Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

It was possible, but I didn't think it would happen... Shocked. Worried a bit for the states too  

really sorry to do this, but it's US politics related. Does anyone on here know their economics? If the dollar plunges, is the pound going to weaken? Weeks away from a new mortgage, I'm scared for me and our economy too. I don't like uncertainty and things are very uncertain now, although, one thing that is certain is, the media will never have a slow news day for the next four years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, banning people of a particular religion from entering the country clearly would be an escalation, but it's worth saying that Trump has fudged on this policy when questioned in recent times. His more recent formulation was something like 'extreme vetting' rather than an outright ban, though (of course) he didn't have any actual details for what that might involve. 

He toned it down to get votes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

His more recent formulation was something like 'extreme vetting' rather than an outright ban, though (of course) he didn't have any actual details for what that might involve. 

I imagine plans to close Guantanamo Bay will be quietly shelved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

He toned it down to get votes...

Probably. However, we shall see. 

I think people need to assume that he's going to fail to deliver on most all of his promises. Obama claimed that electing him would lower the level of the seas in itself. Grandiose claims that can't be followed through with are a part of the American presidential tradition. Of course, I appreciate it's easy for me to say this as a white British person, if I were a Mexican American or a Muslim I would probably be a good deal more panicked. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, to provide some balance to my own opinion, maybe I'm wrong on this one. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte was elected in a landslide promising to fill Manila harbour with the bodies of people involved in the drugs trade. He openly promised to launch a campaign of extra-judicial murders on the street, and he has followed through to the word. Nobody could accuse him of failing to keep a manifesto commitment. 

Of course, my assumption is that the checks and balances in the American system are sufficiently strong to resist the most tyrannical fascist excesses. But there's a strong argument, counter to my argument above, that people who spend so much effort trying to portray an image of themselves as both a moron and a proto-fascist should be taken at their word. 

'Interesting times', indeed. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

He toned it down to get votes...

That's just the point though isn't it, he is a populist. He doesn't actually believe in anything from a political point of view, he is open to saying or doing anything. The guy identified as a Democrat but decided to run as a Republican because it was an easier path.

The whole 'ban Muslims' talk was just that, talk to win in the rabid Republican primaries and he changed his tune as soon as he needed to appeal to a wider crowd.

What he will actually do in power we really have no idea.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Awol said:

It is a fact of society, the attempt to hide it through manipulation of language or wish it out of existence has just met the concrete wall of reality.

People across the west are seeing their incomes fall, inequality sky rocket while a narrow elite patronise the crap out of them.

Of course Trump isn't the answer but he was the only change candidate.  The funny thing will be watching said elite perform mental gymnastics to avoid drawing the correct conclusions from Trump's election.

This.  Unfortunately, this.  Idealists who don't pass through realism end up mere fantasists.

Virtually everything Awol and Villakram have said tonight is completely correct.  Unpleasant to read, but entirely correct.  These words have to be the starting point for a real, progressive politics.  We have avoided reality and a recognition of the lives of most ordinary people for far too long.  Unable to listen to an unpalatable truth we have indulged, individually and en masse, in fantasy and distraction.  If we truly care we can no longer afford this luxury.  It isn't always someone else's fault.  We need to have a long, hard look at everything.  Especially ourselves and our actions and words.  They don't do what we pretend they do.

To a richer, more responsible politics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to come out of tonight that I'm not sad at, is we can bury once and for all the notion that centrist, Blue Dog Democrats are 'better' because they're more 'electable'. If I were to judge one single cliche to have had a worse 2016 than all others, it would be 'elections are won in the centre'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Probably. However, we shall see. 

I think people need to assume that he's going to fail to deliver on most all of his promises. Obama claimed that electing him would lower the level of the seas in itself. Grandiose claims that can't be followed through with are a part of the American presidential tradition. Of course, I appreciate it's easy for me to say this as a white British person, if I were a Mexican American or a Muslim I would probably be a good deal more panicked. 

Totally different premise. Obama couldn't make the changes he undoubtedly wanted to make because he couldn't get them through, Trump won't have the same issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sexbelowsound said:

What's the chance of an epic comeback here?

Basically none. Clinton would need to win Alaska or Arizona. She won't win either. 

4 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Totally different premise. Obama couldn't make the changes he undoubtedly wanted to make because he couldn't get them through, Trump won't have the same issue.

In the first two years under Obama, Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House. Unified government control that they won't have again for a long, long time, and they still didn't get meaningful climate change legislation passed. I'm not saying Obama didn't want to make those changes, I'm saying that there is a lot of inertia in the system. That inertia will affect Trump too, what remains to be seen is how much it affects him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said:

What's the chance of an epic comeback here?

Well the Clinton HQ have shut up shop and gone home. I think that's a reasonable indicator of their expectations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many voted in between the FBI opening and closing the investigation last week?  That could have been extremely costly but still Clinton was an extremely flawed candidate.  The problem was both of them getting elected in the primaries, not this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sharkyvilla said:

I wonder how many voted in between the FBI opening and closing the investigation last week?  That could have been extremely costly but still Clinton was an extremely flawed candidate.  The problem was both of them getting elected in the primaries, not this.  

I agree with this. The fact that someone with the views of Trump has been allowed to get this far shows just how weak of a candidate she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â