Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 2278578 times) previous topic - next topic
Lods and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #255 –
Quote from: laj – on
Not sure, I think Hilary almost has a free pass to the White House being up against Trump. She won't get beaten. Last thing we need is some idiot from the lunatic fringe running the USA.

Wonder if Hilary will get revenge on Bill and find herself a male "Monica"...lol.

Wonder if Bill would be all that bothered?  :)
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #256 –
OMG, he is a special interest.  It's like a fox telling the chooks that he'll protect them.

There are at least 2 different groups in Sanders' camp: blue collar workers and pogressive millenials.  Trump may well appeal to the former but he's unlikely to appeal to the latter.

The blue collar workers who have seen their jobs move overseas and have no hope or interest in moving into other types of work may well like those such as Sanders and Trump who condemn trade deals that accelerated that process.  This group can also be quite socially conservative and may share an antipathy to minority groups they might regard as stealing their birthrights.  But would they really believe that Trump would be more interested in helping them rather than the rich?

The millenials/progressives aren't just after an extreme candidate.  They want one who will push their concerns.  Is a self-professed Billionaire the guy to reform campaign contributions?  His claim that he self-funded his primary campaign was a point of difference.  It was also a bit misleading as he loaned his campaign the money and can pay himself back now he is taking money from wealthy backers.  Now, he's raising money and benefitting from SuperPacs just like any other politician.  Would Sanders' 'process activists' think that self-funded Billionaires would answer their concerns or do they want to open up the presidency to those without wealth or wealthy backers?  I think the latter.  Those who want to crack down on Wall Street and corporate excesses and reverse the trend of the top 1% making out like bandits at the expense of the bottom 90% are not likely to see Trump as a saviour.   And certainly those fighting against discrimination against minorities won't have a bar of him. 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #257 –
Quote from: mateinone – on
Trump will be the next president of the USA, barring an absolutely stupendous crash (which of course is also possible with Trump), he will kill Clinton.

He is hated by many, especially women and that was meant to stop him in the Red Neck primaries, but it didn't.

Hilary Clinton is just about as loathed as Trump, but nowhere near as loved. There are a lot of people that believe Trump can be the next Reagan. They believe he can come out strong and take on all the challenges facing America the next 8 years and they are significant.

The economy (apparently because he is a billionaire he will have all the answers here)
China's expansion
Russia's Militarization
ISIS, the Middle East, Worldwide & Domestic Terrorism.
Immigration Controls (legal and illegal)

These are just a few of the issues America consider to be threatening the existence of America... or A Great America.

I think Bernie had a chance against Trump, I don't think Hilary has any. I might end up eating my words here, but Trump was still paying $5 - $6 when he was in front in polls in The Red Neck Primary because people expected the joke to end and people to come to their senses, now they are starting to realise he can win it.

People say Hilary's loathed but she very easily beat a very popular candidate in Sanders. Many a PM has been loathed but they voted in easily because they can do the job. Politics isn't a popularity contest and people know that. Hilary will win very easily.

If Bernie had a chance to beat Trump, but Hilary smashed Bernie, then you'd think with much of the same people voting then Hilary will pump Trump. Many Republican supporters who were anti-Trump and his lunatic ideas will vote for Clinton.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #258 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
Every empire eventually crashes and needs a lunatic in charge to oversee and ensure the crash is total and spectacular.

Then you can rebuild it without the sins of the past... you'd hope.

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that the FBI, CIA or other secret US agency hasn't got Trump in their sights.

I wonder if there is any truth in the rumour that smart US citizens are heading to Canada and Mexica with the hope that any walls that are built will keep the Yanks out!!!

Reminds me of the Kenny Everett observation on this

Britain was once a kingdom and it had a king,
Then it became an empire and had an empress.
Finally it became just a country and Margaret Thatcher was in charge.
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #259 –
Quote from: cookie2 – on
Reminds me of the Kenny Everett observation on this

Britain was once a kingdom and it had a king,
Then it became an empire and had an empress.
Finally it became just a country and Margaret Thatcher was in charge.

Hahahahahaha... I so remember that, what a ripper he was....
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #260 –
Quote from: Inboltswetrust – on
I agree.  I think Trump win hands down.  I actually like him.  He's funny and has a bit of charisma.  Also he wants to get the terrorists big time.  Good. In terms of his war mongering ways, I think we need a strong America, otherwise we could be screwed with the expansion of china.  Go the trumpster. And I got $7 in early markets :)

I don't think he is even remotely charismatic - just another ego maniacal washed up has been giving simplistic "solutions' to complex and long standing problems. His attitude to Islamic states is entrenched in right wing US politics and is guaranteed to foster hatred of the West for generations to come.  
 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #261 –
Quote from: laj – on
People say Hilary's loathed but she very easily beat a very popular candidate in Sanders. Many a PM has been loathed but they voted in easily because they can do the job. Politics isn't a popularity contest and people know that. Hilary will win very easily.

If Bernie had a chance to beat Trump, but Hilary smashed Bernie, then you'd think with much of the same people voting then Hilary will pump Trump. Many Republican supporters who were anti-Trump and his lunatic ideas will vote for Clinton.

No she didn't "very easily" beat sanders.

What she did do very well was milk a very rigged Democratic (haha) Party system.
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #262 –
Rigged?  How?

The Democratic Party is a political party.  It selects a candidate to represent it.  It doesn't just hold an open-casting call.  No party does.  Can anybody throw a hat in the ring during pre-selection battles inside the ALP or the Libs?  Even if you become a member, you have little chance if you're just trying to use the party to advance your own agenda.

The Presidential election isn't limited to Republican and Democratic candidates.  It is open to other candidates.  Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have run in the past as third-party candidates.  The Greens and Libertarians are running candidates this time even though they have no hope.

The Republicans have failed to keep the fox out of the henhouse.  Trump is as much a Republican as I am.  They had the stupid idea that the RNC could put the brakes on if needed but that failed badly when they needed to unite against Trump. 

Remember that Sanders has only recently joined the Democrats.  He has been an independent for years.  It was a bit like Bob Brown wanting an open ALP selection process (one in which every Australian could vote - even Liberal Party members) in which he could take control of the ALP and run his own policies while forcing the ALP to fund his general election campaign.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #263 –
Mav,

I fully appreciate that you know more than anybody else on just about every topic ever discussed by humanity, but please, do some basic research....even a 5 second Google search to better understand the party delegate (and super delegate) system....

Anyway, to save you a little time, try

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/do-super-delegates-rig-the-democratic-primaries-in-hillary-clintons-favour/news-story/590348429e8eb7fcbee22961c2a909aa

or even:

http://theweek.com/articles/615261/superdelegates-explained


Finally, reflect on the meaning of 'democracy'.

Any contradictions here?

Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #264 –
Quote
“The election is not rigged for one candidate or another. The rules ... were established in the 1970s, long before any current candidate declared for office. All candidates run under the same rules.”

It seems that it's only rigged if you support the loser.

I studied the US electoral system back when I thought I had an interest in political science and it did my head in.  Not that our system is perfect.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #265 –
The superdelegate system was brought in after George McGovern crashed and burned and later concerns about Carter.  It is a failsafe to ensure the DNC isn't forced to run an unelectable candidate or one who doesn't represent the party in any meaningful way.  Without that failsafe, the DNC may well hand the Presidency to a right-wing extremist.  The Party also has an interest in Congressional elections that run on the same day and a terrible candidate can hurt its candidates in those contests.

Since it was introduced, the superdelegates have never thwarted the will of the voters.  The candidate who has won the most pledged delegates has always become the Democratic candidate.  Bizarrely, Sanders is the one who wants the superdelegates to support him and overturn the popular vote.

The GOP is now confronted with the fact that it no longer has a party platform.  Trump is now the head of the GOP and his policies are now the GOPs.  And when the next presidential elections come around, policies may well be radically different.  There is little continuity or heart left in the GOP.

Do you think the ALP or the LP don't ensure their candidates adhere to their party's platform?  In both cases, party headquarters can override the preselection vote in the branches.  And in no case can non-Branch members turn up to vote in preselection battles. Your view that everyone should be able to vote in every party preselection process and that vote should be respected without question is ridiculous.  Both in the US and Australia, we have election processes that don't just apply the popular vote.  In the US, they have a delegate system.  In Australia, we have a representative system where a number of MPs are elected and then they select the PM.  We don't even vote directly for the PM and we don't vote at all for GG.  Democracy doesn't mean direct popular vote.

Good on Sanders for moving the DNC to the left.  Hillary's too right-wing for mine as is the Democratic Party.  Hillary is probably a lot more conservative than Turnbull.  But there needs to be some continuity in a party's platform or else it doesn't really stand for anything.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #266 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Trump is as much a Republican as I am. 

True that.
He was a Democrat at one stage.

Many Republican biased commentators and Senior party figures cant stand him.

The important component in this election though is the Electoral college votes (270 needed to become President)  and at the moment these would probably favour Clinton by a fair margin.


Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #267 –
There are, however, a couple of obvious threats to democracy in the US.  Both arise because of the US obsession with leaving each State to deal with setting electoral boundaries and voting qualifications and procedures as they deem fit.

Right-wing figures and strategists including the Koch brothers came up with the Red State Strategy.  What we call redistributions and Americans call redistricting occurs every 10 years and the last one was in 2010.  Each State takes the census data and reorganises their congressional electoral boundaries accordingly.  Some States will pick up extra seats because they're growing.  Each State has its own commission to organise the redistricting.  Each State is free to have an independent commission, a bipartisan commission or a totally partisan commission.  The conservative strategists realised that if they pumped a lot of money and expertise into seemingly unimportant State contests rather than the Presidential or Congressional elections, they could gain control of the redistricting process in a number of states.  They won a lot of Guberbatorial and state legislative contests and then set about ensuring that the redistricting bodies would deliver gerrymanders which would allow the Republicans to win an impregnable majority in the House.  A perfect storm happened in 2010 as the Tea Party had just burst onto the scene and the mid-term elections resulted in a backlash against Obama.

This has resulted in a nihilistic and obstructionist House.  It's even backfired on the Republicans.  John Boehner lost his position as the Speaker of the House.  He refused to shut down the government and compromised with Obama to pass supply bills  The right-wing wingnuts were not pleased and forced him out.  There are now a lot of Republican congressmen and women who have been gifted safe seats who now feel no pressure from their districts to behave like reasonable adults.  Instead, they act like spoilt toddlers.  Ted Cruz boasted of trying to force a government shutdown if Obama refused to repeal Obamacare.

This majority is safe until maybe 2022 or 2024.  Unless the DNC can do something to negate GOP control of redistricting in 2020, it will gift the Republicans control of the House until 2034 or so.  The Supreme Court fortunately ruled that redistricting couldn't result in districts having different numbers of people, so that slowed down the strategy a little bit.

Each State can also do a lot to disenfranchise voters in its State.  They can make it difficult to enrol to vote by requiring photo IDs or just make it difficult to vote by ensuring long lines of voters at a small number of polling stations.  Remember that the elections are held on a Tuesday and there is no holiday (which Obama thinks needs to change).  Even the methods of recording votes can influence results as they did in 2000 when dodgy machines in Florida led to votes being ignored if there were "hanging chads" and Dubya won because his brother was the Governor of Florida and was therefore able to get him over the line.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #268 –
Quote from: Lods – on
True that.
He was a Democrat at one stage.

Many Republican biased commentators and Senior party figures cant stand him.
Yep.  Bill and Hillary even went to his wedding!  He's been trying to ignore past pro-choice comments too. 

The Democrats have a chance of winning the Senate and the at-risk Senators are trying to disown him as much as possible.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #269 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
No she didn't "very easily" beat sanders.

What she did do very well was milk a very rigged Democratic (haha) Party system.

Yes she did, close to 300 pledged delegates ahead. That's "very easily" in anyone's language. Not to mention 3 million more in the popular vote. All up a fair shellacking. Sounds like a 10 goal margin in footy terms. She'll be the next President.

Anything this about being "rigged' is just spin and crap for those that support Sanders.