Median Household Income has sharply dropped
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/

Black Household Median Net Worth has fallen by a fifth, and is 1/13th that of white households
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2015/07/23/under-obama-blacks-are-worse-off--far-worse-n2028985/page/full

Black Home Ownership is down, despite white home ownership going up
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378087/black-americans-are-worse-under-obama-deroy-murdock

Where are the jobs the job creators promised? And no, I don't think Trump (or Uncle Ben) would do any better...but certainly worse.

buttslinger

11-19-2015, 05:08 PM

As ye Learn'ed scholars trivialize my posts, I want you to stop and take your hat off to the immense power of BULLSHIT on our politics and daily lives. As Jesus said 'Give unto God, that which is God's, and give the bullshitters bullshit"
In the original Aramaic it was goatshit, ......and they changed it to Caesar in the King James translation.
But you can bet even back in Roman times, the aroma wafting from the Senate floor wasn't coming from the bottom of sandals, it was coming from Senator's mouths.
So show some respect when you watch the debates on TV. You're watching History in the Making.

trish

11-19-2015, 05:48 PM

I watch History as it's passing.

flabbybody

11-21-2015, 04:14 AM

Trump wants to require Muslims to register. His poll numbers are soaring

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trumps-call-for-muslim-registry-denounced-by-democrats/?_r=0

martin48

11-21-2015, 07:59 PM

Wont be long now! Yes, Trish, we are watching history AGAIN!

buttslinger

11-22-2015, 12:57 AM

fred41

11-22-2015, 07:55 PM

President Donald "Milo Minderbinder" Trump will make a deal with ISIS: They can have Iraq and Syria and rape and pillage all they want....in return they aren't allowed to Jihad in Israel, Europe, or America. Oh, and we have to commit a terrorist act on ourselves once a year.
I like that BS, you found a way to appease almost every type of voter with that foreign policy stance...even if folks only admit it to themselves.
Maybe you should run...

flabbybody

11-22-2015, 08:13 PM

Wont be long now! Yes, Trish, we are watching history AGAIN!
We're trying to have a reasonable debate about refugees and visas. This pic is part of the hysteria inserted into the discussion. It's coming from both the left and right

buttslinger

11-23-2015, 03:04 AM

....Maybe you should run...

As ridiculous as that sounds, there actually are serious-minded people that are taking Trump seriously now.
His ratings have remained solid from day one. Scary Shit.

flabbybody

11-23-2015, 08:52 AM

martin48

11-24-2015, 04:32 PM

It was not meant as hysteria. It was a serious comment about the slippery slope that some politicians seem keen to start upon.

1933
Boycott of Jewish businesses.
Jewish civil servants, lawyers and teachers sacked.
Race Science lessons to teach that Jews are untermensch.

1935
'Jews not wanted here' signs put up at swimming pools etc.
Nuremberg laws - Jews could not be citizens. They were not allowed to vote or to marry a German.

1938
Jews could not be doctors.
Jews had to add the name Israel (men) or Sarah (women) to their name.
Jewish children forbidden to go to school.
Kristallnacht - attacks on Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues

Trump told Yahoo News (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-id-for-muslims) that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

We're trying to have a reasonable debate about refugees and visas. This pic is part of the hysteria inserted into the discussion. It's coming from both the left and right

AshlynCreamher

12-02-2015, 04:52 AM

He's sticking to his story that on 9/11 he witnessed THOUSANDS of Muslims in Jersey City cheer as they watched the towers fall. He's fucking lying. It never happened and someone needs to call him out on it. He shouldn't get a pass every time he makes shit up.

It really did happen, I remember watching it on TV (and I have really good memory) They were celebrating in the streets and roof tops, chanting "Allah Acrobat!!!". ...sumthin along those lines.

Reason we can't find video of this today is because of ancient aliens :)

AshlynCreamher

12-02-2015, 04:53 PM

Trump told Yahoo News (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-id-for-muslims) that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

You liberal always go crazy when you hear the word "database"

And for the record trump never suggested a database, the NBC Reported did, (not that it isn't a bad idea)

Sum mosque's should be shut down.

trish

12-02-2015, 06:48 PM

This just in from Breitbart "News": Glenn Beck accuses Hillary of paying Trump to run in and ruin the GOP primaries. At least Beck got one thing right, Trump is fucking up the GOP like nobody can...except maybe Ben Carson...or Rand Paul...or Ted Cruz...or any of the other unqualified clown-car fuck-ups that are posing as GOP presidential candidates.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/02/glenn-beck-spoiler-donald-trump-running-to-help-hillary-win-white-house/

trish

12-02-2015, 06:57 PM

Sum mosque's should be shut down. Mosques and Gun Shops are protected by The Constitution.

martin48

12-03-2015, 05:00 PM

In England, "trump" is slang term for fart (emit wind from the anus). Says it all really

broncofan

12-04-2015, 05:11 PM

It will be interesting to see how our national media reacts as Trump gets closer to the highest office in the land. So far, he has recommended registration of Muslims and surveillance of mosques, has suggested that illegal immigrants are mostly rapists and drug runners, he's posted bogus statistics about crimes committed by African-Americans from a non-existent research organization, performed a hideous pantomime of a disabled person, and claimed Megyn Kelly had blood coming out of her ears and her whatever (her whatever probably being her vagina). He's bullet-proof with his supporters despite being a total narcissist who can always pretend to be a victim of the politically correct media.

I hope that he does not win the primary....even if he would lose to Hillary, he is whipping up ugly feelings, knows nothing about public policy, cares nothing about social welfare, and debases the discourse.

martin48

12-08-2015, 02:19 PM

He gets more extreme. “But, I Don’t. Care.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35037701

martin48

12-08-2015, 07:44 PM

Hang on, he's saying Police 'afraid for their lives' in 'radicalised' London

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35037007

Not true just like most of the shit this guy talks

flabbybody

12-09-2015, 08:14 AM

I wonder if people who tell pollsters they back Trump will choose differently in an actual primary contest. Iowa and New Hamshire will be the first test where votes count. There just might be a Trump surprise to the downside

trish

12-09-2015, 04:47 PM

What is truly sad is that Trump's brand of fascism is cheered and applauded by nearly one third of the Republican party. WTF!

martin48

12-09-2015, 06:45 PM

From today's Guardian

The thing that is hard to appreciate about Donald Trump before you personally enter a room with him – in this case, the hangar deck of a wartime aircraft carrier (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/08/i-dont-care-donald-trump-brushes-off-horrified-reaction-to-his-muslim-ban) – is that his first weapon is humor. Long before he fires up his loyal supporters, before he hits them with outrageous comments that send shockwaves around the world, he makes them laugh.
He looks like the man he is: a real estate developer with dodgy hair. But don’t underestimate the guy – he has the intuition and timing of a standup comedian.

Holding his hands out wide like a preacher, the second finger of his right hand pointed to the heavens for added purpose, he reduces his audience within minutes to fits of laughter. It could be any comedy store on a Monday night, except you then realize that there’s something odd about what he’s inviting the crowd to find so funny.

Most standup comics mine gags out of their own weaknesses and inadequacies. Trump produces belly-laughs out of the vulnerabilities of others, in a relentless stream of mockery and disparagement.

One of the largest giggles of the night comes when he lays into the “mainstream media” – that’s us – encouraging the entire crowd to turn around to where we are standing at the back of the hall and boo at us. It’s not a comfortable feeling.

Then he name-checks one particular NBC reporter who he claims misrepresented him in a previous campaign stop. “She’s here tonight,” he says.

Boos and laughs, in equal measure.
“Little Katie. She’s back there. She’s back there.”
More boos and laughs.
“Third-rate reporter. Third-rate. Remember that.”

“I mean, Lindsey Graham, he’s at zero,” Trump says, inspiring a healthy laugh from the crowd. “He’s at zero. Zero! Let me ask you a question: I don’t get this Lindsey Graham. He’s literally at zero. He’s on television all the time and he doesn’t go up, his ideas are so bad.”
Next for the chopping block is Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. “He’s on 3%! He says he’s upset with me because the tone, the tone of Donald Trump (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) is not nice. We have people whose heads are being chopped off in the Middle East because they are Christian. And we talk about my tone.”
As that comment suggests, the technique is pretty simple. Earn the love of the assembled throng through laughter, then draw them into your world.
And what a world it is. The world of Donald Trump is a dangerous place where there are threats around every corner, where the country is going to the dogs at high speed, and where only one man has the strength to avoid disaster.

“Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!” he has the crowd baying by this point.
And they are not any old threats. They are the worst, most lurid, most bloody, most terrifying threats imaginable to any American. Should Donald Trump have the misfortune not to make it all the way to the White House, he could start a new career as director of Saw VIII.

Mexicans don’t just enter the country illegally, they rape and murder. Isis doesn’t just kill, they behead. Christians aren’t killed in the Middle East, they are “dumped in the ground in steel cages”.

The chaos that is the world outside the US is coming home, folks, brought into the country via the uncontrolled immigration of thousands of unknown Muslims who nobody dares to stop and question because of fears about political correctness and racial profiling. In the wake of Paris and San Bernardino, nobody is to be trusted.

“We had a situation in California very recently where somebody was making bombs. The mother saw. The mother didn’t think there was anything wrong. I watched her being interviewed and believe me, in my opinion, she was lying like crazy. ‘Oh, I didn’t know, I didn’t know ...’”

Donald Trump calls for complete ban on Muslims entering the US (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video)
So how did we get to this fearsome and fearful place? By now the crowd is much quieter, contemplative. There is energy in the room, lots of it, but it’s curled up like a tiger.

We got to this terrible place because people are stupid. Everybody is stupid who isn’t inside this aircraft carrier, right here, right this moment, listening to the one person who above all isn’t stupid.

“This is a stupid country in so many ways,” said the Republican frontrunner who is vying to become the successor to Ronald Reagan, with his city upon a hill. “Can you imagine what our great leaders of the past would be thinking?” he asked, taking the words right out of my mouth.

The country is stupid. Obama, of course, is more than stupid (“I don’t even know if he knows what the hell is going on”). Even the military generals are stupid. Instead of getting their heads around how to eviscerate Isis in Syria, they spend their time being interviewed by TV stations. Can you believe it? Television!

“Do you think General George Patton would be interviewed? He would be interviewed after total and complete victory. They shoot first and talk later.”
Which brings us seamlessly, and inevitably, to that place where Donald Trump really wants to draw us. The place of final realization where it all clicks together, it all makes sense in a senseless world.
Outside this room lurk beheadings and sharia law, a president who is clueless and weak generals blathering away on TV screens. Inside this room there is a solution that can Make America Great Again.

“We need someone who is strong. Someone with incredible intelligence. That’s it.”

What is that solution? Where is that strength and intelligence?

Donald Trump knows. Does America?

broncofan

12-09-2015, 07:27 PM

A good article, the strongest aspects being the description of Trump's rallies. I think it's maybe too simplistic to say that Donald Trump has the skills of a comedian. I understand the author is trying to give the devil his due, but good comedy is not a simple stream of insults. Only cruel people laugh at things simply because they are blunt or because others would hesitate to say them.

Trump prides himself on being honest, but bluntness is not honesty. In Trump's case, he lies, then when others uncover his obvious lies, he attacks them, and lies about what they said about him and on and on....these are the skills of a demagogue. I personally don't think it's outrageous to compare Trump to fascists (the Nazis, Hitler etc). Anyone who has read about fascism knows that before violence or civil rights violations you have counter-factual narratives and delusions.

broncofan

12-09-2015, 07:44 PM

dreamon

12-10-2015, 12:03 AM

Trump is doing his friend Hillary a favor by weakening the Republican Party and letting her glide to the Presidency. A Hillary Presidency is going to be really depressing.

fred41

12-10-2015, 01:40 AM

Trump is doing his friend Hillary a favor by weakening the Republican Party and letting her glide to the Presidency. A Hillary Presidency is going to be really depressing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

As some of the present polling results show, there is some truth to this (again, though things can very much change)...it would probably be even worse if he ran as an Independent. Some of the present data indicates that even though both candidates have a large unfavorable rating...Trump's is worse...and Hillary Clinton should be able to beat him.

fred41

12-10-2015, 01:48 AM

...although now that I read a bunch of polls on the net...that unfavorable rating jumps around a little bit also.

fred41

12-10-2015, 03:02 AM

here's an interesting article about the unfavorable rating:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/593213/poll-68-percent-trump-supporters-vote-independent

trish

12-10-2015, 07:24 AM

And I understand there is a Godwin's Law argument against calling anyone a Nazi. The parallels become so thin that it appears one is only saying it for shock value. Afterall, Bush, Obama, Carson, Sanders have also been likened to Mein Fuhrer. I suppose it depends upon which parallels you like best, whether the comparison makes sense and is helpful in explaining someone's behavior.... I don’t know if I’d compare Trump to Hitler...yet; although Trump is indeed a demagogue. Nevertheless, I would compare the crowds that cheer and applaud the two men. One was a congregation of ignorant, hate-filled, mean-spirited, violence-threatening, racist, small-minded bigots who were too afraid to publicly vent their poisonous hearts before they were given permission to do by a third rate painter. The other is a congregation of ignorant, hate-filled, mean-spirited, violence-threatening, racist, small-minded bigots who are too afraid to publicly vent their poisonous hearts before they were given permission to do by a third rate celebrity.

buttslinger

12-10-2015, 11:07 PM

I would pontificate that there is a slight parallel between the States today and Germany in the 1920s, not only had Germany lost WWI, most Germans thought their own GOVERNMENT blew that war. And the working class German suffered the most when it took a wheelbarrow full of Marks to buy a loaf of bread. Blaming the Jews sounded pretty good.

Today's working class Republican sees Illegal Immigrants taking their jobs, and feels like Bush II blew Iraq and killing Osama BinLaden.
Not to mention wrecking the economy. They suffered most from Bush. Trump is talking directly to the frustration of the blue collar Republican. He and Sarah Palin are the first not to talk down to them.

Trump is all about his own BOTTOM LINE financially, and then the rest is gravy. The BOTTOM LINE in this deal was a Publicity stunt to make the Trump Name more marketable. He has NO real plan for being President. No team, no vice President, nothing in writing. He hasn't spent much money. The FOX News hammer and lunchpail crowd is his new Bitch and he's fucking the hell out of her. He's on an ego-trip and his fortune will grow because of it.
ENJOY,...Democrats..............
This is going to be an eight year party for us. On Tap.

VOTE IN 2016!!!!
REGISTER NOW!!!

Ben

12-11-2015, 04:59 AM

Muhammad Ali Hits Back at Trump’s Anti-Muslim Comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieYZD_VLIn0

Ben

12-11-2015, 05:00 AM

I'll take a "depressing" Clinton presidency over a dangerous Trump presidency.

fred41

12-11-2015, 06:37 AM

I'll take a "depressing" Clinton presidency over a dangerous Trump presidency.

Hell, I'd take almost anyone else other than Trump that's running now in either party...including some I generally dislike.

ukexpatinasia

12-13-2015, 02:18 AM

I think he is saying things which a lot of people think, but can't say as they don't want to be attacked like he is being now.

Saying stuff like he is doing is not good for their own business or political ambitions.

But honestly, Western countries have a serious problem with regards to immigration.

trish

12-13-2015, 05:48 PM

The U.S.'s influx of Mexicans is currently negative. If we accept ten thousand Syrian refugees as we agreed to do that's a small number compared to our current population of over three-hundred-million American citizens. 10000/300000000 is 1/30000. The problem is not that our economy can't absorb them, but that our minds and hearts are too small to accept them.

broncofan

12-13-2015, 09:06 PM

I think we should accept the Syrian refugees, but there are a lot of people who engage in all or nothing thinking on this issue. Trump wants to have a travel ban for all Muslims which is a reprehensible policy. There are some, Trump included, who want to accept no refugees which I think is unacceptable when you have hundreds of thousands fleeing certain death.

I personally think we should accept 10,000 but also have a vetting policy (I don't think anyone is recommending not having a vetting policy). To do so is not to treat all Muslims as terrorists, but to recognize that there are several terrorist groups operating in the theater of conflict in Syria and that unlike in traditional war the combatants do not have an incentive to identify themselves.

Many of the people living in Syria, even if not ISIS members, were engaged in a civil war. I do think the likelihood that a small number of the 10,000 we accept will be extremists is pretty high, and that some level of concern and vigilance is justified...but everyone should do their part to alleviate a humanitarian crisis, and 10,000 is less of a burden than most other countries have taken on. I suppose I'm concerned that there have been some on the left who have said that any level of concern about how carefully we vet the refugees shows anti-Muslim bias; what is going on on the ground in Syria and has been for the last four plus years is sufficient in my view to justify caution even without probing underlying causes.

fred41

12-13-2015, 09:23 PM

I suppose I'm concerned that there have been some on the left who have said that any level of concern about how carefully we vet the refugees shows anti-Muslim bias; what is going on on the ground in Syria and has been for the last four plus years is sufficient in my view to justify caution even without probing underlying causes.
I think they're going to be real careful on this anyway...because at this point, the administration knows that if they make any mistake and it winds up in the news, there will be hell to pay....

martin48

12-15-2015, 02:44 PM

,,,,,,,

martin48

12-17-2015, 01:33 PM

Classic. Just classic

fred41

12-17-2015, 02:57 PM

That's from a parody account - https://twitter.com/mcdonaldjtrump/status/640698884998590464

some of the comments on there are pretty funny.

martin48

01-05-2016, 06:07 PM

I like Trump's first tv advert - is this it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWc-vzdXCyw

peejaye

01-18-2016, 01:03 PM

I've just done "my bit" by signing the petition to ban this maniac from visiting the UK, now at 572,992. Just wish I could do the same with David Cameron!

martin48

01-19-2016, 12:10 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/18/donald-trump-should-be-banned-from-uk-for-inflaming-hate-mp-says

Debated in Parliament - well, sort of

If Donald Trump gets elected, there'll be hell toupée.

trish

01-20-2016, 04:26 PM

Palin Endorsement Widens Trump's Lead Among Idiots

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/palin-endorsement-widens-trumps-lead-among-idiots

(Of course Borowitz is a satirist: but these days, when it concerns the GOP, it's difficult to distinguish reality from comedy).

martin48

01-21-2016, 12:36 PM

After Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall, another match made in heaven

broncofan

01-21-2016, 03:35 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-dishes-bizarre-improvised-rant-iowa-article-1.2091124

Since Palin's back in the spotlight I wanted to refresh our collective memories about her speech giving ability sans teleprompter. It's only a 58 second clip so please watch. Holy shit!

martin48

01-21-2016, 04:10 PM

This is from Palin's speech honouring Trump

“He is from the private sector, not a politician – can I get a ‘Hallelujah!’ Where, in the private sector, you actually have to balance budgets in order to prioritize, to keep the main thing, the main thing, and he knows the main thing: a president is to keep us safe economically and militarily. He knows the main thing, and he knows how to lead the charge. So troops, hang in there, because help’s on the way because he, better than anyone, isn’t he known for being able to command, fire!”

What is "the main thing"?

Laphroaig

01-21-2016, 10:26 PM

What is "the mane thing"?

Here it is... :whistle:

909776

buttslinger

01-22-2016, 07:14 PM

There is no SECOND CHOICE after Trump. .......Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie.............The Republican Establishment is drinking heavily.
I think all those ILLUSIONS they've been peddling to the masses have bit them on the ass.
If Hillary can avoid getting indicted, I'm predicting a cakewalk to the White House.

martin48

02-04-2016, 02:07 PM

It gets better and better

Donald Trump is ‘nominated for Nobel Peace Prize’ for 'vigorous peace through strength ideology'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-for-vigorous-peace-through-strength-ideology-a6850636.html

buttslinger

02-04-2016, 08:37 PM

I would say on the Republican side, the race now is to see who can get Jeb's DONORS.
Trump's got ten months to explain to his admirers how he's going to humanely drag 11 million Illegals back to El Border.
Even Fox listeners have a limit how much they'll swallow.

rodinuk

02-21-2016, 07:25 AM

I would say on the Republican side, the race now is to see who can get Jeb's DONORS.
...

You're right on the money there, Bush has dropped out.

fred41

02-27-2016, 07:18 PM

It's true - politicians rarely have a respectable moral compass: Exhibit A - combination of hurt feelings and naked thirst for a cabinet position create this: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004236191/gov-christie-endorses-donald-trump.html

trish

02-28-2016, 03:20 AM

That's huge! They'll have to widen the cabinet doors for that one.

fred41

02-28-2016, 04:28 AM

http://www.artcraftonline.com/pot-belly-cabinet/

Stavros

02-28-2016, 07:35 PM

The New York Times in the past week has produced two articles, one of which exposes the rift on policy between Trump and the GOP in Congress; the other on the state of despair in the GOP over Trump's success.
The former notes the cleavage between Trump and the GOP on issues such as illegal immigration, eminent domain, planned parenthood, Israel and energy. In the other article, the institutional shortcomings of the party are exposed, to the extent that it appears to have no real respected or authoritative voice not taking part in the election who can distance the party from Trump.
That Trump appears to have got ahead of Rubio by receiving Chris Christie's endorsement should in fact raise eyebrows the other way, given that Christie once mocked Trump as a 'childish whiner who couldn't be President', and, best of all 'Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief'. No wonder Atlantic City is in decline.

Who knows, looking ahead, we may yet be allowed to ponder a President Ryan in the White House, albeit not a Jack one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/republican-race-puts-paul-ryan-and-donald-trump-on-collision-course.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html

What has me baffled are the rules the RNC has for selecting their Presidential candidate at the National Convention. Using a byzantine form a proportional representation still makes it possible for Trump to arrive at the Convention with the majority of delegates from the Primaries and Caucuses, but lose at the Convention as those delegates can switch their vote after the first ballot and there is a contest between two or three candidates. I have included the Rules and Regulations of the GOP where you can lose yourself in admiration at the ability of this party to strangle the English language, or take this snippet from the Wikipedia explanation-

Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) is the second-most populous state and a GOP stronghold. Its delegation would consist of 155 members, as follows:

Texas is allowed 10 delegates under the at-large rule.
The chairperson of the Texas GOP, the state national committeeman, and the state national committeewoman each count as one delegate, for a total of three delegates.
Texas has 36 members in the House of Representatives; thus, Texas is allowed 108 delegates (36 * 3) under the House membership rule.
As Mitt Romney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney) carried Texas in the 2012 United States Presidential Election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Presidential_Election), and as Texas has 38 electors (36 House members plus its two Senators), Texas is allowed 4.5 delegates under the at-large provision plus an additional 22.8 delegates (38 * 60%), for a total of 27.3 (4.5 + 22.8), rounded upward to 28 delegates.
Texas is allowed the following additional delegates as follows:

One additional delegate as the current Governor of Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Texas) (Greg Abbott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott)) is Republican.
Of the 32 current members of the House, 20 are Republicans; thus, one additional delegate under this provision.
As both houses of the Texas Legislature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature) are controlled by the GOP (98-52 in the Texas House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_of_Representatives) and 20-11 in the Texas Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate)) and both chambers are presided over by a Republican (Joe Straus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Straus) as the Speaker of the House and Dan Patrick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Patrick_%28politician%29) as Lieutenant Governor, which presides over the Senate), two additional delegates (one for having any chamber meeting the criteria, and one additional for having both chambers meet the criteria).
As both United States Senators from Texas are Republicans (John Cornyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornyn) and Ted Cruz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz)), and as both have been elected within the past six years, two additional delegates.

The Texas delegation would thus consist of 10 + 3 + 108 + 28 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 155 members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Convention#Texas

https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

trish

02-28-2016, 08:11 PM

broncofan

02-28-2016, 11:38 PM

Ironically the GOP extracted from Trump the promise that he won't abandon the party and make an independent run; the 'great' deal-maker should've negotiated in return a commitment from the GOP that they wouldn't abandon him.
It will be interesting to see what Donald Trump's promise means if the delegates switch their vote after the first ballot. As much as I think Trump would be the worst possible president, he would have an argument to run as an independent if the GOP ignored the will of their constituents.

I don't know anything about the labyrinthine process Stavros outlined above (perhaps I should take a civics class...or perhaps parties should adopt a nomination process that is more straightforward and sensible).

I'm not sure what the point is of having an alternate contest at the convention, except to reconcile the difference between what Republican voters and Republican leaders want. Perhaps it was designed this way with people like Trump in mind, who might win the vote of party members but not move the party in a direction the leadership is comfortable with. But couldn't such a person always cannibalize votes as a third party candidate?

flabbybody

03-01-2016, 12:27 AM

If Trump has the prerequisite delegate count and is somehow denied the nomination then the GOP will get a shellacking in November that will exceed the '64 Goldwater contest. It's precisely the perception of establishment "fixing" that has made the Trump candidacy viable and has made the opposition look so pathetically weak.

Stavros

03-04-2016, 05:21 PM

Until yesterday, when I watched the whole of Mr Romney's diatribe against Mr Trump, I had never heard of Trump Steaks ($199 for a pack of 12 burgers? Seriously?) Trump Vodka, or Trump Ice and had only vaguely heard of Trump University, so I have found a breakdown of the various Trump businesses for those who want to know, and it is here-
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-2014-10?op=1&IR=T

bluebottle

03-04-2016, 08:27 PM

William Hill has him at 3-1 second favourite to Jeb Bush at 13-8 to win the nomination.

He's 5-1 to be the next president behind Bush at 4-1 and Clinton at 11/10.

The view here is that he's a complete asshat

Most people in the UK reckon he's a senile twat..........

Until yesterday, when I watched the whole of Mr Romney's diatribe against Mr Trump, I had never heard of Trump Steaks ($199 for a pack of 12 burgers? Seriously?) Trump Vodka, or Trump Ice and had only vaguely heard of Trump University, so I have found a breakdown of the various Trump businesses for those who want to know, and it is here-
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-2014-10?op=1&IR=T
here in the UK, Trump is a euphanism for fart.........

Stavros

03-05-2016, 04:24 PM

Last night on the BBC2 Newsnight programme, there was an item in which Donald Trump's (alleged) relationship with the New York Mafia -specifically, the Genovese clan- was explored, including an interview first aired in 2013 with 'The Don' which was cut short by the wise guy when the questions got a bit too hot, particularly in relation to a man called Felix Sater, his former adviser of whom 'the Don' claimed he wouldn't know if he saw him in a room. In the programme it was alleged that the concrete for Trump Tower in Manhattan was purchased from a firm owned by 'Fat' Tony Salerno of the Genovese crime family, although the S&A company was jointly owned with the Gambino family, headed by 'the Don' Paul Castellano.

The links will whet your appetite. Maybe it is a pity neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio refused to endorse Trump should he win the nomination, but at what point will these allegations become part of the campaign to prevent 'the Don' from becoming 'the President'?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-walks-out-over-questions-about-his-mafia-connections-during-bbc-panorama-interview-8695855.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/trump-mob-mafia/

NRT

03-07-2016, 07:17 AM

Im a londoner and secretly hoping he gets in. The world will be totally different and more interesting for one thing. America would be at war home and abroad. At home, a war against illegals, latinos, mexicans who will have to prove they are not illegals once the wall has started to be built. The same with muslims who maybe in interned just to make sure they are not terrorists at the borders as well as at home. The will be more black deaths by cops and security , because he wont support at all 'black lives matter' beleiveing instead 'all lives matter' so cops would get a green light to do as they please with stiffer sentences for rioting blacks. America will start more wars and invasions abroad and guantanamo bay is more likely to be expanded

martin48

03-07-2016, 05:39 PM

All sounds good to me. Why not take Britain out of the EU as well, then the EU will start to fall apart. We can all have those European wars, like in the old days, then who cares what's happening in the US.

Im a londoner and secretly hoping he gets in. The world will be totally different and more interesting for one thing. America would be at war home and abroad. At home, a war against illegals, latinos, mexicans who will have to prove they are not illegals once the wall has started to be built. The same with muslims who maybe in interned just to make sure they are not terrorists at the borders as well as at home. The will be more black deaths by cops and security , because he wont support at all 'black lives matter' beleiveing instead 'all lives matter' so cops would get a green light to do as they please with stiffer sentences for rioting blacks. America will start more wars and invasions abroad and guantanamo bay is more likely to be expanded

peejaye

03-07-2016, 06:09 PM

I think NRT is about "spot-on". Why are so many American citizens giving this psychopath the belief he could actually govern the US?
How "fucked-up" is the US for people wishing him into power? I've never visited the States but I would love to, not sure if I would dare if this "nutter" was in charge though! Would I be allowed in?:yayo:

martin48

03-08-2016, 05:04 PM

Here's the answer

sexyasianescorts

03-18-2016, 10:58 AM

I like him. He is actually smarter than you think. If Donald Trump is President and the UK come out of the Euro then I will think all my Christmasses canme at once!!!

Chloe x

trish

03-18-2016, 03:42 PM

Trump won the primary in my home town. I walk down the street, greet my neighbors and a shiver runs down my spine.

fred41

03-18-2016, 07:13 PM

Trump won the primary in my home town. I walk down the street, greet my neighbors and a shiver runs down my spine.

This sums it up. The rules don't apply. You can now be the silliest looking guy in the room , but still have have the balls to insult everyone on their appearance. You can be totally rude and everyone calls it refreshingly un-PC. You can have zero answers to any questions...as a matter of fact, not even bother to brush up and learn ANY policy what-so-ever.
You can basically just be a fourth grader:
http://nypost.com/2016/03/17/donald-trump-speaks-at-a-fourth-grade-reading-level/

Jericho

03-18-2016, 07:26 PM

He is actually smarter than you think.

That's rilly not raising the bar very high! :hide-1:

buttslinger

03-18-2016, 11:04 PM

FACT: The Republicans have used their position to suck the blood out of everything they could reach for the last 25 years.
Politically speaking, it is no lie that The Republicans have been the cause of every single bad thing that is happening now, even the weather.
Bur fear not, the power of love is greater than the love of power. And Karma is saying Trump exists because the GOP was already on it's back gasping for air. Ted Croz??? Are you kidding me?

There is nothing wrong with business. There is nothing wrong with Wall St. Nothing a Criminal Court couldn't solve.

The Heavy Lifting for Hillary is going to be grabbing Republican Hearts and Minds while the price is so low. There's going to be a lot of disillusioned Republican voters this Thanksgiving. Hillary should start appearing at speeches with a side-arm and Bible. And reduce the price of gas to a dollar a gallon. You would see lots of Americans marching in the New Democratic Parade.

To my perverted Brit Distant Cousins:
The USA is roughly the same size and the same population as all of Europe. While being in charge of all of Europe would be impossible for one man (except almost Hitler) Americans do have the luxury of being quite a powerhouse on those rare occasions when Bernie's Vermonters see eye to eye with Cruz's Texans.

I have no doubt that Melania's panties are sopping wet after meeting all those rich powerful men, and being on TV, and dreaming of redecorating the White House.

I'm thinking of that scene from Goodfellas when the John Gotti character takes the Joe Pesci character into a garage to make him a made man. What happens between Trump and the GOP is going to be great TV. There will be blood.

Stavros

04-20-2016, 11:44 AM

fred41

04-20-2016, 02:06 PM

An interesting statistic from the New York voting with regard to Donald Trump (link to quote below):

As of 1 April, there were only 2.5 million registered Republican voters in the state of New York (less than half the number of registered Democrats), and last night, just 480,000 of those Republicans voted for Trump.

The long and winding road to Cleveland...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/20/clinton-trump-new-york-primary-delegate-counts

Perhaps the Guardian is trying to down play it... but that's a lot.
Considering usual voter turnout , especially in primaries where many voters already know what the results are likely to be (New York is a pretty easy State to guess the results in...normally.)
Roughly the turnout for the Democrats was about the same, percentage wise -
http://www.bustle.com/articles/155732-how-many-people-voted-in-new-york-the-empire-states-primaries-drew-scores-of-voters
If you then look at the results, Trump actually did better much better than Clinton. He won every county except Manhattan (which surprised me a tiny bit) while Hillary Clinton predominantly won New York City, and a handful of others -
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

Stavros

04-20-2016, 04:48 PM

A fair comment and correction to perceptions and stats, which are not my strong point anyway. Thanks. Not sure it gives Trump much chance against Clinton if they face off in November. A lot can happen between now and then.

flabbybody

04-20-2016, 05:09 PM

Here's my quick anectodal observation of the now inevitable Clinton-Trump contest.
Many of my friends and family might not be so eager to admit their Trump preference in public discussion. There's still a certain stigma attatched to being "Trump people." But the polls might underestimate the sheer rage of the electorate towards anything status quo. These surveys show Hillary with an advantage that might not show up on Election Day in November

Stavros

04-20-2016, 06:33 PM

Do you think that voter turn out for Trump may swing states his way? If the campaign is toxic, as I think it could be, that might provoke more people to vote than usual, so that indeed it could be closer than polls currently suggest. I think another rogue factor is people switching their vote from one side to the other, as I think Trump appeals to some Democrats but some Republicans might either note vote or even vote for Hillary. Hard to say as Trump still has to get through the Convention. Guess it all depends on how determined the RNC is to block his nomination or create an impasse for a 'White Knight' to emerge.

flabbybody

04-21-2016, 04:05 PM

Voter turnout might be a real wildcard in this one. Emotions for and against Trump are running on hyperdrive and it's hard to figure which side will be motivated the most.

Stavros

05-11-2016, 05:22 PM

The New York Times has been reporting on the Trump campaign's search for funds for the General Election, on the basis that as Trump funded his own campaign for the party nomination, he thinks the Party should stump up money for the General Election campaign. What I wonder, and I don't know the answer to this, is whether or not Trump's 'grassroots support' will translate into 'grassroots organization'. The question is, how far do 'boots on the ground' help win Presidential elections? We are familiar with the way in which Obama won the 2008 election, and Trump, who owes his fame to The Apprentice rather than any record of success in business, has name recognition, but it has already been noted in the Primaries that his organization on the ground was inferior to Ted Cruz's campaign. I wonder if at election time, there is face-to-face canvassing by candidates and their supporters, if this is more likely for local officials or Congressional representatives and Senators, and if the Presidential hopeful can piggy-back on them.
I make this point because I have been canvassed for vote by a party worker twice in the last 30 years, I think outside of marginal constituencies in the UK nobody bothers to canvass any more, and all we get is one leaflet and the assumption that if you want to know who the candidate is you find them online.
Will 2016 be the first truly 'electronic' election?

Stavros

05-25-2016, 03:24 PM

From an 'Exclusive' report in today's Telegraph in the UK (the quote is from the second link):
A Telegraph investigation has revealed how Donald Trump signed off on a controversial business deal that was designed to deprive the US Government of tens of millions of dollars in tax. The billionaire Republican presidential nominee approved a $50 million investment in a company – only for the deal to be rewritten several weeks later as a ‘loan’.
Experts say that the effect of the restructuring was to skirt vast tax liabilities and court papers seen by the Telegraph allege that the deal amounted to fraud.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/analysis-what-effect-could-revelations-have-on-trumps-presidenti/

Full story is here-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/exclusive-donald-trump-signed-off-deal-designed-to-deprive-us-of/

I don't know if this is a deal breaker or something Trump will shrug off and kick into the long grass. One wonders if in the worst case scenario, both Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump could spend most of their Presidential campaigns in court-rooms rather than debating rooms...this is shaping up to be a most curious election -for non-Americans.

broncofan

05-25-2016, 06:00 PM

makerandmodder

05-25-2016, 06:21 PM

What I find fascinating is how a man who has spent literally decades courting the establishment and is both a proven liar and the son of a millionaire can successfully present himself as anti-establishment. It's like Nigel Farage over here claiming he's a man of the people and worried about immigration. Not only is he privately educated, he's an ex-stockbroker (neither of which come with any working class creds) and married to a German, who, as an immigrant, would, if he got his way, be denied entry to the UK. His own wife? Wtf?

Trump is so much a part of the establishment that I'm staggered that even he can claim so brazenly that he's against it. Yet millions of Americans are falling for it. I'm not in any way trying to resurrect the old nonsense about all Americans being thick, because that's absurd, what I'm saying is I don't understand how a man can so blatantly present one image whilst standing for something else and yet still be the front-runner. "I'm a peaceful man, I absolutely do not condone violence, but if you oppose me I'd love to punch you in the mouth and I'll not only bomb ISIS I'll commit a war crime by bombing their families too, oh shit someone's coming for me, run awaaayyy!!"

For some reason, everything normal has been turned on its head and makes no sense whatsoever.

It is, however, deeply disturbing that your two front runners are such clearly flawed and worrying characters. I'm no fan of Trump, but Clinton strikes me as equally dangerous from the opposite perspective - someone who will both say and do anything for power, who seems to regard anything but her own succession as somehow against nature.

What's happening in the world? It's not just an American problem, look at what happened in the Austrian elections at the weekend, look at what's happening in Poland right now, look at the rise of the far right in France and Spain and even Germany again (and if that's not scary I really, really don't know what is!)

Stavros

05-25-2016, 08:23 PM

Interesting article (the longer one). It seems most experts think it was an equity investment labeled as debt to avoid taxation.

But it says that the tax avoidance was not Trump's but the partners of Bayrock. I have a feeling that the onus of this would not fall on him....it does show either a somewhat negligent or a dishonest character but he's unlikely to be held liable and his campaign will probably be unaffected.

A useful clarification, as I imagine Trump has advisers and lawyers and knows what is beyond the law and what lies inside it however obscure the dividing line might be, and presumably with regard to both Trump and Clinton their enemies will hope that if they throw enough shit at the fan some of it will eventually stick, though one wonders if there will ever be an extensive debate on real policy issues like education and housing. It is not about whether or not one likes them, but whether or not they can be proven to have broken the law. Wait and see is all we can do.

Stavros

05-25-2016, 08:30 PM

What I find fascinating is how a man who has spent literally decades courting the establishment and is both a proven liar and the son of a millionaire can successfully present himself as anti-establishment.

The nuanced reply would be that Trump for all his White House and DC dinners is outside the political establishment, indeed, has no experience of political office, as was true of Ross Perot whom few people remember, probably for a good reason. The interesting consequence is that if Americans are exhausted with a system that has failed them, with machine politicians who slot into Republican or Democrat and do broadly the same thing, and thus vote Trump for real change, what happens when Trump also fails to deliver, on jobs, on security, on economic growth? I suspect the key election for the USA will be in 2020 by which time either the centre will have produced responsible politicians with popular appeal and realistic visions, or the extremes will come into play. Although there is more violence than usual on the campaign trail (or so it seems), nothing so far has come close to the Democrat Convention in Chicago in 1968, albeit that was held during the Vietnam War at a time when the US population was beginning to turn against it. But yes, there is an ugly tone to much of this violence and it is worrying that Trump is not distancing himself from it. But over the next month or so he is going probably to move to the centre and sound less frightening than at the start of his campaign.

flabbybody

05-27-2016, 04:39 AM

makerandmodder

05-27-2016, 11:40 AM

But yes, there is an ugly tone to much of this violence and it is worrying that Trump is not distancing himself from it. But over the next month or so he is going probably to move to the centre and sound less frightening than at the start of his campaign.

The issue with that, though, is that the violence will always be under the surface, a not-so-subtle backdrop to everything he says. That does not bode well for either our or his future because if he goes all emollient and gentle, his supporters will then (rightly) claim that he too has betrayed them, and disillusionment with the process will be complete.

Things can only get worse, it would appear.

fred41

05-27-2016, 02:18 PM

The latest 24 HR news cycle is Obama claiming foreign leaders are "rattled" about the prospect of a Trump presidency. Trump's predictable response is essentially 'hell yah'
I can only hope Obama stops the pro-Trump rhetoric

I'm not sure how he would do that, considering that the core of Trumps supporters hate Obama as much as Clinton. The President has excellent favorability numbers, but the country at this moment in time is very much polarized...hell, it seems like a large portion of the globe is. Perhaps (hopefully) this is all just a hiccup and here at home we are heading for a one term presidency for whoever wins and both parties start off with a clean slate and...uhmmm...probably not...
...I'm probably just gonna retire next year, get a dog or two and head up into the woods to become a hermit.

trish

05-27-2016, 04:41 PM

I hope you get a cabin with wifi. Otherwise I'll miss you.

Ginamax

05-27-2016, 05:49 PM

We think he is a dick head !!!

fred41

05-27-2016, 06:05 PM

I hope you get a cabin with wifi. Otherwise I'll miss you.
Thank you Trishie...but I could never 'rough it' without hi speed internet and giant flat screen television...Thai food's gonna be tough though.

Stavros

05-28-2016, 07:27 PM

The issue with that, though, is that the violence will always be under the surface, a not-so-subtle backdrop to everything he says. That does not bode well for either our or his future because if he goes all emollient and gentle, his supporters will then (rightly) claim that he too has betrayed them, and disillusionment with the process will be complete.

Things can only get worse, it would appear.

Not so sure about your last comment. At the moment, Trump is trying to get the Republican party to put up most of the money for his Presidential campaign, but according to the New York Times (a hostile source), Trump has a shambolic organization that appears to be incapable of mounting an effective simultaneous nationwide campaign which a General Election requires. I can imagine a scenario in which the Republican Party establishment -the same one derided so often by Mr Trump- will negotiate a deal -and Trump is the man for deals- which trade money and organization for, shall we say, 'clarification' on policies, or 'Positions' as they are called on Trump's website.

This ought not to be a surprise because most Presidents enter office with an agenda they cannot hope to fulfill in its entirety. Whatever agenda George W. Bush had when he entered the White House in 2001 was thrown out the window because of September's events. Obama entered office in 2009 faced with the most serious financial crisis in the US since 1928 and in spite of his commitment, Guantanamo is still functioning, even if that is not entirely his fault. And while I agree that Trump failing to get his headline policies through Congress is predictable, this does, again raise the question of what happens when/if Trump fails. If the US electorate decide there has to be a way to reform Congress if that is seen as the main choking point for real policy-making, how will they address this? How does one reform an institution from the Centre when so much of it is controlled by individual states?

In the UK as in the US, anyone can stand on a platform and make rousing speeches about change, but most political scientists will the tell you real change only takes place at the margins. And I suspect post_Trump most enthusiasts for change will retreat from the arena disillusioned, and the militants who remain will be the same ones who are there now making all the noise.

A Trump Presidency may have quite a different tone from previous ones, but how much of the agenda we know about now would reach the statute books?

Stavros

06-29-2016, 10:57 AM

Are there any limits to the talents and clairvoyance of Donald Trump? This is what he said the other day about Brexit:
“Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders,” he said. “I was on the right side of that issue, as you know, with the people - I was there, I said it was going to happen, I felt it..."

-Mind you, he also said this:
“Globalisation has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/in-major-trade-speech-donald-trump-vows-to-follow-britain-and-declare-economic-independence-for-a7108256.html

Something tells me that if he meets Boris Johnson, born a few miles away in the same city (but not at the same time) only one of them will be left standing, as each believes themselves to be possessed of almost unnatural talents of insight and political skill. One only hopes they will meet as losers in a green room, far far away.

martin48

06-29-2016, 04:09 PM

Something tells me that if he meets Boris Johnson, born a few miles away in the same city (but not at the same time) only one of them will be left standing, as each believes themselves to be possessed of almost unnatural talents of insight and political skill. One only hopes they will meet as losers in a green room, far far away.

Not so certain, if this street art is to be believed.

Stavros

07-20-2016, 01:40 PM

After the revelation yesterday that Mrs Trump appeared to have used in her speech the same words and phrases used by Michelle Obama in her Convention speech in 2008, it has emerged that another original source has been mined for its relevance. As the New Yorker quoted-
“The world outside our borders is a dark place, a scary place,” Marcus Luttrell, a former Navy SEAL, explained. “America is the light.”

it emerges that this is a modified version of a line from the film Gladiator-
"I've seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark. Rome is the light."

One wonders what will the next rifled quote be?

flabbybody

07-20-2016, 02:23 PM

We think he is a dick head !!!

This has never precluded someone from winning an election

peejaye

07-20-2016, 03:05 PM

How close is this maniac to becoming President? :nervous:

I watch channel 4 news about it but so much else seems to be going on there(re. election)it seems to easily go off-topic?

trish

07-20-2016, 03:22 PM

How close is this maniac to becoming President?Don't know. Everyone has a different estimation of his chances. It's close enough that I can't bare to look. (I'm the kind of girl who turns her eyes from the screen when the story's about to go badly awry.)

flabbybody

07-20-2016, 07:03 PM

Ladbrokes is giving Hillary close to a 70% chance of winning in November.
These are the same folks who made Remain a similar likelihood in the BREXIT referendum...they're paid to make odds, not to be correct
trish, your fear is warranted

Stavros

07-20-2016, 07:52 PM

I think the polls at the moment reflect the way the campaigns have been managed, and that means that in both cases the two candidates have been in control of their agenda, as will be the case until the Democrat Convention is over. The 'head to head' confrontations between Mrs Clinton and Donald Trump will I think be the most compelling since these tv debates began, assuming that the US tv networks arrange them. In the UK it is being predicted that this will be the dirtiest election in US history.

Of the two, Trump is the most likely to 'go rogue' and say something he later regrets, but Mrs Clinton has the problem of not being much liked and she is not a great public speaker. I think in the Brexit case many voters had made up their mind without reference to any of the tv debates, and I suspect Trump's supporters are not going to worry too much if he makes a fool of himself. Statistically I think that means 30% on both sides is already a done deal. Nevertheless, when weighted, identifiable segments of the voting population suggest Mrs Clinton has the edge over Trump with regard to women, and 'non-white Anglo-Saxon' Americans many of whom live in the most populous states, and ultimately the Electoral College decides.

We also have to factor in the 'unknown unknowns' from a terrorist incident, an 'October Surprise' or something that both candidates have to respond to immediately. Finally, from what I have read, Melania Trump admires Michelle Obama (and why not? and not just as they chose the same designer's frocks as Convention clobber) -and re-wrote parts of her speech herself (this evening's news on the BBC might contradict this). But the Trump children don't like her, and as they allegedly chose Governor Pence she snubbed him not appearing on the same platform as him, though that will have to happen in due course.
And yet, however sloppy and badly managed the Trump campaign might be, and whatever the impact might be of Roger Ailes leaving Fox News, Trump's entire campaign is run like a tv advert and nothing else.

Lastly, in the UK both the Financial Times and the Telegraph have been relying on the RealClear Politics poll tracker, which is found here-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

flabbybody

07-22-2016, 12:42 AM

Trump will make a big splash tonight.
Ivanka, not Donald.

Stavros

07-22-2016, 03:51 AM

There is a story in the New York Magazine which claims Donald Trump has no interest in the daily decision making that Presidents must make -it claims that John Kasich was offered the Vice-Presidency on the basis that he would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. The report continues:
Given that domestic policy and foreign policy together comprise, well, all policy, what (the Kasich adviser inquired) would Mr Trump be doing with his time, exactly? “Making America great again,” Donald Jr replied-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-john-kasich-vice-president-white-house-no-work-a7147291.html

Kasich declined the offer, but last night the candidate Trump did select said this:
I'm a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.
-A curious thing to admit to a party convention where he is being selected for the second-best job in the country that the party ranks third in importance; whatever, the segment that caught my attention was this:
Elect Hillary Clinton and you better get used to being subject to unelected judges using unaccountable power to take unconstitutional actions. So let me say, for the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of the sanctity of life, for the sake of our Second Amendment and for the sake of all our other God-given liberties, we must ensure that the next president appointing justices to the Supreme Court is Donald Trump.
-Apart from the astonishing claim that the liberties of US citizens have been granted by God (as opposed to the mere mortals who have run the country since 1776), lies the suggestion that Supreme Court justices are 'unelected' and 'unaccountable' when the President is a Democrat, but if a Republican those appointments are not...maybe Trump has god-given powers we do not know about, or maybe the fate of the Supreme Court should become a matter of public debate?

The Pence speech transcript is here-
http://www.bustle.com/articles/173959-transcript-of-mike-pences-rnc-speech-proves-his-social-conservatism-is-here-to-stay

peejaye

07-22-2016, 10:42 AM

I think the whole wide world should be worried, not just Americans. This man is a psychopath!: hide-1:

Stavros

07-22-2016, 02:31 PM

I stayed up to watch the Trump speech live, but was not expecting it to go on and on and on and on. Once the speech passed 25 minutes it was torture. There are some aspects of the speech which may generate some concern among Republicans, as well as Americans and the wider world, but the speech was of interest for what Trump did not say as for what he did.

For example, the TEA Party radicals and the Evangelical core of the Republican Party believe that the nuclear, Christian family is the base on which American society is built and without which America has no meaning, no purpose and no values. Other than admitting to personal failings on which he did not elaborate (three wives?) he made no mention of God and the Bible (evidently not important to his father either), and had nothing to say on abortion and planned parenthood which have been high priority issues for the TEA Party and other Republicans, but he he did defend the rights of the LGBTQ communities across the USA. Where other Republicans would link crime, drug and alcohol abuse to welfare and decades of liberal dominance in social policy, Trump simply ignored it all, other than implying that if drugs were not being illegally imported into the US from Mexico there would not be a drug problem, and this from someone whose speech was modelled in part on the 1968 convention speech of Richard Nixon, who began the 'war on drugs' in 1973, a war that appears to have no end.

Trump had nothing to say on the environment or climate change, even though the continental USA notably in the south from southern California across to Texas has long-term problems of water resources and land management. With the exception of Mexico there was no mention of the USA's neighbours in the Caribbean or Central and Southern America, even though many illegal immigrants in the USA are from Central America rather than Mexico, and Mrs Clinton is blamed by some of her opponents for creating the chaos in Honduras which has led many to flee the country and end up crossing the border into the USA.

For a man so determined to make America rich again, Trump had nothing to say on anti-trust legislation to break up huge conglomerates like Exxon, IBM, Apple, and the Trump Organisation, and give 'the little guy' a chance; nothing to say at all about banks, in fact I don't think he used the word 'bank' or 'bankers' once in the speech, but did mention Bernie Sanders. And other than implying that the deficit will be drawn down from the fabulous sums of money the USA makes on his watch, Trump offered no practical guide to deficit reduction and like most critics of the Obama administration did not explain how it was the fault of the Federal government that wages have stagnated.

Indeed, if I am hearing Trump correctly, he is opposed to free markets -because the US economy in his terms is 'rigged' and competitors like China are 'cheats'- and he believes it is the job of the Federal government to determine the wages of every American in work. But it is also clear to me that Trump either has no idea what is happening in the world of work, or simply ignores the role technology is playing in extending automation in industry and other areas of work to the detriment of humans, or is creating jobs but not in the volume of heavy industry in the past, and not generating tax revenues for the state that those industries did.

Finally it is by now simply tiresome to hear Mrs Clinton being held responsible for the growth of Daesh in the Middle East and every other problem in the region. Deash or ISIS or ISIL is itself a fusion of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party and those Sunni officers and soldiers sacked from the armed forces by Paul Bremer III, so you could just as well argue that Daesh would not exist without al-Qaeda which would not exist without the war against the USSR in Afghanistan but that would mean linking the support of the Reagan administration for the Mujahideen out of which al-Qaeda was born. Mrs Clinton, whose support for Israel should be an embarrassment to anyone who believes in freedom, cannot be blamed for Middle Eastern terrorism or the Arab Spring and its consequences, but Trump bases his views on general ignorance, just as he finds it convenient to accuse Iran of being at the centre of global terrorism but never once in his speech mentioned Saudi Arabia, a significant problem state he will have to deal with if he becomes President.

In sum, the speech I think most of us expected, and not enough to win the White House, but a lot will now depend on how the Democrats approach the election -one hopes by not mentioning Trump but talking about their policy proposals instead -and how Trump performs with Mrs Clinton if they debate on tv.

trish

07-22-2016, 04:01 PM

Nicely done Stavros. I would add that even though Trump (somewhat awkwardly) supports LGBT, says nothing about abortion, Planned Parenthood, nor dwells on God and the Bible, 'his choice' of running mate - Mike Pence- is the evangelical counter-weight on all those and related issues. Indeed, if Trump really does intend to delegate to his VP his power to determine details of domestic and foreign policies (as reported in the New York Magazine) and spend his own time playing golf and making America great again, then one might expect Mike Pence to have quite a bit more say in these matters than VP's usually do. I worry this promise to delegate, makes Trump more palatable to those who find him too rash and inexperienced but have swallowed all the Hate Hillary nonsense.

flabbybody

07-22-2016, 04:55 PM

trish

07-22-2016, 05:21 PM

On the Democratic side we're very close to getting a tweet on Tim Kaine being officially chosen as veep.
As politicians go, he's spectacularly ordinary. The exact opposite of an Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker. But Hillary craves boring right about now. Why fuck things up when oddsmakers say you'll win?
And most importantly, Kaine was said to be Bill's choiceAt least Gov. McAuliffe will likely appoint a Democrat to take Kaine's place on the Senate. Warren would certainly add spice to the ticket and perhaps would bring in more of the disaffected Bernie people. The drawback is she's doing a great job in the Senate, and were she to leave Baker would replace her with a Republican. Same with Booker. I don't know much at all about Tim Kaine. How would he do against Pence in a debate - anyone?

sukumvit boy

07-23-2016, 04:08 AM

It just occurred to me what Trump's hair is all about !:tongue:
951771951772951773951774

Stavros

07-23-2016, 09:42 AM

A few points in the aftermath of Cleveland-

1) Trump suggested Bernie Sanders' supporters would be voting for him, but if it so it would not be out of loathing for Mrs Clinton, but because Trump is the anti-globalisation candidate who, like Sanders thinks that Americans have got a bad deal out of globalisation and all it is claimed to represent.

2) What happens to the Republican party now? Is this the 'Party of Lincoln' or the 'Party of Trump'? Indeed, has it always been 'the Party of Lincoln' and if not when did it stop becoming that party -under Nixon? Reagan?

3) Emboldened by Trump's campaign, David Duke has announced his entry as a Republican candidate for the Senate contest in Louisiana in November. There is a belief now that the impossible is no longer that -Leicester City wining the Premier League in the 2015-2016 season, the UK voting to leave the EU, Trump becoming Presidential candidate -presumably it is now only a matter of time before one of those awful Kardashian or Jenner people run for whichever political post they think merits their fame, choosing Taylor Swift as their 'running mate'...(I admit I have never googled these people so don't really know who they are, I just look at the pictures)...

trish

07-23-2016, 03:05 PM

Stavros

07-24-2016, 03:07 PM

On (2): I think the Republican Party stopped being the party of Lincoln ironically through a kind of sudden migration across the party borders. It happened when all the southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation (that Johnson signed into law) flooded into the Republican Party, changing the profiles and goals of both parties ever after.

Thanks Trish, and I agree with most of what you say on civil rights. However, I think that the issue that has separated the two main parties and ended the degree of bi-partisan agreement that used to be common in Congress, is the issue of 'Big Government' which has is roots in the critique of Lincoln as the first 'Imperial President' who established as a norm that the Federal Govt could and indeed should intervene in the economy and 'guide' the US in terms of social policy. If the New Deal paradigm was replaced with a neo-liberal one in the Reagan era and an agenda the Democrats under Clinton adapted as their own, it seems to me that civil rights aside, the confusion in the Republican Party lies in the inability of the party to reconcile economic and social policy with an electorate that is more diverse in its origins than that which elected either Nixon or Reagan. The argument that government should not be making decisions people can make for themselves is at the heart of free market economics, yet the TEA Party radicals and the Evangelical, Moral Majority Christians seem to want that economic freedom, but to define social policy on their own narrow and mostly religious terms.

Trump, in this instance, is the champion of free market radicals because he wants lower taxes, he wants the Federal government to withdraw from health care and industrial policy, and he wants to break that aspect of globalisation which has seen inter-state trade deals ring-fence the signatories with privileges outsiders do not have, and replace it with a truly free global market place where competition between companies determines contracts, not agreements between states. Indeed, on this basis, as I said before, the logical candidate for anti-globalisation voters to turn to after Bernie Sanders is Donald Trump.

But, because Trump (set aside the empty rhetoric on 'law and order') does not really have any real interest in civil rights or social issues like abortion, same-sex relations, divorce, and education, the question would also be does this mean he can take the Republican Party into a new direction?

Or, as seems to me most likely, Republicans (re-)elected to Congress will continue to promote their 'God and Family' agenda, regardless of who is in the White House, and anyway Trump will lose, and the GOP will revert to what was before, until someone can step forward to take the GOP in a new direction.

Stavros

07-28-2016, 01:44 AM

blackchubby38

07-28-2016, 03:00 AM

Does anyone know if this is legal or illegal?
Trump...speaking at a press conference in Florida, raised the stakes again, as he urged Russia to hack into and release Clinton’s emails from the personal server she used while she was secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russia-hillary-clinton-emails-dnc-hack

-As usual Trump having said one thing only to follow it up either with a denial, in this case claims he said it as a joke, though I don't suppose he would think it funny if someone entering Trump Tower with a briefcase when asked its contents replied -as a joke- 'a bomb'. Or maybe he just doesn't take this campaign seriously?

I don't know if its legal or not. But it is kind of shady and while I'm never someone who throws this label around much, it comes off as being "un-American". He is basically asking a country who at the moment the United States has a strained relationship with to indirectly poke its nose in its Presidential election. Even if there is something of merit in those 30,000 emails, those emails should be discovered in way that doesn't pose a threat to national security. You know the same thing that Hillary Clinton is being accused of.

buttslinger

07-28-2016, 06:19 AM

....maybe he just doesn't take this campaign seriously?

Melania doesn't understand Trump, his own kids don't understand him.
He is where he is now for just one reason- because he swooped in and hi-jacked all the Fox News Watching Jellyheads who have been brainwashed for years to ignore all the facts and trust their Racist Daddy. No matter what Daddy tells "THEM"
But, seriously, this is way beyond an unbelievable joke, man.

trish

07-28-2016, 07:02 AM

Does anyone know if this is legal or illegal?
Trump...speaking at a press conference in Florida, raised the stakes again, as he urged Russia to hack into and release Clinton’s emails from the personal server she used while she was secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russia-hillary-clinton-emails-dnc-hack

-As usual Trump having said one thing only to follow it up either with a denial, in this case claims he said it as a joke, though I don't suppose he would think it funny if someone entering Trump Tower with a briefcase when asked its contents replied -as a joke- 'a bomb'. Or maybe he just doesn't take this campaign seriously? Legal? Don't know, but it's worth four or five Congressional investigations. Come on Ryan - form an investigatory subcommittee - whaddya waitin' for?

buttslinger

07-28-2016, 08:53 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OemqVWi_R0k

Stavros

07-29-2016, 03:08 PM

Donald Trump has been given an opportunity to respond to the DNC and this is what he produces:

Donald Trump is living up to his reputation as thin-skinned bully.

At a Davenport, Iowa, rally on Thursday, Trump threatened to attack several of the Democratic National Convention’s speakers for their remarks against him.
“I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” Trump said at his rally. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard, his head would spin, he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-threatens-hit-dnc-speakers-article-1.2730295

Apparently the Daily News thinks he is referring to Michael Bloomberg. And I think the Trump camp have already had to issue a press release to say Donald was just joking, just as they had to 'confirm' the invitation to Russia to hack US government emails was 'sarcasm'. Whatever. It does at least confirm that any TV debates between these two will either be compelling viewing, or just an embarrassment.

And who knows, there may even be a debate on policy...

trish

07-29-2016, 06:14 PM

Apparently the Daily News thinks he is referring to Michael Bloomberg. And I think the Trump camp have already had to issue a press release to say Donald was just joking...Of course, everything The Donald says is a joke.

peejaye

07-29-2016, 06:35 PM

Most of us grow older as each day goes by. This idiot Trump seems go get more stupid each day! I've never come across anything or anyone like it! :smh

buttslinger

08-01-2016, 06:02 PM

I think this coming October 31st I will trick or treat as Paul Manafort.
(the real monster is BEHIND the mask!

https://s32.postimg.org/705nmrxad/tumblr_inline_nwnfy6_XOAT1qgp297_500.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/zd15d8j0h/)free photo hosting (https://postimage.org/)

Stavros

08-01-2016, 06:14 PM

I think this coming October 31st I will trick or treat as Paul Manafort.

Buttslinger, Is that to protect your Russian investments or to re-install your buddy Yanukovych in Kiev? Or both? Do you pay taxes on the profits? Innocent question..

buttslinger

08-01-2016, 07:52 PM

Buttslinger, Is that to protect your Russian investments or to re-install your buddy Yanukovych in Kiev? Or both? Do you pay taxes on the profits? Innocent question..

I'm taking all of my money out of Russian Rubles and the Stock Market to bet them on Trump to win in November.
Under the table of course, no taxes.
Paul may be a no-good-nik, but he wears the nicest suits you ever saw. ...........
and he's guaranteed me a Trump win this Fall.

They say Putin may be worth 200 billion dollars.
And as we all know, 200 billion dollars CAN'T be wrong!!

Stavros

08-02-2016, 02:40 PM

It would be easy to dismiss the latest rant from Donald Trump- referring to Hillary Clinton as 'the Devil' (and I assume, with a capital D), claiming the General Election will be rigged- as a desperate attempt to get past the row over the 'Gold Star' parents Mr and Mrs Khan, not to mention his inept remarks about Vladimir Putin and Russian involvement in Ukraine. The problem is the language and tone matter, just as a 'Gold Star' mother was booed at a Pence rally, and just as there have been Americans who shared Trump's views on Obama and already believe elections are rigged, so the persistent use of this kind of language and argument, in the tone that it is delivered, must over time devalue the democratic process, which thrives on honest and open debate about real issues. We saw these tactics being used in the EU referendum campaign in the UK, where real debate was replaced by accusation and counter-accusation.
But, taken to its logical conclusion, where people believe 'we do not live in a democracy', that 'elections are rigged', and that politicians are 'only in it for themselves', you may find that 240 years of democracy is destroyed in two months, by someone and some people, it must be said, who really do not care about it, or what happens next.

broncofan

08-02-2016, 03:09 PM

But, taken to its logical conclusion, where people believe 'we do not live in a democracy', that 'elections are rigged', and that politicians are 'only in it for themselves', you may find that 240 years of democracy is destroyed in two months, by someone and some people, it must be said, who really do not care about it, or what happens next.
True. And if he is capable of winning the election by making such comments, then the system was not functioning very well to begin with and we have only been lucky in past cycles that our parties have not nominated such demagogues. We have not encouraged enough civic responsibility, popular participation in the vetting process of our leaders, or attention to policy detail to elect minimally competent leaders.

Donald and the Republican's trick has been to vilify the media which acts to vet the sensibility of the policies proposed by respective candidates. When people believe that no criticism by the media, no matter how well documented or argued, is made in good faith or worth listening to, they become insensitive to common sense. They adopt thinking along the lines of, "well CNN, which is in the pockets of the Democrats, argues that Donald made a racist statement, but that just means he is speaking the truth. The New York Times thinks Donald did not know that Putin invaded Crimea, but they've always had it in for him. It's time to do away with the elites." The elites, of course, end up being anyone who has paid attention to domestic and foreign policy and obeys the norms of civilized discourse. It is the reflexive popular protest movement against anything deemed "establishment" that can lead people to wildly insensible positions.

martin48

08-02-2016, 05:29 PM

Look - the election will be rigged, the other contender is The Devil and greatest sacrifice anyone can make is to "earn" millions on the backs of immigrants. Doomsday is coming to the USA.

Behold the Head of a Traitor

buttslinger

08-02-2016, 05:31 PM

The Donald figured out early that by calling Mexicans rapists and murderists, you could keep playing that pied piper tune and they'd follow you anywhere, but I don't think he understands that even the most hardcore of racists well up a bit when they hear the story of a Muslim son killed in the service to this Country.
The Donald is getting away with his crimes because he's destroyed THE EVIDENCE, and the evidence in this case is a Library Card.
Obamacare and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage is going to upset the applecart for a while, but 15 bucks an hour is going to put more money into the Community Chest, and less money into the off-shore accounts of One Percent Ivory Tower builders. White Middle Class working men are EXACTLY the ones who should be voting for Hillary, half their paychecks are ending up in the pockets of the guys who sign their patchecks.
The American Political Process was insane WAAAAAAAY before Donald Trump.
The fact that we are arguing over Democrat vs Republican, and not the 99% vs the 01% just proves how much power they have.

broncofan

08-02-2016, 06:10 PM

The fact that we are arguing over Democrat vs Republican, and not the 99% vs the 01% just proves how much power they have.
I understand the sentiment but I'm going to disagree with this part. There are plenty of people in the top 1% of wealth who do not vote based on the narrow economic interests of their class. It is a battle over fairness and principle, against rigging rather than good outcomes.

I never understood this 1%, 99% dichotomy, as though ill-gotten wealth is somehow perfectly stratified within the top percent and everyone else is perfectly pure. This is one of the reasons I did not like Bernie; this sort of populism is often divorced from how the world works and does not provide a very good guide to implementing effective policies. If we are not going to punish wealth or discourage it, then there's no reason to demonize those who possess it. I would encourage wealthy people to vote against Trump.

broncofan

08-02-2016, 06:47 PM

That last post may seem unnecessarily argumentative (it would not be the first time) but it just seems that the problem in this country is that leaders do not have any faith in the public's ability to evaluate a policy so they instead propose new bogeymen. If someone is not bad because of their race then they're bad because of their wealth or their profession or where they live.

What if politicians instead said, we propose this regulation because it prevents a business from engaging in anti-competitive practices, or a bank from taking on too much risk, or a wealthy individual from buying elections? What if they said, there is nothing intrinsically bad with this group of people but we have not done enough to disincentivize bad behavior and they are uniquely placed to take advantage of poorly written laws? Naïve I know. We won't have banksters, evil 1 percenters, rootless cosmopolitans, godless liberals, or the biased media to talk about.

trish

08-02-2016, 07:56 PM

I hear that (to use one of Donald’s favorite phrases) the richest 20 Americans own more wealth than the bottom fifty percent. CNN reports the richest 1% own more than the remaining 99% of us.

I agree that Bernie is kind of a one-note-charlie on this issue and I also agree that one shouldn’t demonize the wealthy as a group. But one has to admit that the wealthy, by the nature of wealth, wield is disproportionate amount of power. Having such a lopsided distribution of wealth makes it difficult for a democracy to sustain itself. This is still one of the wealthiest nations on Earth with some of the most productive workers; and yet we can’t get successful businesses to pay their laborers a living wage. To say the wealthy should share their good fortune makes it sound like we’re asking them to be charitable and generous, whereas in fact they (and all of us who have benefited from a successful stock market) owe a good portion of their wealth to the workers who have been stiffed for over a decade.

I would like to see some substantial tax reform, including higher rates on capital gains and a tax on every transaction. Trump wants to go back to the fifties when America was ‘great.’ Let’s go back to the progressive tax rates we had in 1955 when the rate was 91% on the highest bracket.

It’s difficult to talk about this subject without sounding like you’re demonizing the wealthy. But if even one assumes no one in the top 1% intentionally stepped on the backs of others and only ever had the most innocent of intentions and that the economy is not a zero sum game, one cannot get around the fact that current distribution of wealth is divisive, contributes to a lopsided distribution of political, social and economic power and hampers the functioning of our democracy.

buttslinger

08-02-2016, 07:57 PM

The ONE PERCENTERS have this thing figured out, and you can't fault them for that, but it would be nice if the 99% figured things out and played this game like the 1% do.
I don't think the USA would fall apart if 50% of the Country had 50% of the wealth.
Dwight D Eisenhower would not have let Trump get 100 yards from Government, when he said beware the Military Industrial complex, who do you think he was talking about?
Bush was not a President who was a businessman, he was a businessman who was President. Somewhere in that statement is a distinction that's going to have to be addressed and figured out.
If you cut Wall Street out of the relationship between the American Producer and the American Consumer you could buy a gallon of milk for 2 bucks. That's not Communism, that's good business.
But yeah, it's a complex problem that is no wheres as easy as I'm painting it. When you try to take people's money they fight back. Liking trying to sink Obamacare for the last 7 years.
Man, those Republicans really bristle when it comes to health care for the poor.......

broncofan

08-02-2016, 09:02 PM

Good posts. I want to point out that I'm not equating economic and geographic discrimination with racial discrimination. All things equal, it is at least logical to have a common ground economically and completely irrational to be politically motivated by ethnic differences and similarities. I just think one common denominator in modern politics is the desire to segment the voting public ; this is probably the basis for electoral strategy....these guys will vote for us, these won't, and these guys will only vote for us if we pander to their antagonism towards this other group.

I also wonder if on the high end, some of the growth in the number of super wealthy is based on the fact that companies depend more on intellectual property than human labor. I'm sure this is not a new point, but if someone can get rich off of building a network with proprietary software or creating a marketplace for people to buy and sell goods, they will be transmitting much less of their wealth to employees (there goes the idea of "job creators"). On the lower end our protections still need to be better corporate governance to protect investors, better labor and work safety laws, and an educational system that is more responsive to the marketplace, even if that means that 18-22 year olds are learning practical skills in addition to liberal arts curriculum. A more progressive tax is also necessary to provide services that enable socioeconomic mobility...as for buying political influence, we're still waiting on the Supreme Court.

fred41

08-03-2016, 01:39 AM

-... as a desperate attempt to get past the row over the 'Gold Star' parents Mr and Mrs Khan, not to mention his inept remarks about Vladimir Putin and Russian involvement in Ukraine. The problem is the language and tone matter, just as a 'Gold Star' mother was booed at a Pence rally, ...

This one definitely hurt him a bit. Your typical conservative poster on social media throws the following things at people (often daring you to 'share')..God,.. the flag... and the belief that only they respect law enforcement and....veterans. Especially if they served overseas.
When Trump ridiculed McCain's service, his followers were able to overlook that (but some didn't). ...but once that immature, thin skinned moron went after the Khan's, who's child gave the ultimate sacrifice, in his usual tone deaf way...I believe he may have lost some followers. At the very least it silenced some of them for awhile.

even if it didn't lose him massive numbers (his core support is too entrenched at this point)

I continue to marvel at a presidential contender having the self control of a two year old.

Stavros

08-03-2016, 02:28 AM

The papers here report that Donald Trump has declined to endorse either Paul Ryan or John McCain in their respective primaries for their seats in Congress, one wonders if these two masochists which just lap up the insults or at some point say enough is enough? Just out of interest, does the Republican Party have a recognised leader? Is it the Presidential candidate? The leading Senator or Representative? Whoever heads the RNC? There doesn't seem to be anyone in control of this party or one person with an authoritative voice, whereas here in the UK the leaders are clearly identifiable.

flabbybody

08-03-2016, 03:20 AM

stavros I might have caught your sarcasm there.
regardless, Trump's attack against the Khan parents might finally be his undoing. Even some of my asshole pro-Trump friends are aghast.
Hillary has opened a 10 point lead in some of the polls. America is on the verge of regaining sanity

trish

08-03-2016, 07:31 AM

fred41

08-03-2016, 01:57 PM

It might interest HA members to know that Trump signed an anti-pornography pledge. So much for the party that wants to keep government out of private business.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/donald-trump-seems-to-have-signed-an-anti-porn-pledge-1784643504

Trish, if you haven't yet, read the comments under that article...some of them are very good (some are funny too. there's one that comments on the bewildered look on the babies faces...and mentions his pucker looking like a prolapsed anus with a great GIF included :D )

Stavros

08-03-2016, 05:47 PM

Some of you may have seen the footage of the 'speech' Mr Trump gave in Virginia, the one so rudely interrupted by a crying baby. It struck me when I read it this morning that this is typical Trump -say one thing one moment, then flip it shortly after.
As reported (you can see it on YouTube or in the press if you prefer)- Trump said: “I love babies ... I hear that baby crying and I like it. I like it. What a baby, what a beautiful baby." A few minutes later when the baby was still crying: “Actually I was only kidding,” he said. “You can get the baby out of here.” Of the mother misguided enough to have been reassured by his earlier words, he said, “I think she believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s OK. People don’t understand." So now it appears Trump has managed to insult mothers and babies. One wonders if there is anyone in America he hasn't slated yet.

The odd thing is that I was thinking suppose he had just given the order to drop a nuclear bomb on Mosul, and ten minutes later changed his mind -'only kidding! Can we call the guys back?' -and this afternoon I came across a story in which it is claimed-

"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program. The claim is not verified by specific sources or Trump and the claim can be seen here-
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

sukumvit boy

08-05-2016, 05:05 AM

Fucking psychopath, he's the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party.

Stavros

08-06-2016, 11:37 AM

Most of today's papers focus on Trump's endorsement of Paul Ryan, which I believe he made reading word from word from a piece of paper -implying a lack of sincerity? Yet for me the two statements that are worthy of attention concern Japan and immigrants -
On Japan he said
“You know we have a treaty with Japan where if Japan is attacked, we have to use the full force and might of the United States,” Trump said. “If we’re attacked, Japan doesn’t have to do anything. They can sit home and watch Sony television, OK?”

Ending with what must be one of the cruellest of his tirades against US allies -
The Republican nominee also suggested that Japan might be “better off” with its own atomic weapons, and that he would consider, as president, ending the U.S. defense commitment to Japan and encouraging them to “go nuclear.”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/06/national/politics-diplomacy/trump-rips-u-s-defense-japan-one-sided-expensive/

The other comment is crude and the kind of thing you would expect to hear from a Klansman-
Trump said efforts to resettle Somali refugees — many of them in Minnesota — were “having the unintended consequence of creating an enclave of immigrants with high unemployment that is both stressing the state’s … safety net and creating a rich pool of potential recruiting targets for Islamist terror groups.”

He then listed several immigrants, mostly from Muslim majority countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen — who were arrested for conducting or threatening to carry out violent attacks, teaching bomb-making to recruits, and otherwise supporting terror groups.
“We’re dealing with animals,” he seethed.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/05/world/politics-diplomacy-world/trump-fires-fresh-terrorist-nation-immigrant-broadside-demands-animals-barred/

Stavros

08-10-2016, 01:27 AM

blackchubby38

08-10-2016, 02:00 AM

You have to wonder if this man has any limits to his depraved ideas. Isn't this sort of thing illegal?

Donald Trump has been accused of a making an “assassination threat” against rival Hillary Clinton (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hillary-clinton), plunging his presidential campaign into a fresh crisis.

The volatile Republican nominee was speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, about the next president’s power to appoint supreme court justices. “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment,” said Trump, eliciting boos from the crowd.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

I can't believe I'm about to do this. But I'm going try to clarify what he was saying.

I think he was trying to say that the 2nd amendment people can prevent that from happening by voting for me. The problem is Trump is trying to be appear folksy so he is not using a teleprompter and going off the cuff with his speeches. He will say one thing, lose his train of thought, and then he says the first thing that pops into his head.

broncofan

08-10-2016, 03:10 AM

You have to wonder if this man has any limits to his depraved ideas. Isn't this sort of thing illegal?

Donald Trump has been accused of a making an “assassination threat” against rival Hillary Clinton (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hillary-clinton), plunging his presidential campaign into a fresh crisis.

The volatile Republican nominee was speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, about the next president’s power to appoint supreme court justices. “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment,” said Trump, eliciting boos from the crowd.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment
I think he was saying that his supporters could use weapons to stop Hillary, whether as a joke or not, it is very near the lines of illegality and in other countries would cross it. I follow a constitutional law scholar on twitter and he said his students would know that as dangerous as Trump's comments were they do not break the law because of Brandenburg v. Ohio. I pulled up the wikipedia version of the case as I do not feel like reading the whole thing, and at least the part I did read is that the speech has to be likely to incite IMMINENT violence for it to be punishable. He would have to say something that would make someone in his presence or at that moment watching a live feed begin to act I believe.

There is a good debate to be had about how far our first amendment goes in protecting many types of speech that are dangerous to law and order, civilized society, and that border on non-expressive conduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Stavros

08-10-2016, 11:26 AM

I think he was saying that his supporters could use weapons to stop Hillary, whether as a joke or not, it is very near the lines of illegality and in other countries would cross it. I follow a constitutional law scholar on twitter and he said his students would know that as dangerous as Trump's comments were they do not break the law because of Brandenburg v. Ohio. I pulled up the wikipedia version of the case as I do not feel like reading the whole thing, and at least the part I did read is that the speech has to be likely to incite IMMINENT violence for it to be punishable. He would have to say something that would make someone in his presence or at that moment watching a live feed begin to act I believe.

There is a good debate to be had about how far our first amendment goes in protecting many types of speech that are dangerous to law and order, civilized society, and that border on non-expressive conduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

I take the legal point, and without prejudice ask, isn't this just too subtle for the context in which Trump made his remark? And too subtle for Trump as well as people listening to what he says? As an outsider when I hear Americans these days talk about their '2nd Amendment rights' I tend to see them walking around with guns, with the intention of using them in 'certain' situations, though not sure what they are...

Stavros

08-10-2016, 11:31 AM

I can't believe I'm about to do this. But I'm going try to clarify what he was saying.

I think he was trying to say that the 2nd amendment people can prevent that from happening by voting for me. The problem is Trump is trying to be appear folksy so he is not using a teleprompter and going off the cuff with his speeches. He will say one thing, lose his train of thought, and then he says the first thing that pops into his head.

Set aside the gun issue and the fact that Hillary Clinton was quite specific in her Conference speech that she does not advocate precisely what Trump says, this is a key passage: If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.

As I understand it Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President, and appointed by Congress -two branches of Government maintaining the integrity of the third, so Hillary Clinton can nominate whom she wants but Congress -elected by the people- can do something about it -and in the past Presidential nominees have been rejected. It is Trump's ignorance of the political process that is as important as his implied threat to justify violence to change something the people don't like.

broncofan

08-10-2016, 02:58 PM

I take the legal point, and without prejudice ask, isn't this just too subtle for the context in which Trump made his remark? .
Yes. It is just one of those situations when legal standards seem meaningless because they strive for exactness when there is something intuitive about the wrongness of what Trump did. The most over-quoted statement by one of our Justices is about how he knows what is pornography...he said, "you know it when you see it".

If you pay attention, you know when someone is being reckless with other people's lives and futures...no matter where any of these lines are drawn by legislatures or founding fathers.

broncofan

08-10-2016, 03:21 PM

Although it may not be necessary I do want to briefly address the alleged ambiguous-ness of Trump's comments. He said, "if she gets elected, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know." So, the beginning premise is that she has already been elected.

Stavros is correct that Congress gets to approve of Supreme Court Justice nominees. In his conditional statement, the elective process involving the public has already passed. He said the second amendment people can still do something in the case that she has already been elected and I think his statement loses its ambiguity about what it is second amendment people can do.

trish

08-10-2016, 04:42 PM

It’s clear and obvious that Trump was alluding to a “Second Amendment Solution”. From the laughter (mostly his own) it’s also clear that it was meant to be taken (at least on one level) as a joke. Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin and others in the past have also come dangerously close to this precipice; but were never legally charged with braking the law.

But look: we need to get more people to carry guns.

What if you were doing something good, but were interrupted by a good guy with a gun who mistakenly thought you were doing something bad. Another good guy with a gun could take him out for you. If it weren’t for that other good guy with a gun, the good thing you were doing would not have gotten done.

Or what if you saw a bad guy with a gun doing something bad which you mistakenly thought was good - you know - perhaps you thought he was saving a good guy by shooting a bad guy with a gun, when in fact he was saving a bad guy by shooting a good guy with a gun. If you had a gun you could help him shoot the good guy you thought was bad; and though that’s not altogether a good thing it would be an example of how people with guns, good or bad, can bond and get along better than people without guns.

It’s all very simple. If you have to make a snap judgment, there’s nothing better than a gun for adding a nice touch irrevocable finality to it.

Stavros

08-12-2016, 01:48 PM

A short but eloquent riposte from Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti Davis:

To Donald Trump: I am the daughter of a man who was shot by someone who got his inspiration from a movie, someone who believed if he killed the President the actress from that movie would notice him. Your glib and horrifying comment about "Second Amendment people" was heard around the world. It was heard by sane and decent people who shudder at your fondness for verbal violence. It was heard by your supporters, many of whom gleefully and angrily yell, "Lock her up!" at your rallies. It was heard by the person sitting alone in a room, locked in his own dark fantasies, who sees unbridled violence as a way to make his mark in the world, and is just looking for ideas. Yes, Mr. Trump, words matter. But then you know that, which makes this all even more horrifying.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/11/patti-davis-denounces-trump/

Stavros

08-16-2016, 12:42 AM

Donald Trump's latest policy 'innovation' is called 'Extreme vetting' and sounds like this:
“A new immigration policy is needed,” said Trump. “Clearly new screening procedures are needed.
“We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.”
“In the cold war we had an ideological screening test ... The time is overdue for a new test. I call it extreme vetting,” he concluded.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/15/donald-trump-immigration-test-isis-islamic-state-foreign-policy

As far as it goes the proposal is inadequate but I am not surprised he targets immigrants because the word alone raises a 'red flag' for his constituency. It is a feeble policy because Trump's need to demonize immigrants simply ignores the two most obvious problems -that a terrorist incident may not involve immigrants at all but be the act of someone born and bred in the US, or, as happened with the 9/11 hi-jackers, terrorists who enter the country as tourists or students. I don't know what the 'extreme vetting' will consist of, but if it is going to be applied to immigrants, why not everyone else entering the USA?

To enter the USA on my first trip to the USA in 1971 (Chicago) I had to apply for a tourist visa, and this required filling out a form which from memory was at least more than 4 but possibly not more than 8 pages long. What I recall most were the questions, such as 'Have you ever visited a Communist country?' and 'Are you a member of a Communist Party' to which I answered no although I had in fact travelled through Bulgaria and Yugoslavia when they were both Communist countries, so I guess I lied. The point is there was a form, I filled it in, and it was not a big deal.
I don't know how 'Extreme vetting' will work, and I don't know if it will amount to much more than filling out a form, but who knows what innovations this test will include?

Stavros

08-21-2016, 04:23 PM

As is now to be expected, Donald Trump departs from the truth in his speeches because in a 'post-truth' society everything is a matter of opinion and the primary aim is to create an impression or distract the voter from the truth by referring to an allegation which, by the time it has been investigated has been replaced with another. And so on.
Thus, speaking in 93% white Lansing, Michigan, Trump offered this incentive to Black Americans:

"Look at how much African American communities are suffering from Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump? What do you have to lose?" he asked. "You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/20/its-hard-to-imagine-a-much-worse-pitch-donald-trump-could-have-made-for-the-black-vote/

Well, as a substantial number of those 58 percent are still in school and therefore not either looking for work or unemployed, they may decide that voting for a liar is not the next best option.

Trump also said (https://www.c-span.org/video/?413674-1/donald-trump-unveils-economic-plan&start=1488) that “58 percent of African-American youth are either outside of the labor force or not employed.”
Trump’s campaign cited annual average data for 2015 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm) from the BLS. That year, 583,000 African Americans age 16 to 24 were unemployed. That was roughly 9.9 percent of the total civilian noninstitutional population for African Americans in that age group.
To get to 58 percent, the Trump campaign also counted the nearly 2.88 million African Americans 16- to 24-years-old — many of whom are in school — who were not in the labor force, which, as we mentioned, means that they are not working and not looking for work.
As of July 2016, 22.5 percent of the labor force for African Americans in that age group — who were not enrolled in high school or college — were unemployed, according to the most recent nonseasonally adjusted data from the BLS.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/trumps-economic-speech/

A lively article on the US elections and the EU referendum campaign in the 'post-truth era' -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician

buttslinger

08-21-2016, 09:41 PM

You never really saw BIG GOVERNMENT til WWII, you didn't even tax the middle class til WWII, the lights in the Pentagon never went out after WWII.
But big bad America had an embarrassing racism problem in 1946, unbelievable, even, in today's standards. Obama has 5 thousand arms that plug 5 thousand leaks in a dyke with 15 thousand leaks.
Hillary is a dyke.........no, no no, I won't make fun of someone with medical problems.
Trump is just another headache in a sea of headaches for our next Presidentess, I think if anyone here ever got to see the first one hundred worst truths in this administration's real world truths you have to face, your head would snap off.
Trump is on a list of problems like Putin, N Korea, Iran, Syria, healthcare, racism, jobs, money, money, money,....etc etc etc
Being President is a tiring thankless job which is why Trump wouldn't take it even if they handed it to him.
Racism I haven't even seen as a topic unto itself down here, need to get the band back together with onyourknees and his Fox Friends, and have a rousing debate.
There is lots I don't know about being black and being gay. And in Govt, you don't know what you don't want to know. You can't afford to know.
It's all rigged.

https://s10.postimg.org/fdy39ffyh/whites_only_fountain.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/hv9ugozut/)upload gambar (https://postimage.org/)

Stavros

10-18-2016, 08:22 PM

Trump's latest campaign issue, that the election is rigged, threatens to become toxic and could run out of control after election day. What Trump calls 'rigged elections' however is not the most common form that it takes -denying or obstructing those who wish to register to vote and then vote on the day itself- but the spurious claim that the 'dead' are voting or that multiple votes are being cast by one person. The article linked below was published in 2012 and looks in detail at the issue and discovers that voter fraud barely exists in the US, whereas the attempts to prevent it have led to States imposing photo ID laws and other measures that in effect prevent Black, Hispanic and other minority groups from voting at all. This is fairly well known, but some of the detail may be of interest.

The article is by Kevin Drum and is here-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-suppression-kevin-drum

peejaye

10-19-2016, 12:42 PM

Stavros

10-19-2016, 04:10 PM

Been a while since I posted on this thread and obviously things are changing. Having watched it on TV I am beginning to think Trump is the safest of the two of them, lesser of two evils :nervous:
It really is an unbelievable choice for the Americans!
My opinion of Clinton is now she is power mad, a warmonger, doesn't like Russia and despises Putin!
That is one lethal, toxic cocktail if I am right?

No, you are over-reacting, for the simple reason that what Hillary Clinton has said on foreign policy does not depart very far from what US foreign policy has been since the 1960s. Moreover, Hillary Clinton is well aware of what a President can and cannot do and what the role of Congress is in foreign policy, whereas it is not clear if Donald Trump even knows what the law is, and the statements he has made have been called into question by the military as well as other experienced holders of office.

As for Putin, you might want to tell is what it is that is appealing to you, if that is the case. Is it the tendency of the Russian President to imprison or murder his political opponents? Is it the crushing of all political opposition, the bent elections, the 'bold and uncompromising' foreign policy that has seen Russian troops invade sovereign countries and participate -willingly or otherwise- in the bombing of civilian airliners?

Does this mean that as the 'lesser of two evils' you think that if Trump wants to send Hillary Clinton to gaol that is what he will do, presumably without trial? Will Trump be organising squads of 'election monitors' to make sure that when Black Americans vote in Philadelphia, it is because they -the Trump Squads- decide they are eligible voters -and is this even legal?

What does the 'lesser of two evils' actually mean? Is evil the right word to use in the context of a Presidential campaign, because if you are using it terms of theology, which religion is relevant to your point, Christianity? Judaism? If it is just short-hand for a moral point, you are asking difficult questions about politics and morality -if you think poverty is a crime rather than the natural order of things, then any and all politicians who fail to end it must be evil. If you think that waging war, which is illegal under the Charter of the UN, is evil, then Putin is evil. It might not be the best word to use when debating politics.

But what you could do is look at something very real than can be explained -what policies will these candidates, if President, propose to combat climate change and the other environmental issues that are important to the USA? How do they propose the education system of the USA prepare its children to live and work in the 21st century? What policies do either candidates think will create economic growth and jobs? And so on. I think these bread and butter issues are of far greater importance than the relentless focus on the personalities of the candidates concerned, only one of whom has experience of public office.

peejaye

10-20-2016, 10:10 AM

Stavros;
I'll keep this very blunt, I wouldn't vote for either of them and would advise all US citizens to do the same!
I won't sleep easy in my bed no matter which of these two "nuttas" gain power!

martin48

10-20-2016, 11:38 AM

Well, fellow Americans, you have got yourself in the shit. You won't be voting for the best candidate but for the one you distrust/hate the least. How the hell did you get into this state?

peejaye

10-20-2016, 11:43 AM

Well, fellow Americans, you have got yourself in the shit. You won't be voting for the best candidate but for the one you distrust/hate the least. How the hell did you get into this state?
My feelings exactly Martin, thankyou.

Stavros

10-20-2016, 01:31 PM

Stavros;
I'll keep this very blunt, I wouldn't vote for either of them and would advise all US citizens to do the same!
I won't sleep easy in my bed no matter which of these two "nuttas" gain power!

By not voting because of a cynical disregard for both of the Presidential candidates, citizens opt out of politics and take one step towards the end of democracy, which thrives on the participation of the citizen in debating and voting.

It is as if the same citizens agree with Trump that the election is rigged in advance, so just as he will not commit to accepting the result, why should citizens bother to vote?

I can offer substantial criticism of both candidates too, but am not an American so it would remain the rhetorical argument my comments on this election have been so far. For the record, I have never voted Conservative in the UK and though was once a member of, indeed an elected official of the Labour Party abandoned that party because of 'New Labour' reforms to the party constitution and because of regime change in Iraq. But I continue to vote, albeit for a fringe party that in practical terms is a wasted vote, because I consider myself to be an active citizen, and because I think it is morally superior to comment on politics if one is on the field of play rather than walk off in a huff but then shout from the sidelines.

What happens in the USA matters to all of us because the USA is a major player in the global economy, it is a major guarantor of the security of Japan and Korea and through NATO of Europe and has, for all but its terrible civil war maintained a democratic political system for 240 years -think about that, 240 years!- , and as such the US stands tall as a country of freedom and liberty which, before you or anyone else is tempted to mock that, is cruelly absent in too many other countries many of them within a few hours flying time from Washington DC. Even in the case of the UK, in the first week after the referendum vote the fall in the value of the pound had an adverse effect on the value of the Yen, just as the Republic of Ireland is facing as difficult and uncertain and economic future as the UK -we are connected, like it or not, in a global capitalist system.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump believe in capitalism, Clinton believing the state has a moral duty to intervene where capitalism doesn't work or make a profit, Trump claiming to think markets can do everything better. On this aspect of politics alone, it is a nonsense, and indeed an insult to compare the two and to damn both of them as 'evil' or 'dangerous' or 'crazy' when Clinton actually has a record in office you can judge without getting hysterical about her successes or her failures, which are inevitable in real politics; or deriding her as a 'nasty woman'.

By contrast, Trump's record both in business and from what we know of his other activities is not qualified to be President not least because he has shown he has no idea how the Presidency works, he has no natural diplomacy that tempers his language to offer the opponents of the USA a route to the negotiating table, and appears to lack the even temperament that is needed when a President can be provoked by others just to see what happens. So while it may be true that in the USA anyone can become President, you might want to add, but that doesn't mean anyone should be.

And if you don't think it is vital to vote Democrat to stop Trump, isn't that as good as endorsing Trump? There is a choice to be made in the election, and I for one hope the citizens who vote make a choice that will not trash the value of the dollar and the values of the country.

broncofan

10-20-2016, 05:11 PM

This is not even a difficult choice for someone with progressive or liberal politics, though perhaps the distance of being in Britain may make it seem that way. I personally don't understand the view that paints Hillary as a nutter or almost indistinguishable from Trump. Because she doesn't like Putin? Putin is indiscriminately killing civilians in Syria, murders journalists within and outside of his country, and does not allow free and fair elections to proceed within his country.

I actually think this might have something to do with the left-wing politics in Britain that on the left people would be more suspicious of Hillary than Trump. Maybe she's a corporate puppet or something sinister like that. Definitely some kind of puppet.

Much better we should vote for the guy who wants to dissolve NATO, who wants to expand the list of countries with nukes, who argued we should be able to use nukes, who wants to repeal the only comprehensive healthcare plan we've ever had, whose tax policy will increase our YUGE national debt and provide disproportionate relief for the wealthy, who wants to build a wall on our entire southern border, who wants a roving police force to arrest and transport 11 million people out of our country, who thinks Assad is the only one fighting ISIS (and is only fighting ISIS), and wants to ban Muslims from entering our country, especially refugees. I can hardly see why someone on the left would object to these things.

broncofan

10-20-2016, 05:15 PM

trish

10-20-2016, 06:50 PM

I forgot to mention: He wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will take away a woman's right to have an abortion, who will roll back the right of gay couples to get married, and who will block any type of firearm regulation. Also, his running mate has supported something called gay conversion therapy, which is basically the systematic torture of gay men and women, who through a process of compulsory self-hatred become suicidal. Progressive stuff....much better than what Hillary has to offer (none of those things).
Not to mention Trump's running mate (Pence) once signed legislation that gave funerary rights to fetuses. It would require all fetal tissue issued from an abortion or an even a natural miscarriage to be taken to a funeral home to be cremated or buried, presumably at the expense of the woman and her family. Fortunately a Federal Court stopped the law from being enacted.

Trump essentially claims he doesn’t pay Federal Income Tax because Hillary made him do it! Apparently by not closing the loophole he’s been using for over a decade.

These two guys are crazy squared.

Hillary, after earning a degree in law from Yale, married Bill Clinton, moved to Arkansas and as a legal advocate helped enact State policies to ensure that handicapped children (who were being kept out of public schools) had the opportunity to go to school and learn.

As First Lady led the first attempt to delineate and enact a federal health program. When the proposed legislation failed, she didn’t give up. She created the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This legislation passed with bipartisan support. The program provides matching funds to states for health insurance for modest income families with children.

The hard right objected and vilified her for interfering in a domain where she didn’t belong. She wasn’t an elected official and she was a woman. They were so intimidated and outraged they invented one scandal after another. No federal prosecutor (all appointed by a biased GOP) could ever lay a single infraction or wrong-doing at her door. At that point the tin-foil brigade took over. To date she’s been accused of nearly one-hundred murders! Really? If were that good and that vicious, one has to ask, “How is it that there are any Republicans left?” Hillary intimidates the hell out of the hard right, and they’ve smeared her ever since she was First Lady. Before Lewinsky, she took more shit than Bill. If you’re attacked by scurrilous skunks everyday of your life for thirty years, the smell doesn’t easily wear off - but that doesn’t make you the skunk.

As a Senator she voted against the Bush tax cuts. She co-led the investigation into the health issues incurred by first responders to 9/11. I don’t always agree with her. She voted to invade Afghanistan (I was and still am ambiguous about that military involvement). She voted to support Bush II’s war against Iraq (which I was totally against). As Secretary of State she supported military action in Libya (about which was apprehensive).

So no I don’t always agree with her decisions. But I do trust her. I trust that her actions, past and present, are not about personal profit nor personal aggrandizement. I trust she is sincere and believes in the issues she promotes. I trust she will negotiate and work in a bipartisan manner (if at all possible) but probably with a stronger manner than Obama. Generally I trust that most nominees for president have these virtues to a greater or lesser degree - with at least one obvious exception. Trust is rarely an issue, policy is. Trust is not really an issue in this election either. You can trust Hillary. On the other hand, every single time you see him, Trump is lying about having lied about lying.

martin48

10-21-2016, 10:40 AM

Ah, but there is the private email server! I fail to see the great horror of this but please explain if I am missing something. When I used to do work for UK Government, then I would get messages (out of hours) from civil servants and others from their hotmail accounts - usually along the lines "The Minister is saying this in the House tomorrow, is it factually correct?" It's how business gets done.

Anyway I'm off to check my other 16 email accounts now!

peejaye

10-21-2016, 01:13 PM

Thanks for that little lot Stavros, you sound a very interesting guy with whom to enjoy a quality pint of beer with.:cheers:

Stavros

10-21-2016, 05:04 PM

Thanks for that little lot Stavros, you sound a very interesting guy with whom to enjoy a quality pint of beer with.:cheers:

If you are paying! I can't handle a pint these days, a bottle is as far as I can get.

holzz

10-23-2016, 06:42 PM

no, America is pretty stupid to have this election. thanks for making the world laugh at you!

trish

10-23-2016, 07:07 PM

The Constitution mandates we have a presidential election every four years. You saying we should've made an exception and skipped this one? If Hillary wins I'll be laughing while you guys clutch your never endangered sovereignty and ride the Brexit roller coaster.

holzz

10-23-2016, 07:54 PM

broncofan

10-23-2016, 10:39 PM

no, America is pretty stupid to have this election. thanks for making the world laugh at you!

no, i didn't say that. but this election is the most hilarious ever held.

I'm required to write four words. I'd prefer to just include yours, but ya did say that:)

Stavros

10-24-2016, 10:56 AM

Donald Trump's claim that the election has been 'rigged' is based on two arguments: that there were places in Chicago, Cleveland and Philadelphia where in 2012 Obama received 100% of the votes cast, and this is questionable to the point where it doesn't seem possible without external interference; and that 'millions of dead people' have been voting.

Below are some links which demolish this claim, and also show that in Lousiana and Utah Obama in 2012 also received 0 votes in some wards.

What I did not know until this issue came up, is how small some Wards or Precincts in Congressional Districts can be, particularly in inner cities, where there may be just a few hundred voters. In Philadelphia if these contain mostly Black Americans who even more than rural Black Americans tend to vote Democrat, it would have been strange had anyone voted for Romney, although the irony is there are registered Republicans in some of these Wards but on the day they didn't vote the way Trump wanted.

As for Millions being dead, if Trump means that electoral rolls are inaccurate, that is like saying sugar sweetens coffee, everyone knows it, because people die at inconvenient times, and also move so that at any one time a list of occupants in an apartment building in Manhattan or Minneapolis will list people who are no longer there. But did they vote? I don't see how Trump can confirm his claim unless he provides the names of the dead, and in one article I saw which I think I linked a few days ago, the man allegedly dead who rose from his grave was in fact his son with the same name, the appellation 'Jr' having not been noticed by the accusers.

The claim, however, goes right to the heart of the conspiracy theories that so many people -not just Americans- like to think explain why their favoured outcome never happens.

This one is on Obama in Philadelphia-
http://www.politifact.com/pennsylvania/statements/2016/aug/12/viral-image/internet-philly-rigged-2012-presidential-election-/

This is a more general review-
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/trumps-faulty-rigged-reasoning/

Here in Utah Obama also received 0 votes in some districts-
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/In-Some-Utah-Precincts-Obama-Received-No-Votes-179322261.html

And this gives a detailed breakdown of places in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas and Louisiana where either Romney or Obama received 0 votes-
http://hatthief.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/other-precincts-where-romney-got-0-votes.html

martin48

10-24-2016, 05:09 PM

As they say in Ireland - vote early, vote often

Stavros

10-24-2016, 05:35 PM

Donald Trump has denied the claims made by eleven women that he sexually assaulted them, calling them 'liars' in search of '10 minutes of fame' or put up to it by the Clinton campaign. On one level, Donald Trump deserves to be taken at his word, on another level the critical issue is corroboration, or it is just a matter of 'she said, he said' and the potential for mischief-making is strong if in a Presidential campaign the candidates choose to 'fight dirty'.

In the article linked below, which is primarily concerned with the litigation between Rolling Stone and the University of Virginia, the key to unlocking the controversy is precisely corroboration, or the lack of it as the journalist for the magazine is accused of not doing proper research to verify the facts of the story from the ('alleged') victim.

But on this basis, with the possible exception of the court case involving Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the women who have come forward with their stories do have corroborating evidence in the form of friends and colleagues who were told at the time what had happened. So a degree of balance and verifiable facts ought to be the primary interest, whether or not it hurts or defends the reputation of Donald Trump.

The article is here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/24/trump-sexual-misconduct-accusers-uva-rape-story-rolling-stone