Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

I really don't understand that. Though obviously I don't understand the whole Trump diehard fan thing either so who cares I guess.

I get that she is almost certainly a robot and Bill accidentally killed the real Hillary after they argued about Monica.

I get that many won't warm to her politics from either side.

I get that she is the establishment candidate and people really want CHCHCHCHANGE! 

But I really don't get that she can be as hated as the most mentally unhinged man to try and take the job with the biggest responsibility in the world. 

Edited by villaglint
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, villaglint said:

I really don't understand that. Though obviously I don't understand the whole Trump diehard fan thing either so who cares I guess.

I get that she is almost certainly a robot and Bill accidentally killed the real Hillary after they argued about Monica.

I get that many won't warm to her politics from either side.

I get that she is the establishment candidate and people really want CHCHCHCHANGE! 

But I really don't get that she can be as hated as the most mentally unhinged man to try and take the job with the biggest responsibility in the world. 

Fundamentally, Hillary is not liked because she is a liar, and has been found to be doing this since she first got into public life. Also some, people are not people-people, e.g., Hillary. Poor old Mittens had a similar problem against Obama. He was seen as wooden and not likeable in comparison to the charismatic Obama.

How is Trump mentally unhinged? He's a quite wealthy man with a 30-55% chance of becoming the leader of the (as of today) most powerful nation in the world. He has not gotten there by being nuts.

He has tax/healthcare/environmental/defence policies that one can argue against, but instead lazy slurs. I don't mean to pick on you, but this is really frustrating me as the election gets closer. There is practically zero discussion of the pros/cons of either candidates actual policy positions, over here. It's gotten mental :( 

For example, Clinton is to the right of Trump on many defence related matters?!? Trump puts his fingers in his ears regarding global warming. Clinton is pro TTIP etc., regardless of her current public statements. Trump is nominally anti-"free"trade, but who knows what he means. Clinton has hinted at being pro single payer health care (in private), whereas Trump will tear down "Obamacare". Clinton is the establishment lineal plutocratic/oligarchy candidate. Trump is the outsider.

Thing is, that this is not an accident as the wealthy know very well what they are doing.

As of this morning, Trump is +1% in Ohio.

Edited by villakram
edit: all the silly whitespace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Is it too late for Michelle Obama to run? She seems pretty popular and seems to be at least as good as Barack in leading and public speaking.

It has been noticed that she could make an excellent candidate, with an eye towards future elections.

But that would truly be a banana republic state of affairs: Father, Husband, Son, HusbandII, Wife, WifeII... and the establishment wanted a SonII vs Wife election this time around!!!

Edited by villakram
edit: all the silly whitespace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, villakram said:

As of this morning, Trump is +1% in Ohio.

And -3% in Florida. And -9% in Pennsylvania. And -4% in North Carolina. And -7% in Wisconsin. 

And "fighting" in an election where he effectively has a 10% deficit to make up from the very start based on the safe states for either party.

He's only 3 points up in Alaska, a state that Romney won by 15 points four years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, villakram said:
5 hours ago, villakram said:

How is Trump mentally unhinged? He's a quite wealthy man with a 30-55% chance of becoming the leader of the (as of today) most powerful nation in the world. He has not gotten there by being nuts.

He has tax/healthcare/environmental/defence policies that one can argue against, but instead lazy slurs. I don't mean to pick on you, but this is really frustrating me as the election gets closer. There is practically zero discussion of the pros/cons of either candidates actual policy positions, over here. It's gotten mental :( 

 

 

From what I can tell much of your post seems to agree with me so I'll just respond to the two points raised above.

I'd say he is almost certainly a psychopath/sociopath don't know enough about his genes/history to know which. He is a narcissist and a fantasist. You don't need to be sane to be successful. Yes he's a wealthy man but let's remember he started a wealthy boy so no great surprise there. 

With regard to the lazy slurs/lack of policy discussion, absolutely I agree with you. However from what I can tell from this side of the pond every time he gets asked about "insert policy" he answers by saying "I have a great policy, trust me, everyone says I know more than anyone about this, by the way "insert hugely controversial lie that sets headlines for next media cycle". This will be the greatest policy this country needs to be great again. 

 

Ps you say he has policies no one can argue against? What! 

How about tax - he wants tax cuts for rich. Pretty sure there's an argument against that.

Healthcare - repeal Obamacare - pretty sure that's helping a lot of people.

Environment - it's made up by China to suppress US manufacturing. OK sure.

Defence - bring out the nukes and kick some ass. Seems well thought out. 

Genuinely if you know more please enlighten me because I love to understand all sides if I can and no doubt there is some Friday night lazy answers there but that is honestly all I've heard him say about these issues. 

 

Edited by villaglint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, villaglint said:

From what I can tell much of your post seems to agree with me so I'll just respond to the two points raised above.

I'd say he is almost certainly a psychopath/sociopath don't know enough about his genes/history to know which. He is a narcissist and a fantasist. You don't need to be sane to be successful. Yes he's a wealthy man but let's remember he started a wealthy boy so no great surprise there. 

With regard to the lazy slurs/lack of policy discussion, absolutely I agree with you. However from what I can tell from this side of the pond every time he gets asked about "insert policy" he answers by saying "I have a great policy, trust me, everyone says I know more than anyone about this, by the way "insert hugely controversial lie that sets headlines for next media cycle". This will be the greatest policy this country needs to be great again. 

 

Ps you say he has policies no one can argue against? What! 

How about tax - he wants tax cuts for rich. Pretty sure there's an argument against that.

Healthcare - repeal Obamacare - pretty sure that's helping a lot of people.

Environment - it's made up by China to suppress US manufacturing. OK sure.

Defence - bring out the nukes and kick some ass. Seems well thought out. 

Genuinely if you know more please enlighten me because I love to understand all sides if I can and no doubt there is some Friday night lazy answers there but that is honestly all I've heard him say about these issues. 

 

Arghhhh... ffs, give me a small bit of credit ;)

It's not that he has policies that cannot be argued against (as you easily outlined above), it's that he has policies that no-one is arguing against. Instead the campaign has devolved into an endless stream of ad-hominem attacks. I'm of the opinion that this is a large part of the reason he has lasted this long. 

Defence: Your analysis is somewhat on the tabloid side, e.g., he has explicitly stated that he would talk to and potentially cooperate with Russia/China. This could help sort out the Syrian disaster. Clinton is instead the status-quo neocon candidate who will look to play empire and is the one far more likely to cause a nuclear war. Also, remember that Obama has authorized a $1T program to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, including the implicit development of "battlefield" nuclear weapons (Nobel prize my ass suckers!). Just because Trump asked why they could not be used does not mean he will use them. Is that not simply prudent leadership. All of the nuclear powers have created vast libraries full of planning documents on different scenarios regarding the deployment of nuclear weapons. I really hate having to do this as time and again I end up coming across as a bloody Trump supporter.

Tax/health: Yup

Environment: Repubs reveal everything repulsive about themselves w.r.t. this topic.

Remember Brexit!

Edited by villakram
edit: all the silly whitespace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think most of that is fair enough. 

I'd disagree that Trump is less likely to use the nukes or sort out Syria. He's so hot headed it's ridiculous and has zero understanding of the history and nuance of the region. He is exactly the royal rumble Isis needs and wants. However I'd agree I don't see any near term resolution with Hilary. 

Agreed the whole election is just attacks but I think he's setting the pace and Democrats are just letting Donald be Donald. 

Brexit - absolutely. I can't help but look down my nose at my US brethren but in truth we are no better and in fact are desperately trying to get ourselves in a worse mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Clinton is actually that bad. She has lied in her career but no more than any other politician and overall she has had a pretty successful career in public service for a long period of time. 

Fox news and their ilk have been throwing out everything they can think of to discredit her (and Obama for the last 8 years) and some of that mud is sticking in the eyes of the general public, regardless of whether people actually consume that extremest media directly or not.

However if this was a normal election cycle with a regular opposition candidate that conservatives were positive about and we were all discussing policy issues I don't think there would be nearly as much hate for Clinton out there.

The well was poisoned by the far rights hatred of Obama and their spokes people in the media have been frothing at the mouth ever since. This election was always going to be nasty regardless of who the Democrats put up but having Trump in there as a lightening rod has only made things a hundred times worse.   

Edited by LondonLax
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, villakram said:

Arghhhh... ffs, give me a small bit of credit ;)

It's not that he has policies that cannot be argued against (as you easily outlined above), it's that he has policies that no-one is arguing against. Instead the campaign has devolved into an endless stream of ad-hominem attacks.

On the one hand, this is clearly true to some extent. The campaign has been dominated by personality rather than policy, and it would be better if people knew more about what they are voting for. 

But on the other, you need to ask why this is happening. Because I'm certainly not seeing either candidate campaigning on policy. Clinton has a number of policies, some good (particularly on social issues) and some abysmal (her every thought on foreign policy). But she isn't particularly good at communicating policy to the public, and has been able to define herself against the most unpopular candidate ever meaning she hasn't had to get into the details. 

And where do you even start with Trump? How can you actually engage with his policies? Everyone with two braincells to rub together knows that he isn't going to build a 20 foot high wall along the entire Mexican border while persuading the Mexican government to pay for it. You can't engage with this policy intellectually. There's nothing to discuss. The same goes for his economic policy. He wants to drastically lower taxes, increase government spending and decrease the deficit. That's simply impossible. So what else is there to say?

I don't know how to argue against people who promise ponies, when there are obviously no ponies. I spent all spring telling anyone who would listen, and many who wouldn't, that a] we didn't send £350m per week to the EU and b] that money wouldn't be spent on the NHS in the event of a leave vote. So I've been proven right. Whooptee-****-doo. I lost the only argument that mattered, being right is no consolation. 

People didn't vote for Brexit based on policy, and they aren't voting for Trump based on policy either. It's all about the feeling, man. Maybe the thought that they might be voting for a literal rapist is the only way to break that feeling. Given that something like 85% of Republican voters want party leaders to get behind Trump, even that's almost certainly too much to ask. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2016 at 08:08, villaglint said:

a gay wedding cake...

Quick roundup of today's gayness, starting with the roads: The M70, the A3, the B664 and the A48M - they are all gay as of midnight tonight.

The gay elements are Potassium, Zinc, Hydrogen, Copper and Argon.

A quick look at the World's walls: The Wailing Wall is gay. Hadrian's Wall is very gay. The Great Wall Of China - that's not gay and the Old London Wall has also stopped being gay.

Gay cars next, they're the same as last night:- all Volkswagens registered between 1982 and 1985, they stay gay for another fortnight.

And finally, the gay seas are the Caspian and the Mediterranean...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been catching up with the election, Jesus I though UK political debate was a sham and a pantomime, It's playing out like a well scripted play.

The way I see it, The best way to get a lying corrupt piece of shit elected is to put a 'clearly' horrible buffoon to run against them.

Edited by mockingbird_franklin
grammar mistakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary in trouble because the Clinton foundation accepted a $1m donation from Qatar - apparently for Bill's birthday! 

Qatar, Saudi and the other emirates really are vile places aren't they? The celebration of money over thought, of oil over people, of power over any sort of decency or morality. Of course, as long as they have oil and money and they spend it on our weapons and allow us control over which nations they make their profit in, then they will be our friends because they are 'the good guys'* so I think Hillary will be okay.

Also, don't they know Bill? He'd have been quite happy with a chew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

What does the Clinton foundation do, Scott? - is it a charity?

it "convenes businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change." apparently.

Beliefs entirely in keeping with Qatar I'm sure.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â