U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

35 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is he trolling the world?

His latest idea is to declare that after a terrorist attack of any kind, he'd kill the family of the terrorist, because erm...they would have known right? Yeah, they'd definitely have known - and anyway, it would put the terrorists off if they knew that their families would be killed after they did their dirty business.

He's a nutcase.

 

He's rattled that one off a few times, first started a couple of months back, on a call to a news show I think. It's not an original idea, the Israelis have done similar, unofficially, punishing the families of terrorists.

Trump is just the mouth piece of the idiot on the street. Stupid 'policies' like this will play well to his audience. They'll play well to a few here as well, undoubtedly. That's Trump's strategy, just spouting any old right on nonsense that plays to the crowd.

[villakram]

It's official policy of the US military to declare all males in the 15-60 age range as non-civilian for counting "collateral" damage, or military age combatant to be more precise. That and the proclivity of their drone operators to do double-tap strikes. Rubio/Cruz/Clinton have all said that they'd happily bomb various parts of the middle east to bits... or should that be smaller bits. But, yes, let's all focus on what Trump says.

Please also remember that as of the current time, it is also the official policy of the UK government to murder without trial their very own citizenry, and to not accept any significant amount of refugees because of how super special U.K. inc. is.... and to bomb various parts of the middle east because they were feeling left out.

Unfortunately Chindie, I really do fear the horse has already bolted on a lot of this. That it takes someone as loud and obnoxious as Trump to open the eyes of most people to it, is the sad thing

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

It's official policy of the US military to declare all males in the 15-60 age range as non-civilian for counting "collateral" damage, or military age combatant to be more precise. That and the proclivity of their drone operators to do double-tap strikes. Rubio/Cruz/Clinton have all said that they'd happily bomb various parts of the middle east to bits... or should that be smaller bits. But, yes, let's all focus on what Trump says.

Please also remember that as of the current time, it is also the official policy of the UK government to murder without trial their very own citizenry, and to not accept any significant amount of refugees because of how super special U.K. inc. is.... and to bomb various parts of the middle east because they were feeling left out.

Unfortunately Chindie, I really do fear the horse has already bolted on a lot of this. That it takes someone as loud and obnoxious as Trump to open the eyes of most people to it, is the sad thing

Yes, absolutely this. 

Trump's foreign policy is odious and wrong, but then so is all the candidates'. 

[Mantis]

23 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

But you're making my point for me. In 2000, Bush campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative'. Plenty of political writing at the time highlighted that Bush and Gore didn't actually have the sort of vast oceans of space between their views (as expressed by their manifestos) that we consider normal in 2016. One whole chapter of PJ O'Rourke's 'The CEO Of The Sofa' was spent highlighting areas of overlap in their manifestos, and the election is commonly thought to have swung towards Bush as much as anything because of his more relatable persona - 'the guy you'd choose to have a beer with' was as I recall the common formulation. Of course I'm not saying they were the same - obviously they weren't - but the ideological gaps were smaller. 

None of that counted for jack shit when Bush was president. With the arguable exception of No Child Left Behind, he didn't govern as a 'compassionate conservative' at all. Especially after 9/11, all of the stuff about conservatism that benefitted everyone went out of the window, and instead was pursued maximum culture war and Karl Rove's '50%+1' re-election strategy. 

Bush changed enormously, and his pre-election words counted for nothing at all when in power. You seem to be absolutely certain that Trump's words now, in a competitive primary, represent his true and total opinion on things, and are a reliable guide to how he would govern. Yet this isn't borne out by Trump himself, who was a major Clinton donor until the end of the noughties and has repeatedly tried to have issues both ways even in this primary. 

Whether you agree with what he did or not I think to a massive extent Bush's presidency was a reaction to 9/11. The fact that Trump's already gone further than Bush ever did with regards to policy proposals (e.g. banning Muslims) suggests that yes, he likely would be worse.

I also think that Trump's reputation alone both inside and outside the US will cause the country great harm. When Bush became presidency he was relatively unknown to the outside world (for an American president at least) and although he became very unpopular he still by all accounts was good at building personal relationships with other leaders, nor did he have the kind of baggage that Trump has. If you look at Trump now he's probably already just as hated as Bush ever was outside the US and that's before he's even stepped into the Oval Office. He's just got so much baggage.

[maqroll]

[OutByEaster?]

I think what worries me about Trump is what he says about ordinary Americans.

 I've always thought of ordinary American's to have been victims of Bush in the same way as the rest of us, in the same way as Blair if you like; that they'd been tricked by good PR and good marketing into voting for something they didn't actually believe in. I remember reading a survey just after Bush was elected where almost 60% of the people he voted for disagreed with him on the majority of his major campaign issues, but simply hadn't been aware of what they were voting for. I saw Americans as simple folk, manipulated by years of media and PR spin, through a schools system that beats patriotism into them and a political industry that then uses that against them to perpetuate a corporate/military global hegemony - a simple folk, misled, but at heart, fundamentally good people.

What Trump suggests is that I was wrong, what Trump suggests is that ordinary Americans aren't good, they aren't benign, that if the options are presented to them up front and in clear terms, what they vote for is what they want. Trump suggests that Americans are a savage, uncaring and fundamentally bad group of people, and I don't like that picture. I want to believe in something else. 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think what worries me about Trump is what he says about ordinary Americans.

 I've always thought of ordinary American's to have been victims of Bush in the same way as the rest of us, in the same way as Blair if you like; that they'd been tricked by good PR and good marketing into voting for something they didn't actually believe in. I remember reading a survey just after Bush was elected where almost 60% of the people he voted for disagreed with him on the majority of his major campaign issues, but simply hadn't been aware of what they were voting for. I saw Americans as simple folk, manipulated by years of media and PR spin, through a schools system that beats patriotism into them and a political industry that then uses that against them to perpetuate a corporate/military global hegemony - a simple folk, misled, but at heart, fundamentally good people.

What Trump suggests is that I was wrong, what Trump suggests is that ordinary Americans aren't good, they aren't benign, that if the options are presented to them up front and in clear terms, what they vote for is what they want. Trump suggests that Americans are a savage, uncaring and fundamentally bad group of people, and I don't like that picture. I want to believe in something else. 

 

 

I think you urgently need to distinguish between 'ordinary Americans' and 'approximately 35-40% of the Republican primary electorate'. 

[chrisp65]

I think that what you also have to consider is that Trump is the alternative to the system and the establishment.

OK, he's not Spartacus, but he's not a career politician either. He employs people. He has things built. They've voted for the Bush family and they didn't get a better deal, they voted for the Clinton family and they didn't get a better deal. What we are currently seeing is 40% of half the electorate deciding to vote for something else, anything else.

As our equivalent, when you get a choice of voting for Stephen Kinnock (Labour) political dynasty, MP for Aberavon but house in Switzerland but tax audited in Denmark, Cambridge graduate OR, for instance, Alun Cairns (Conservative), who claimed £194,000 in expenses 2014 / 15 but voted to reduce disability allowances by £30 and has stated he believes foodbanks encourage laziness and drug abuse. When you have those two sides to vote for election after election after election, some people think '**** it', I'm going to vote for UKIP.

No matter how dumb everyone can see UKIP/Trump is, at least they aren't the others.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think what worries me about Trump is what he says about ordinary Americans.

 I've always thought of ordinary American's to have been victims of Bush in the same way as the rest of us, in the same way as Blair if you like; that they'd been tricked by good PR and good marketing into voting for something they didn't actually believe in. I remember reading a survey just after Bush was elected where almost 60% of the people he voted for disagreed with him on the majority of his major campaign issues, but simply hadn't been aware of what they were voting for. I saw Americans as simple folk, manipulated by years of media and PR spin, through a schools system that beats patriotism into them and a political industry that then uses that against them to perpetuate a corporate/military global hegemony - a simple folk, misled, but at heart, fundamentally good people.

What Trump suggests is that I was wrong, what Trump suggests is that ordinary Americans aren't good, they aren't benign, that if the options are presented to them up front and in clear terms, what they vote for is what they want. Trump suggests that Americans are a savage, uncaring and fundamentally bad group of people, and I don't like that picture. I want to believe in something else. 

 

 

There are more than a few articles around discussing how Trump is the inevitable result of the Republican doctrine. For decades it has been pushing the Christian-conservative stances on abortion etc, and at the same time saying that slashing taxes for the rich and a completely free market is a good thing. It turns out that a great deal of the Republican voters couldn't give a stuff about abortion, would rather the rich paid more, are OK with social security, and think some degree of regulation is fine. Because of this, the Republicans rely, basically, on an us v them narrative for success come election time because their actual policies don't appeal to voters. So, when you spend a generation rallying against the establishment, it should come as no surprise that someone will eventually come along and highlight how those pointing the finger are in fact the establishment too. Trump is that person, and the GoP has no idea what to do. They seem to be rallying around Cruz, someone who did Trump's job previously, simply because he at least sticks to the party line on a few issues.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2016 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[pas5898]

This is not a presidential election. It's essentially one huge I.Q. test for the whole of America.

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think what worries me about Trump is what he says about ordinary Americans.

 I've always thought of ordinary American's to have been victims of Bush in the same way as the rest of us, in the same way as Blair if you like; that they'd been tricked by good PR and good marketing into voting for something they didn't actually believe in. I remember reading a survey just after Bush was elected where almost 60% of the people he voted for disagreed with him on the majority of his major campaign issues, but simply hadn't been aware of what they were voting for. I saw Americans as simple folk, manipulated by years of media and PR spin, through a schools system that beats patriotism into them and a political industry that then uses that against them to perpetuate a corporate/military global hegemony - a simple folk, misled, but at heart, fundamentally good people.

What Trump suggests is that I was wrong, what Trump suggests is that ordinary Americans aren't good, they aren't benign, that if the options are presented to them up front and in clear terms, what they vote for is what they want. Trump suggests that Americans are a savage, uncaring and fundamentally bad group of people, and I don't like that picture. I want to believe in something else. 

 

 

As HanoiVillan says, you are looking at Trump voters and applying that mindset to the whole population. 

Trump typically gets about 30-40% of the vote in the republican primaries, whilst the more moderate republicans split their votes among the remaining candidates. When you look at the numbers who are voting for him in absolute terms it is a very small minority.  

Trump doesn't represent Americans any more than BNP voters represent the British. 

Edited March 15, 2016 by LondonLax

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

On 3/11/2016 at 19:35, Chindie said:

Trump is just the mouth piece of the idiot on the street. Stupid 'policies' like this will play well to his audience. They'll play well to a few here as well, undoubtedly. That's Trump's strategy, just spouting any old right on nonsense that plays to the crowd.

The problem I have is,  how on earth did a country end up with so many "idiot's on the street".  He plays the crowd as you say but a country where this type of political campaign gets traction with the voters must have so many crippling long term issues that it does not actually matter who wins in the big scheme of things.  How did it end up so that a guy can appeal to millions and millions of people by talking bolox and what does it say about the average American when this guy might actually win.  If he does then state wide civil unrest is a real possibility IMO.  

The hilarious thing is,  most of them are allowed to have guns when in reality a lot of them need 24 hour round the clock care if they are giving Trump the thumbs up.

[chrisp65]

I don't think Americans are special in this regard.

It's too easy to just think they are retarded. They are differently informed and have a different experience of life to you.

Why would anyone vote for UKIP? They had a candidate that blamed the floods after storm Desmond on refugees. It was another UKIP candidate that blamed the previous floods on gay marriage. Farage wants to repeal post Dunblane gun legislation. One of its MEP's wants UK muslims to be forced to sign a contract saying they won't commit jihad. Their manifesto included a call for all taxi drivers to wear a uniform. 

What are we to make of the 3.8 million people that voted UKIP in 2015?

 

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Trump typically gets about 30-40% of the vote in the republican primaries, whilst the more moderate republicans split their votes

None of them are moderate - they're all batshit crazy, frankly. The Tea Party lot sort of took over the Republicans and turned the whole thing bonkerswards. And pretty much all the voters in the Repub. primaries are voting for one loon or another.

The Democrats might not be mad, but their choice isn't particularly appetising either.

[BOF]

Just now, blandy said:

bonkerswards.

I heartily endorse this word

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I don't think Americans are special in this regard.

It's too easy to just think they are retarded. They are differently informed and have a different experience of life to you.

Why would anyone vote for UKIP? They had a candidate that blamed the floods after storm Desmond on refugees. It was another UKIP candidate that blamed the previous floods on gay marriage. Farage wants to repeal post Dunblane gun legislation. One of its MEP's wants UK muslims to be forced to sign a contract saying they won't commit jihad. Their manifesto included a call for all taxi drivers to wear a uniform. 

What are we to make of the 3.8 million people that voted UKIP in 2015?

 

 

 

Totally agree.

It's also too easy to write them off as racists. Don't get me wrong, lots of them are racists - there are a substantial number of white Americans who are just genuinely happy to encounter a candidate who will finally tell the African-Americans and the women and the gays and the Muslims and the goddamn hippies exactly where they're allowed to sit on the bus, and to just shut up already if they don't like it. But that doesn't account for every one of his supporters, and hopefully not even a majority. And it's such a let-off as well - if we write off working class white voters as racist shitbags from the off, then there's no way of persuading them to change their minds later.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

What are we to make of the 3.8 million people that voted UKIP in 2015?

Fair point that but in terms of percentage it is very small and the media got on that bandwagon and pushed it for them in fairness.  I think the utter despair of having to choose between Cameron and the other one (milliband) made this happen also.

As a % of the population that's very (3.8 million - 10% of of the voters ?) small,  Trump has managed to get way way more than that as a percentage.  The UKIP could be viewed as a flash in the pan,  Trump is riding on deep set mindsets that add up to a very large % of the american population.  That is the worrying think about it.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Fair point that but in terms of percentage it is very small and the media got on that bandwagon and pushed it for them in fairness.  I think the utter despair of having to choose between Cameron and the other one (milliband) made this happen also.

As a % of the population that's very (3.8 million - 10% of of the voters ?) small,  Trump has managed to get way way more than that as a percentage.  The UKIP could be viewed as a flash in the pan,  Trump is riding on deep set mindsets that add up to a very large % of the american population.  That is the worrying think about it.

He hasn't at all. Remember the only people to have voted for him so far are in Republican primaries. The first 12 Republican primaries saw an average turnout of 17.3% of eligible voters, of which Trump won an average of about 37% of voters, ie. about 6.5% of the eligible voting population of those states voted for him.

EDIT: This is obviously an oversimplification, because I'm treating every state as if they are of equal size and population, which obviously they aren't, but the point remains - there is no way Trump has won the vote of more than 10% of eligible voters, and it won't even be close. In fact, my number might be on the high side since Cruz won the state with the biggest population to have voted so far (Texas).

Edited March 15, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[Jon]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 

The Democrats might not be mad, but their choice isn't particularly appetising either.

Not 'feeling the Bern', Pete?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

He hasn't at all. Remember the only people to have voted for him so far are in Republican primaries. The first 12 Republican primaries saw an average turnout of 17.3% of eligible voters, of which Trump won an average of about 37% of voters, ie. about 6.5% of the eligible voting population of those states voted for him.

EDIT: This is obviously an oversimplification, because I'm treating every state as if they are of equal size and population, which obviously they aren't, but the point remains - there is no way Trump has won the vote of more than 10% of eligible voters, and it won't even be close. In fact, my number might be on the high side since Cruz won the state with the biggest population to have voted so far (Texas).

Good post and information.