War & PoliticsDump Trump

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   3 Mar 2016 15:08 
 To:  ANT_THOMAS      128 of 207 
41641.128 In reply to 41641.126 
Hillary's the best of a bad bunch (of those who have a snowball's chance in hell).

----
"American football is when a bunch over over paid American sports people frightened of being hurt strap on a ton of armour to play a game of rugby"
-1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   3 Mar 2016 15:09 
 To:  koswix       129 of 207 
41641.129 In reply to 41641.127 
That's the level of political discourse in America.

 :-((

----
"American football is when a bunch over over paid American sports people frightened of being hurt strap on a ton of armour to play a game of rugby"
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko   3 Mar 2016 16:41 
 To:  fixrman      130 of 207 
41641.130 In reply to 41641.125 
Depends on who you ask, same as Trump etc. there are some who like her and some who don't. I don't know if I'd say we have anything approaching an obvious consensus. 
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   4 Mar 2016 02:13 
 To:  fixrman      131 of 207 
41641.131 In reply to 41641.125 
I don't know how far this aligns with the view over here in general but my view is:

Hilary Clinton is a pretty typical "third way" politician in the mould of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair or Barrack Obama. I think Bill had more (political) integrity though, Hilary will literally say anything to anyone to get votes. She's very skilled at saying nothing in such a way that everyone thinks they heard what they wanted to hear.

The problem for her this election is that Bernie's pushed her way to the left of where she wanted to be and, should she win the nomination, it's going to be interesting to see how she reels that back in.

I think things are changing though. In various places we've seen the rise of anti-austerity parties/candidates who question the economic status quo. Obviously Bernie Sanders represents this in the US. It's becoming a popular position which can win votes across the traditional political spectrum and the party is really failing to respond to it because they're stacked with third-wayers.

Hilary is so far up the arse of big money that even she can't straddle that particular set of issues and when she tries it rings very hollow, especially in the context of the Goldman Sachs speeches. If the popular narrative moves where it looks like it's moving with regard to the kinda stuff Bernie's talking about then the Democratic Party risks becoming ideologically estranged from its base, which it would not weather well.

In any normal election Hilary would stand very little change in a general election, her unfavourables are ridiculously high. This isn't a normal election though, the GOP have failed to field a viable candidate so she has a potential shot at winning (I'm not saying Trump isn't viable, but he's not really a GOP candidate in any meaningful sense. I'll get to that).

And she probably is going to be the nominee. Bernie's not totally out of it, most of the states so far have been particularly favourable for Hilary, the states where Bernie stands a decent chance are up next - he *could* take it to the convention but it's an uphill battle (but really he's had an uphill battle all the way, he's done amazingly well for a Jewish, secular, non-corportate-funded socialist).

Trump is another kettle of fish. Trump is entirely the fault of the media and politicians - they've spent the last 50 or so years dumbing down the political discourse, minimising ideology and policy in favour of the sound-bite and treating politics as a popularity contest which is entirely about money and how much 'speech' it can buy rather than a discussion.

In the context of the climate they've created, Trump is the *perfect* candidate. He stands for absolutely nothing but will say anything and he grabs headlines and airtime by saying and doing stupid shit. Which, to a woefully uneducated electorate looks like "straight talking" and "telling it how it is" and "being tough". The fact that he has no actual policy doesn't matter. The fact that he doesn't mean the stuff he uses as a stand in for policy ("we'll build a wall") (he's been recorded, off the record, as saying he has no intention of following through on that, he just says it to get votes) doesn't matter. As he said himself during one of his speeches - he could literally go out and shoot people in the street and it wouldn't matter, he wouldn't lose votes.

Trump is a(n imbecilic) monster created by the media and politicians. What matters is whether his support has a ceiling (I suspect it does) and whether he destroys the GOP (I suspect he will) which is going to be *very* interesting in the long term.

If the GOP was going to do anything to stop Trump it really had to happen before now. Rubio stands a mathematical chance of being competitive but it's looking less and less likely (though he was helped by Cruz claiming a few states on super tuesday).

Trump is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Republican. So the GOP either just grins and bears it or they split. The Republican party should really be about 5 separate parties anyway - the neocons have very little in common with the libertarians who have very little in common with the religious right who have very little in common with the moderates who have very little in common with the traditional constitutional conservatives. It's a wonder they've managed to hold together so long really (well, it's not, they use bullshit token issues like gun control and abortion, which are basically settled issues - when it comes to policy the parties aren't at all far apart on these issues. They're used as a wedge to artificially polarise the electorate). Anyway, I think Trump will be enough to make those cracks within the party properly rupture.

Which could actually be good for the country. Since you currently essentially have two centre-right parties. If the Republicans split into 3 parties (neocons+moderates, conservatives+libertarians and religious right) and the dems split into two (third-wayers and actual (modern, anti-austerity type) leftists) then a far broader spectrum of political views, and ones with far more internal logic, would be represented.



 
 
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   4 Mar 2016 10:35 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      132 of 207 
41641.132 In reply to 41641.131 
America's political system is a victim and a prisoner of its economic system (predatory capitalism). If you can't fix the latter, the whole damn thing is going to blow up, a whole lot of people are going to get killed. It will get ugly, it will get vicious. Even more than it already is.

----
"American football is when a bunch over over paid American sports people frightened of being hurt strap on a ton of armour to play a game of rugby"
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  fixrman   5 Mar 2016 13:52 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      133 of 207 
41641.133 In reply to 41641.131 
Good post, very well=thought out. Just a few comments:
 
Quote: 
Hilary will literally say anything to anyone to get votes; Hilary is so far up the arse of big money; In any normal election Hilary would stand very little change [sic] in a general election, her unfavourables are ridiculously high


It is amazing to me that her supporters do not see her many negatives. Her trustworthiness factor should be much higher than it is, but I suspect that since so many obama supporters convinced themselves they were getting "free stuff" (many were convinced he would pay mortgages, for free iPhones, etc.) they also feel that HRC will be just like obama and all that largess will come. What they fail to realise is, obama and the clintons hate each other. The only reason HRC is trying to cozy up to obama is she thinks it will help her get the minority votes, despite the fact that she has also tried to distance herself from obama...

The fact that HRC is generally surrounded by a myriad of controversies involving coverups, corruption, lying and other questionable behaviour doesn't seem to bother many in the Democratic camp, yet those same people would decry very loudly the same behaviour of a Republican.

Trump is a bloviating buffoon, but the media loves him. Why? Because it keeps them on air flapping their gums as they love to do. I fear Donald Trump as a Loose Cannon, but against HRC or Bernie Sanders - if pressed to choose - I'll have to vote for Trump. My preference would be, however, for someone else. The only problem is, the someone else might not be able to win.

Hopefully time will change some things.For right now, I can't watch the circus. The Dem debates are usually held at some time when no one will watch them; they are about as interesting as a yawning festival. That protects HRC from snapping like an angry dog if Bernie decides to push her buttons.

The Republican debates are in Prime Time because that's what people want to see: ridiculousness, the latest "Trumpisms".
 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   6 Mar 2016 09:46 
 To:  fixrman      134 of 207 
41641.134 In reply to 41641.133 
I don't think she's mainly associating herself with Obama for the black vote. I think it's mainly because his approval amongst democrats is extremely high (~80%). She'll no doubt distance herself from him should she get the nomination since nationally his approval is moderately low for a president at this point in their presidency.

Cosying up to Obama certainly shores up the black vote but she seems to have it anyway as some sort of Bill Clinton proxy. I had strong doubts about her "firewall" but it's proven true so far, in the South at least. Be interesting to see whether it holds true in the North, too.

Her support is fucking weird though, yeah. I get the distinct impression that no one actually likes her and yet she has huge support. Her unfavourables are *really really bad*. I think the DNC is just stacked with Clintonites who feel an affiliation to her regardless of her personality/abilities.

In a way she is a great candidate though. She's very businesslike and serious but not without charisma and, as I said in the previous post, she's absolutely nailed that ability to make everyone think they heard what they wanted to hear. She's cosy with banking and big business which is important in terms of campaigning (or at least was in the pre-internet age, I think that's one of those things that's changing). And, and this is really important I think, when she talks foreign policy she sounds like a Republican - whether you agree with her or not she knows that stuff inside out, has the cabinet experience to back it up, and she sounds tough and serious.

She's a really good candidate for the party establishment. She's exactly (favourability aside) what they've thought they've needed for years. I think times are changing though.

The controversies... I don't think people really care. The Republicans make a big deal of it and the media chase it to an extent but I don't think voters really give a fuck. Also the Clintons just seem to have a sort of teflon quality to them with regard to controversy.

The Democrat debates are *fucking boring*. They're far too afraid to be thought of as attacking that they barely disagree. It's horrible. They just end up as stump speech remixes.

The Republican debates are hugely fucking entertaining. Not just because of the Trump freakshow, though that's part of it. But also because they actually disagree about policy and debate those disagreements. The level of debate is often not all that elevated but at least it exists.

I believe there's a town hall coming up with Trump, Sanders and Clinton. That might be good. And I do hope that Bernie lays into Clinton a bit more during the next debate in Flint. I think he will, he kinda has to.

But yeah, the democrat debates and town halls have been tightly controlled by the DNC in order to favour Clinton as much as possible. Sanders benefits from the exposure and Clinton doesn't really, not while she's ahead at least. It's kinda disgusting.

Last thing I'll say in this stream of consciousness waffle is that I miss Rand Paul. An intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate Republican with actual integrity was a rare sight. Even if Trump doesn't get the nomination the rest of the field are clowns too, they just look good in comparison to Trump.



 
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  fixrman   6 Mar 2016 14:14 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      135 of 207 
41641.135 In reply to 41641.134 
 
Quote: I get the distinct impression that no one actually likes her
 

That's because, unless talking about a specific set of people (mainly Democrats and low-information voters), she's not likeable. Older women don't like HRC and neither do young women.

 

Quote: In a way she is a great candidate though. She's very businesslike and serious but not without charisma
 

Hillary? Charisma? Are you sure you aren't talking about Bill C. in a dress?
 

Quote: The controversies... I don't think people really care.
 

I think they do care and will care more. She has honesty problems; the Email bit does actually have serious implications, especially considering David Petreaus' fate. What Clinton did - or allowed to have happen - is worse many times over. Clinton's problem is that she continued to lie about it, try to deflect it and of course - blame the ever present (to her) "vast Right-Wing Conspiracy". Uhuh.  :-/


I'd wager a bet that soon Bernie Sanders does an about-face and begins attacking her, as he needs to do if he really wants to win.
 

 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   7 Mar 2016 03:37 
 To:  fixrman      136 of 207 
41641.136 In reply to 41641.135 
She has *some* charisma. Not as much as Bill but she's not totally devoid of it like a lot of recent candidates have been.

And yeah, tonight's debate just finished and Sanders is hitting her harder which is good to see.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   22 Apr 2016 01:06 
 To:  ALL 137 of 207 
41641.137 
Maybe if we are lucky, there will be enough complaints about the primary elections that the "caucus" system states will convert to normal primary elections.  This is a problem, almost regardless of your personal political views.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   22 Apr 2016 20:44 
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      138 of 207 
41641.138 In reply to 41641.137 

> Maybe if we are lucky...
> ...
> This is a problem...


:?

 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   25 Apr 2016 06:41 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      139 of 207 
41641.139 In reply to 41641.138 
Hello Peter,

The US election system has some interesting contortions, both in the main election, and in the primary elections.

There is not any mandate or limitation on the number of political parties submitting a candidate for any elected office, but the two main parties are so dominant, that they do everything possible to drown out the smaller ones in the general (main) elections.

The "Primary Elections", which is what we are in now, are "who will be the candidate from each party.  The political parties are a lot like a corporation, and have successfully argued in court that the National Laws don't apply to them.  They can choose more or less any method they like to select a candidate.

They give voters "an opportunity to express their preference" during the primary elections, but are not legally bound to follow this "preference".

Within the "Primary election system", there are two common methods used to determine if a candidate (within a party) wins a state primary election or not:

- Normal Voting - one person, one vote, typically in a private booth at an official voting location, on an official form, fairly close to your home, in a very structured, organized, legal manner.  Mistakes are made, but it is pretty scrutinized.

- Caucus Voting

- In this case, there can be as many, or as few as (one) location where people have to travel to in order to make their opinion / vote known.  The location can be 2 - 4 hours drive away, and include pre-meetings that can last for hours, before the "vote" is taken. 
- The vote can be taken in any number of ways including a) someone writing down how many people are in a candidates "room" - counting noses at a particular moment in time
- an actual vote count, but not necessarily with any privacy
- voice vote, where the loudest group saying their preference wins
- There may, or may not be any attempt to verify if the people in the room are registered voters or not
- Votes might be collected and counted by a volunteer who happens to be in the room, with no prior experience with how it is organized
- Voting can be done on a legal form, or paper napkins, as needed
- There is only limited scrutiny of the results and procedures, and it is not uncommon for bags of "votes" to be found, in the trash and uncounted.
- Just to add to the fun, it is on a work night, so the people who go, might spend the entire night there, and then be expected at work the next day.
- Sometimes, a town will select "someone of good standing" to go the caucus and represent the opinion of the entire town.

Incredibly, both systems are given equal weight in terms of who becomes the US President, and it is hard even for Americans to grasp just how manipulated this system is.

This is what I mean when I indicated that I hope that the Caucus system of voting is someday eliminated.
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Manthorp   26 Apr 2016 09:24 
 To:  ALL 140 of 207 
41641.140 
Trump fails really really bigly That's all we need. a POTUS with the vocabulary of a toddler.
"We all have flaws, and mine is being wicked."
James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks 1951
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   26 Apr 2016 13:34 
 To:  Manthorp      141 of 207 
41641.141 In reply to 41641.140 
I kind of believe his handlers' recent claim to the RNC that this sub-literate jackass persona is an act.
Roland Skollani was sick of Pittsburgh. This city was the dead-end of his failed dreams and even dope didn’t help his choking fits no more. It had been a mistake to leave Hollywood and to follow Rita. Maybe it was a twist of fate, that there were only a few days left to leave his ex-wife’s house. Now he MUST act. Rita had a new lover and he didn’t mind, but why of all people did she choose this greedy, corrupt cop Lennon?
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Harry (HARRYN)   26 Apr 2016 14:02 
 To:  ALL 142 of 207 
41641.142 
I suspect that the real reason that the RNC and some big money donors don't want Trump as President, is that he knows which closets contain the skeletons.  I do agree that he mostly likely uses "talk" to move topics in his preferred direction, which is really the primary power of a President.

While I don't necessarily call myself "sold on Trump", it becomes easier to not worry about it when we look at the last 40 years of prior US Presidents, and the leaders of other countries.  There have been some pretty mixed quality and policy politicians in just about every country, and most have survived.

The more people bash Trump, the more I think he might be a decent candidate.  Of course there are some details which are not ideal, but that is always true of any candidate.

The financial institutions and intelligence community pretty much run the country anyway, so the country is more or less immune to the politicians.

It is so interesting to see how passionate people in other countries are about US Politics.  While it is interesting to watch the political process in other countries, I would not imagine actually becoming emotionally involved in foreign elections.

 
-1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   26 Apr 2016 14:05 
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      143 of 207 
41641.143 In reply to 41641.142 
"he knows which closets contain the skeletons"

How?
Roland Skollani was sick of Pittsburgh. This city was the dead-end of his failed dreams and even dope didn’t help his choking fits no more. It had been a mistake to leave Hollywood and to follow Rita. Maybe it was a twist of fate, that there were only a few days left to leave his ex-wife’s house. Now he MUST act. Rita had a new lover and he didn’t mind, but why of all people did she choose this greedy, corrupt cop Lennon?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko   26 Apr 2016 14:26 
 To:  Harry (HARRYN)      144 of 207 
41641.144 In reply to 41641.142 
It's kind of important to pay attention to the USA from outside, since much of the world economy runs on US$ and a seemingly increasingly large part of it gets American bombs dropped on it too, with far-reaching consequences. 

Your stated rationale there for increasingly thinking he might be a decent candidate is frankly bizarre, but I'm sure there's more to it.
 
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   26 Apr 2016 15:01 
 To:  ALL 145 of 207 
41641.145 
"the real reason that the RNC and some big money donors don't want Trump as President to win the Republican nomination" (FTFY) ...  is because if he does, Hillary wins by a landslide, Republicans will be purged from currently-held Congress and the Senate, and their party all but destroyed by bitter infighting.

Some of the biggest 'traditional' Republican donors (e.g. Koch bros) are already making noises about switching their support to Hillary.

So if you want another 'Republican Lite', elect another Clinton.

If Cruz gets the nomination, Hillary wins by a landslide but the Republican Party will survive in a weakened state to fight another election (maybe), with Tea Party nutters (like Cruz) a discredited, spent force.
Roland Skollani was sick of Pittsburgh. This city was the dead-end of his failed dreams and even dope didn’t help his choking fits no more. It had been a mistake to leave Hollywood and to follow Rita. Maybe it was a twist of fate, that there were only a few days left to leave his ex-wife’s house. Now he MUST act. Rita had a new lover and he didn’t mind, but why of all people did she choose this greedy, corrupt cop Lennon?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   27 Apr 2016 01:15 
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      146 of 207 
41641.146 In reply to 41641.145 
I agree with the rest but I don't think Trump necessarily loses to Clinton in a general. And it's far too far out for polling on that to be relevant.

Both candidates have very high unfavourables and both will motivate people to vote against them. I'm not sure whether apathy at two unlikeable candidates or desire to vote against one or the other would win out.

Trump's demonstrated that his support crosses party lines which Hilary's certainly doesn't. And his support has shown no signs of hitting a ceiling. He also can't be smeared - attacks on him simply don't work (and, particularly from Clinton, would only go to make his anti-establishment narrative, bullshit as it may be, all the more compelling for the fuckwits who do/would vote for him).

I think Trump getting the nomination would tear the party apart. But I'm not certain - the GOP is resilient as all fuck.

But from the party's POV I don't think the problem is that he'd lose the general, it's that he might win. In which situation they'd have a republican president who doesn't really represent any of the republican core beliefs.

I agree that they'd rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump (and rightly so).

Still, the dems are also looking more strained than they have for a long time. There's definitely a desire for an actual progressive candidate and, moreover, for the democrats to be an actual progressive party. And, as you say, totem issues aside, Clinton is really a republican. I wouldn't even say 'lite', particularly on economic and foreign issues.

Also worth bearing in mind: As soon as Sanders is out of the race (which probably won't be long now, sadly), Clinton's going to move back the right. Which makes the Republican's job easier come the general (left leaning independents stay at home (except those who can bring themselves to vote Clinton as an anti-Trump measure) and the GOP are far better at wooing even the soft-right independents).

The dems are kinda shooting themselves in the foot. If Sanders were the nominee then he gets Clinton's support by default (because Clinton's support is party-loyal dems). If Clinton wins I suspect a large proportion of Sanders' support will just melt away - either not voting or voting green/similar. Clinton would be only marginally easier for them to vote for than, say, Kasich.

It's a really interesting election though. In terms of just horse-race entertainment value it's fucking awesome.



 
 
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  koswix    27 Apr 2016 06:36 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      147 of 207 
41641.147 In reply to 41641.146 
Urgh - so with the latest results that's Sanders out and (pretty much) Trump in, then. 

 ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘
If Feds call you and say something bad on me, it may prove what I said are truth, they are afraid of it.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  …  81–100  101–120  121–140  141–160  …  201–207

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats