villa89 Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Of all the reasons to attack Trump doing it for his wife stealing a speech that one of Obama's speech writers wrote for Michelle Obama is a long way down the list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 The 2016 GOP convention platform is the most extreme ever, according to NYT. No surprises there, I suppose, given the nasty tone of the primaries. It seems to do a good job of illustrating the deep and fundamental polarisation taking place, though. The party's stance on e.g. LGBT rights is so out of touch with the (I think) majority of Americans, yet I'd be surprised if Trump gets less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. You sometimes have to wonder for how long these States of America can stay United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 20, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 20, 2016 Now Trump thinks Belgium is a lovely city! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 8 hours ago, villa89 said: Of all the reasons to attack Trump doing it for his wife stealing a speech that one of Obama's speech writers wrote for Michelle Obama is a long way down the list. Of course, but that doesn't stop it being amusing or noteworthy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 relax! it ain't pervy if it's your own daughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted July 22, 2016 Moderator Share Posted July 22, 2016 It was interesting to hear him talk about the potential for not supporting other members of NATO that are threatened as an automatic right - basically hinting that if you're not spending enough on your military (through the US) then the US won't back you up as part of NATO. Essentially ignoring NATO's founding principle. It's a continuation of the policy of the Obama administration where Obama has been pressing allies to spend 2% of their GDP on defence if they want to stay part of the gang. The US has a huge problem in that it wants to maintain an absolute military hegemony, where it wants to continue its encirclement of China and Russia with massive build ups of troops and bases, where it needs to satisfy the rapacious demands of its arms industry and the lobbyists within it that massively influence its democracy - but it simply can't afford it. Trump is particularly open on this and on his desire for the rest of the world to help foot the bill for the aims of the US - but it's a growing policy across the political spectrum over there, and a worrying one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Trump is just like Admiral Benson. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Scary that Trump could win. He's unhinged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post villaglint Posted July 22, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 22, 2016 I'm a lot more scared about the people listening to him than I am the man himself. There are plenty of crackpots in the world. It's when people start believing in them that you have a problem. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: Scary that Trump could win. He's unhinged. American politics is certainly not my strong point, but from all the stuff I've read online, including posts from American members in this very thread, is the general feeling not that Clinton is a shoe in? I share your concern, the bloke is clearly as mad as a box frogs, but surely to god he can't win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 22, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 22, 2016 13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: It was interesting to hear him talk about the potential for not supporting other members of NATO that are threatened as an automatic right - basically hinting that if you're not spending enough on your military (through the US) then the US won't back you up as part of NATO. Essentially ignoring NATO's founding principle. It's a continuation of the policy of the Obama administration where Obama has been pressing allies to spend 2% of their GDP on defence if they want to stay part of the gang. The US has a huge problem in that it wants to maintain an absolute military hegemony, where it wants to continue its encirclement of China and Russia with massive build ups of troops and bases, where it needs to satisfy the rapacious demands of its arms industry and the lobbyists within it that massively influence its democracy - but it simply can't afford it. Trump is particularly open on this and on his desire for the rest of the world to help foot the bill for the aims of the US - but it's a growing policy across the political spectrum over there, and a worrying one at that. That's certainly a way of reading the NATO situation. It's not the only way though. The 2% thing is part of the NATO agreement, the idea being basically that each member is sufficiently able to support the group if ever things did kick off, and also of course the spending is the sword on show - don't try it, we can fight back. It's a deterrent in it's own right, although of course there's also the argument that any military spend is antagonistic (be that sword or shield...). An awful lot of NATO has been lax in meeting that spending target and the US has grown increasingly wary that it seems to be subsidising the alliance, and thats a situation they'd like to change. They basically don't need NATO, but they'd prefer to have it, and if thats the case they want everyone playing on a level field. The spending isn't about filling US coffers, because theres nothing in there that says you have to buy from Barrett, or Lockheed, or whoever. You can develop your own arms, like a few do. You can buy from other NATO members, like the UK. The US is obscenely far ahead of every other force on earth. There are exceptionally few military forces on the planet that even give the US a fight if things got hot, let alone a bloody nose. The size, ability to project power, the technological advancement over everyone else... they are the first global hegemon, and they'll remain that way for a very long time with or without NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 She's ahead in the polls but not by a huge amount and any major gaffe/event could swing things his way which would have profound consequences for the rest of the world. I would have thought ISIS would be very keen to have him win as it would feed into their ultimate desire of a massive royal rumble in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 10 hours ago, villaglint said: She's ahead in the polls but not by a huge amount and any major gaffe/event could swing things his way which would have profound consequences for the rest of the world. I would have thought ISIS would be very keen to have him win as it would feed into their ultimate desire of a massive royal rumble in the Middle East. After Brexit(and the scottish referendum, I lied in ever Poll on the scotish thing to say the hound sturgeon would win just becasue I wanted her to fail), I am convinced people lie extensively to polls. It's one thing winning but to win when the polls say you won't win must be quite satisfying. It's quite clever I suppose if this is actually happening now as the one who thinks they are leading takes the foot of the gas or goes after the wrong subject (Cameron / Economy) for example. As you say, Clinton is on a tight rope now, one little mistake now and we are all in trouble. On a side note, she looks ****, as in tired. I don't actually think she has got it in her to be president of the United States, I dunno, can i actually see her doing this for 8 years, not sure ? She is the lesser of 2 evils but we are assuming she is a good overall candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) They (Gotham The USA) must be so proud, step back and what have they actually got ? A security nightmare of a fat dumpy mess of a woman who was 2nd or even 3rd lady at some points & a psycho NRA loving billionaire fiend with a penchant for wall building and talking utter bolox. Real people or a character brainstorm session in the next Batman film. Edited July 23, 2016 by Amsterdam_Neil_D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: They (Gotham The USA) must be so proud, step back and what have they actually got ? A security nightmare of a fat dumpy mess of a woman who was 2nd or even 3rd lady at some points & a psycho NRA loving billionaire fiend with a penchant for wall building and talking utter bolox. Real people or a character brainstorm session in the next Batman film. I think you've kind of ruined your own point on Clinton. There are plenty of valid reasons not to support her. She should be prosecuted for recklessly endangering state secrets, and it's a disgrace that the FBI have ignored it. To go on to critisize her appearance, and the fact her husband played away is pathetic though. That shit belongs in the tabloids, leave it there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted July 23, 2016 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2016 I think Hilary gets away with an awful lot through simply not being Trump. She's a right wing, corporate, bank friendly, military friendly business as usual politician perpetuating a very broken system that benefits only a few. There's a case for giving Trump a go. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Can Trump win? It is scientifically impossible to underestimate an electorate. I watched a fair bit of the convention, the more outrageous rubbish people including Trump came out with, the more delirious the crowd became. Utter nonsense was spouted and the crowd had a collective orgasm. One tiny slip by Clinton, one off guard comment about 'men' or one more revelation about her husband's problem keeping his dick in his pants and she could be in trouble. What's she got, a four point lead? That's one killer joke by Trump in a debate. That's one hard question about e-mail servers. Trump stood up there and promised to bring back all the jobs, sell bananas in fives, make america safe on day one, spend 350 million on the NHS, build a wall and give out free pasties. We've seen it all before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 2 hours ago, chrisp65 said: Can Trump win? It is scientifically impossible to underestimate an electorate. I watched a fair bit of the convention, the more outrageous rubbish people including Trump came out with, the more delirious the crowd became. Utter nonsense was spouted and the crowd had a collective orgasm. One tiny slip by Clinton, one off guard comment about 'men' or one more revelation about her husband's problem keeping his dick in his pants and she could be in trouble. What's she got, a four point lead? That's one killer joke by Trump in a debate. That's one hard question about e-mail servers. Trump stood up there and promised to bring back all the jobs, sell bananas in fives, make america safe on day one, spend 350 million on the NHS, build a wall and give out free pasties. We've seen it all before. It's actually more like a 2.5 point lead, or was before the convention, so it's even closer than that. It's really, really far from unthinkable that he might do enough to sneak over the line at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: It's actually more like a 2.5 point lead, or was before the convention, so it's even closer than that. It's really, really far from unthinkable that he might do enough to sneak over the line at this point. The polls always assume One Man, One Vote. Of course, the President is elected by the Electoral College. The truth is that the Rust Belt states are going to be crucial. As Gore showed, you can win the popular vote but lose the White House. The RB states are not Hillary's natural hunting ground. There's a lot of angry, white working class people. Trump's rhetoric plays well there. She can easily be ahead in the polls and lose. I saw on TV that Tim Kaine was selected as he speaks Spanish so they can appeal to Hispanics. They already do. I suspect that he was chosen because he is from a regular, no-frills state that gives him a chance of pushing the Hillary ticket to those ordinary folks who have to turn to her for her to grab the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 There is a chance of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. It's a very very small chance though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts