I have considered not voting for anyone should she win. But I believe everyone should vote. Trump? As I said and Raoul agrees. He is probably a closet liberal. That is why I would consider him. But I must see his platform.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
I have considered not voting for anyone should she win. But I believe everyone should vote. Trump? As I said and Raoul agrees. He is probably a closet liberal. That is why I would consider him. But I must see his platform.
She's a Clinton campaigner, not a journalist
Didn't know that, I should have guessed though that everyone has a side.
Is anyone against campaign finance reform here? Corporations are people and all that?
Ya, I too got burned (berned?) trusting the spin a Sanders supporter put on a poll...
What policy does she have btw. She does not have any message other than Obama was great. Taking money out of politics Is the discussion I thought. It is happeninging on both sides. That is partly why Trump is resonating.
The policies are clear as day as laid out on her site - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
My previous point was that Sanders supporters are devolving into GOP style hacks who loathe the Clintons more than than they are willing to discuss their own policies.
a gutsy post. You understand 100% why I would consider voting for Trump. I am probably farther left than Sanders btw.
He has some policies (if we can say that he really has policies) that are left wing. However:
- he wants a Muslim Holocaust in US. People have been speculating here for months when Trump will give the solution to Islam terrorism by saying we should kill Muslims and he did it yesterday.
- he wants to strengthen the second amendment, ie, give more guns in the hands of citizens.
- he is anti-abort, anti gay marriage/civil union.
- he wants to deport all illegal immigrants, even if they have families in US and have been there for their entire life.
- he wants to make torture legit
- he thinks that the global warming is a hoax and instead of doing something about it, US should drill more for oil.
Now, it is very likely that some of these 'policies' are just rhetoric and I doubt that he'll work that much to address them, but still, I would have found impossible to vote for a man like that. Remember, that even if he doesn't plan to enforce them, he will still need to look that he is doing something about that, cause he has won the election based on those promises. And each president, plans to get reelected.
I am also not sure that he will have a senate that is less hostile than it was under Obama. Republicans have 54 senators at the moment, but 24 out of 34 seats that are in election are Republicans. Democrats need to win just 14 out of 34 to control the senate. So, it is quite likely that it will be a Democrat-leaded Senate. And of course, it isn't like Republican senators will completely obey him. He will be at least as much in trouble on implementing his policies as Sanders if he manages to win.
a small sampling from my family and close friends. The children would not vote for Hillary. Not vote at all. Two of us would vote for Trump on condition. The ladies would vote for Hillary.
There you go. Now I feel like one of the gimps in the United forum megathreads.The Dem machinery wants Trump. They think he is unelectable. But he has enthusiasm on his side.[He has the enthusiasm of a group of zealots. He's extremely unpopular with everyone else, even on the GOP side.] The Bernie supporters will not simply follow her. Many will stay home, which more importantly will hurt the down ticket. [This gets said about anyone that attacks from the right or left in the GOP or Dems respectively, people said it about the Tea Party guys, that they wouldn't bat for Romney, but they did in the end. The bigger foe always clarifies when November nears, the petty squabbles of the nomination get forgotten.] But some will vote for Trump depending on his platform. That is why I am waiting to hear what he has to say when he wins the nomination. If I decide for Trump. I will vote for him and straight Democrat down ticket.
Though the Dems dread Rubio, he will be the easier opponent. He is an empty suit like her, though not as corrupt as her. His problem is that he is an ideologue. Trump is not. A Trump presidency will be successful imo, assuming he brings forward some of his ideas on Health care, taxing the Fund managers...a hint. rejecting the neo-cons big time.[All of this is sheer conjecture.] The very things people hate about him. His arrogance, his bullying nature will be the very things that will help him should he become president. [Or alternatively, he'll have alienated his entire party through the constant insults, and no Democrats will want to be associated with a race-baiter.] A republican congress will not have the guts to deny a Republican president who has the mandate. You can imagine him walking down to congress and bitch slapping Ryan for holding up his agenda. He will get moderate republicans and democrats to pass his agenda. The T party will become irrelevent. All this nonsense Hillary can work with Congress.The Republicans, rank and file and politicians hate the Clintons more than Obama. The Republican politicians did not hate Obama. They had to not work with him because their voters hated him.[The moderate wing of the GOP didn't hate him, but you're forgetting the significant Tea Party faction which promptly took over. They most certainly did hate him. Whether that would be any different with Hillary is a fair question, but it'll be even worse with Bernie.] It was simply about votes. Obama for all his promise has been a disapointment. He is very intelligent, he has heart. But he has no balls. To be president you need to be tough. No law becomes law unless the President signs it into law. He had teh mandate..twice and he did very little. He should have fought tooth and nail for the public option in that health care law. And finally he did very little for his own people.[Harsh. Facing the aforementioned hostile opposition, not-insignificant parts of which among the Tea Party was decidedly racist in nature, (helped along by Trump and his birtherism, of course), getting the first significant healthcare reform passed in decades was a good achievement that should be defended. The idea that he could've got more if he'd asked for more is shaky reasoning. Often when you ask for far, far more than someone is willing to give, they become even less willing to give anything in return.]
all those 'policies' is garbage he does not believe in. The Senate? Even if the Democrats take teh senate, they will not fillibuster 'Democratic' policies. The key is Trump would have the congress and they would not block his agenda should he come in with a mandate. His strength would be he will draw support from both sides.
Yep, that is right.
I was hoping for a healthy race, and while I was expecting Bernie to lose (and still think that is dead cert), Hillary will put some of Bernie policies in her platform. While this is happening, it seems that some of the Bernie supporters think that Hillary is Satan, Hitler and Stalin all in one, and would vote for Lucifer instead of her.
Which is kind of weird. Hillary's platform is far nearer to Bernie's (in fact, it is more in left that Obama's) than the platform of any Republican candidate.
He isn't a Democrat though, and so won't have Democrat policies. In turn, they won't get supported by Republican candidates. He isn't Ronald Reagan, FFS.
His only Democrat policy he has mentioned, is to have a non flat tax system, and so tax the rich people even more. But on a lot of other things he is more right wing than anyone bar Ted Cruz.
That doesn't alter the fact that the video which is spreading around like the direct word of god gives a misleading account and portrays Hillary as a straight up liar, rather than the actual course of events where she tried to be a legislator, that failed, so she returned to opposing it. Hillary's speech in favour of the amendments even make clear she didn't think it went far enough yet. It's the biggest non-issue around but it's used these days as the most common attack.
But she did
1. change her mind
2. vote for a bill she didn't believe was good enough
3. get campaign money
She operated within the constraints imposed by her donors and the system, and tried to make the best of it. But she is ultimately beholden to that system.
If, for example, in a Clinton vs Trump fight, she gets far far more SuperPAC money than him, will she still campaign hard to end Citizens United? I don't know.
Firstly he has not got his platform for the GE. You can be a Republican and still have policies that resonate with both bases. I would not want another fecking Ronald Reagan FFS.
She herself lists overturning Citizens United as a main part of her campaign finance reform platform, which is basically similar to what Sanders wants. Until such time however, no candidate should be forced to not participate in the current system while their opponents do the same.
She made the decision that, if the bill is going to pass anyway (and it got something like 80 votes), she could either scream into the wind and let it pass unaltered, or attempt to make it better. Warren makes it sound like she did it purely because of the money and influence put upon her. She might believe that she did, fine, but omitting relevant information in order to make that case sound more convincing isn't great practise either.
Firstly..I am not all that familiar with working with these quotes. I will try my best in any case.
On enthusiasm. I meant she does not have any enthusiam. She has always been a poor condidate. She won in NY...anyone with a Dem label would win there.
The Tea party folk voted against Obama, not for Romney. And their numbers are not huge, though they hold congress to ransom. You are right that the GE is a different ballgame. People will get a chance to hear from both sides. Sort of a reset. But so far she has no message. She better get one fast other than'I love Obama'.
You too are making a lot of assumptions. Its all conjecture on both sides. nuff said.
As for the Republican party, it is being remade as we speak. Voters determine where the party is.
Again conjecture about Republicans not wanting to work with Bernie. I have heard several Trump supporters say Bernie was their second choice.
On Obama. I stand by what I said. He could have done a heck of a lot more. I still like the man..but wasted opportunities.
so why not go the Sanders route? She would enhance her authenticity. You cannot say you are against something while taking money from the same source.
She shouldn't have to go the Sanders route unless all other participants do as well. Why would any politician undercut their ability to conduct their own campaign, which are increasingly expensive, to claim some moral high ground and lose because the opposition was able to outflank them. Its great that Bernie is sticking to PayPal donations from individuals, but don't expect everyone else to until the system is changed.
the problem with Hillary goes beyond money tbh. She has huge credibility/likeability/trust issues.
and as for me being personally against Hillary. That is not true. I felt the Republican unwarrented attacks on her about Benghazi were very unfair. I said that here.She handled that the best she could. But I absolutely do not trust her when she speaks. Just like most of the Republican candidates if not all of them.
It's the one thing that's good about politics here (Ireland). However the hell it came about, donations are strictly limited and all recorded and available to the public. Anyone stretching beyond it gets caught too.
all debates should be on public television and on public funds.
You can blame the Republicans for that. They have an apparatus that has sought to bring down the Clintons for decades. Its sad that people in her own party are now using similar tactics.
Why ? A vast majority of people have access to cable and internet these days.
fair enough. I meant to say there should be no paid advertising if at all possible.
I don't listen to the GOP talking points. Its Hillary Clinton. She has zero authenticity. She will change votes based on what benefits her. A very calculating candidate. But as I said, in the end I will vote for the lesser evil. That is what is sad.
Some people will call that being prudent.
Really. I was waiting for a Hillary fan to come on and say I hated her.
Give the old chaps a break. No break, no adverts, do you want them to pass out on live television?
Hey, I'm kind of just browsing through and find it surprising this Sanders guy is running Hillary quite close.
Basically outside the US, the generally feeling is that most people think Hillary will be the next US president, since we've basically not heard of the rest of them and Trump is a bit of a clown.
On a personal level, I do want Hillary to be elected as she appears to the more hawkish, but I don't get to vote anyway...
I want to mention @Neutral and his post. That took courage. There are many Muslims on here and when emotions were running high here after the ISIS killings in Paris (me included) I stressed these people were not Muslims. I have not suddenly become careless about how Muslims and Latinos have been used by Trump. Do I like him...bloody hell, he is a guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But he has not bought into this Tricke down bollox. And he does have ideas about bringing forward poicies that will benefit the vast majority. I like that he honestly said congress was owned by these armamment companies. That is why Defence cost is so high.
Let them go have a pee and let fly while the play some U2 videos.
imo Hillary has a high probability of being the next president. But I hope the debates will move domestic polices farther left...where it benefits ordinary people. As for her hawkishness. I don;t think she is a neo-con. But she will not blink an eye sending our troops to kill and die....if it benefits her. Personally, we are comfortable. We can retire and be fine. But I have always looked at elections as how they will benefit the vast majority. Its simply common sense.
So you want her to do the thing you've criticized her for previously i.e. change policies.
You have missed the point. I want the will of the majority to direct our candidates. I have said she will say or do what benefits her.
As I said elswhere. Elections are about voters. Or should be.
Fair enough. But if she wins the nomination with her platform, which is looking fairly likely, then surely she has the will of the majority of her party. Even if her campaign funded partly by some special interests, a majority of her party would have chosen to overlook this and give her the nomination.
fair enough. But voters have a choice in the GE. Though I have always voted Democrat, I am not a registered Democrat. I will caucus for Sanders on Super Tuesday. I care a damn about supporting any party. The party should serve its members not the other way round. Any election is about the voter. Candidates are supposed to serve the voter. (not special interest for example)
What is her platform, though? When I watched her debate Sanders the other week, she basically tried to suggest she would do everything he would. She's a political chameleon whose only interest is power.
- Status