Jump to content

U.S. Politics


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Define : "Them" ?,  I am with you though,  there is no one to trust in high office anymore.

I don't agree that he is funny either.  He has the comedy timing of a release of Mustard Gas in a Astma clinic.

I'm not absolutely sure who 'them' is. But there's definitely something in the water to carry out some form of protest vote against 'them'. I guess in it's simplest form it's a variation on not trusting career politicians. Not trusting career politicians can be healthy. The alternative being offered and being taken by many, is no bloody improvement though.

Anyway, fwiw, I don't think he's funny either. He's funny like Farage and Johnson are funny. They talk crap and a bizarrely large number of people whoop, punch the air and think someone has landed a blow for the ordinary Joe.

I don't think he's funny. Such a shame that the other team have seen an opportunity to run a bad candidate to win by default.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

World is already a tinderbox all it needs is a mad man...

I still can't believe in a country with more than 20 President related assassination attempts and more than 300 million guns those two stats haven't become part of a story about this hillbilly.

A British man with what sounds like some mental issues supposedly went to grab a gun from a policeman in order to shoot Trump in Las Vegas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the WW3 stuff. 

Trump has explicitly stated that he'd try and cut deals with Russia/China, and has rubbished the value of NATO and the classical US post WWII doctrine w.r.t. Europe. This has caused a huge amount of concern amongst the neo-con establishment.

Hillary is a status quo politician and her foreign policy positions are straight from the neo-con playbook. None of these involve any sense of the US relinquishing it's position as top dog regardless of economic/demographic realities. 

Somehow, this means that Trump is more likely to start WW3? It's Obama who via TPP/TTIP is trying to frame the next 20-30yrs of global geopolitics in direct opposition to China and Russia.

A lot of the stuff he says is full of shit, but Trump starting WW3 is nothing more than a Clinton talking point.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would come down to his ability to pick a fight with an empty room.

He's talking like he'd be the tough counterpart that Russia and China would respect but let's face he knows absolutely nothing about international politics so when things don't go as he planned and he rewrites his views the morning before a press conference I guess people are worried about the direction he could take the world.

If you add to those worries his own "ideas" for an incredibly complex situation in the Middle East then you start understanding a little of what is concerning people/the whole world right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, villakram said:

I don't get the WW3 stuff. 

Trump has explicitly stated that he'd try and cut deals with Russia/China, and has rubbished the value of NATO and the classical US post WWII doctrine w.r.t. Europe. This has caused a huge amount of concern amongst the neo-con establishment.

Hillary is a status quo politician and her foreign policy positions are straight from the neo-con playbook. None of these involve any sense of the US relinquishing it's position as top dog regardless of economic/demographic realities. 

Somehow, this means that Trump is more likely to start WW3? It's Obama who via TPP/TTIP is trying to frame the next 20-30yrs of global geopolitics in direct opposition to China and Russia.

A lot of the stuff he says is full of shit, but Trump starting WW3 is nothing more than a Clinton talking point.

The thing that has people spooked about Trump is that he's says different things to different audiences, so who really knows what he'd do. I like his thoughts about shutting down foreign military bases, but I'm sure once in office, he'll feel empowered to flex military might, or antagonize Russia or China or Iran...in a weird way, his candidacy is as close to a political revolution as we've had in presidential politics in ages. He's not really a republican and he has little if any party loyalty. He's a total wild card, that's why you're seeing prominent GOP figures start talking about voting for Clinton. It's a complete circus.

Edited by maqroll
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

A British man with what sounds like some mental issues supposedly went to grab a gun from a policeman in order to shoot Trump in Las Vegas. 

Ah yes you are right forgot about that, never send a Brit to do an American's job...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 22, 2016 at 15:45, av1 said:

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?

He won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump can legitimately hide behind the IRS audit... someone royally screwed up there.

Until Shillary releases her speeches, she can't call anyone out, but watch how her surrogates do instead.

Democracy :crylaugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, il_serpente said:

Wish I could be as confident as you.   Read Michael Moore's piece in Huffington Post about why he thinks Trump will win.  He makes some good points.

If he doesn't implode before the debates, he'll implode during the debates. It will be Clinton's opportunity to really expose him. She's tough, and she won't cower to him like all those GOP pussies did. 

There's no way he will win. They won't let it happen, trust me. Clinton is just a figurehead for the banker class that really runs things. As horrible as Trump is, he's not in bed with that mob. And that will be his end.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2016 at 08:24, Genie said:

I think if Trump were to become president, he'd start WW3.

Not an advocate of trump but have you listened to anything historical clinton had said beyond the "say anything people wan to hear to get elected" she been spouting in her election bid. She's a warmonger-er as big as any other. this is possibly an election of which mad as a box of frogs candidate do you want to push the button. I actually think clinton is the more likely to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 1, 2016 at 11:46, villakram said:

I don't get the WW3 stuff. 

Trump has explicitly stated that he'd try and cut deals with Russia/China, and has rubbished the value of NATO and the classical US post WWII doctrine w.r.t. Europe. This has caused a huge amount of concern amongst the neo-con establishment.

Hillary is a status quo politician and her foreign policy positions are straight from the neo-con playbook. None of these involve any sense of the US relinquishing it's position as top dog regardless of economic/demographic realities. 

Somehow, this means that Trump is more likely to start WW3? It's Obama who via TPP/TTIP is trying to frame the next 20-30yrs of global geopolitics in direct opposition to China and Russia.

A lot of the stuff he says is full of shit, but Trump starting WW3 is nothing more than a Clinton talking point.

it's true. donald trump is in many ways totally naive about the immensity of what he is trying to achieve for himself. he's a very simple guy, he loves jean claude van damme movies. he doesn't read or have much of a grasp on things you'd like a president to be familiar with. he's a rich kid who is all grown up, and that's about it. there's no depth there, no intellect, no compassion, no soul. he's like an old, fat king joffrey. i think Hillary is going to cakewalk this with ease. but then we'll have to deal with her and all the neocon/wall street players who 'll control everything she does. i think bernie sanders is regretting not running as an independent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

radio this morning, interviewing the vice chair of Republicans abroad and even she said there's massive concern over his temperament. She wasn't quite likely to tick the Clinton box, but definitely considering abstaining on the presidential ballot. Think there could be quite a few abstentions on both sides, and it could end up being the hardcore Trumpers versus how well Hillary energises her fanbase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â