So what do you Brits make of Trump ?

[flabbybody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...ps-presidenti/

Full story is here-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...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]

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.

[makerandmodder]

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]

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]

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]

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