Fixed that for you.
Since...?
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
Since...?
Carter? But even that's debatable. I'm willing to hear arguments in favour of Michael Dukakis, though.
Carter is a very good call.
Super Tuesday is here. Time for the GOP elect Drumpf.
err his name is Trump...
Nah, it's Drumpf.
I never once said being in a position of power was easy or anything else you said in your post. There is a vast difference on why people want the power though and what they will do with it when they get it. This thread is full of well constructed, insightful, articulate and well researched posts about Donald Drumpf. Only a few days ago John Oliver completely took Donald apart and the Democrats will do exactly the same when they get the chance if (when) he wins the GOP Nomination. The ammunition is out there, most of it provided by Donald himself it's just nobody has used it against him yet, and when they tried to they have been mocked or ignored. That will all change very soon. If it doesn't, well then there really isn't a lot of hope left in the world.
Unfortunately not. He is a joke, and he is making a joke and a mockery out of everything. Hence why at the moment, everyone is laughing at it, although it's not actually a laughing matter. He is hitting nerves and striking chords with voters though I will give him that, and that is where he is drawing his power from, but nothing he says can be believed, nor can his motives and he will be exposed very soon, and when he is, it will be tremendous, and many, many people around the world will breath a huge sigh of relief.
I never fathom the reason people bring infant children to political rallies all the time. I mean does Trump kissing your baby give him some super powers or shit? I'd be more worried of skin allergies from that fake tan he sprays all over himself to look less morose.
haha - interesting opinion.
so many opinions that you state as facts, it hurts.
ps. This isn't just about Trump for me btw, other elections around the world etc have the same 'scare tactics' or petty name-calling, which just doesn't work (David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Narendra Modi in India off the top of my head).
pps. I don't think Hillary is as clear as water either btw.
it's the perfect storm
He's right spare the NY Times bit.
There were quite a lot of fact facts in the John Oliver piece.
I don't know about name calling here - I think, as Langster says, there are plenty of very well researched and explained expositions of why he is appalling. He makes it easy by saying appalling things in a very direct way and by lying so much.
Yeah, it wasn't a trick question or anything, in fact that would be pretty close to my own feelings.
It's not scare tactics or anything like that though, not with Donald quite often he does and says most of the stuff right in front of your very eyes. Watch the documentaries about Drumpf. The Mad world of Donald Trump is a great place to start, then The Donald Trump Story, then read the books written about him by authors he approved to write them for him only for him to disagree and try to take them to court to stop them being published only for him to lose. Read the articles about him, like the one from FORBES, watch the interviews about him by people he knows personally, then watch him mock the disabled, mock women, make racist statements, watch him say he doesn't know who the KKK are. check the contradictions he comes out with against the facts published all over the place. Watch the countless interviews with him where he says the most offensive and outrageous things. research the way he speaks about his own daughter. Check out all the law suits he has lost or threatened only to retract, check out all the newspaper articles about him and that document his life, well before he ever ventured in to politics, check out what many world leaders and politicians are saying about him including the recent debate in the Houses of Parliament in the UK. Look up all the testimonies from people he has threatened to take to court. There is so much to read and research about the man. Finally watch the video below and then come back here. Otherwise it's pointless having this discussion with you because it's not fair if don't know any of the facts about the man.
Are these the worst candidates ever?
Clinton's an excellent candidate. Former Ambassador to the UN, former Senator, former Secretary of State. This is a shoe-in for the Democrats if they resist the Corbyn-like experiment and thankfully it looks like they will.
Exit poll on the way.
Possibly. It's interesting that out of the whole of America that these are the only people that possibly could end up President. Not sure what that says about yanks.
She's a prick.
Secular talk made some interesting points about trump which is true, the fact the mainstream media have not fact checked him and did their job, if they did like new media do he would be laughed out of the building. What makes me laugh with trump, he preaches he is never bought out by the billionaires, yea because he went to them they turned him down. The guy is a joke, and he could be president which sums it up
hmm lots of rhetoric, and yes every candidate has to use shock tactics, esp if they aren't politicians in the first place (see Narendra Modi of India, Obama and his unachievable rhetoric, etc).
That video kinda sucks tbh (and I love John Oliver btw), an intelligent take-down > gimmicky name-calling and laughing at past business failures etc IMO.
I feel like everything's settled down too much recently, too predictable. Reckon we'll get one big surprise, maybe Little Marco Rubio wins a state or Bernie wins big in MA, CO.
Must have watched a different video to you. I watched a video where he highlights the things that Drumpf says are his strengths and then uses instances in the past to illustrate how they aren't. The past business failures are extremely relevant, for instance, because he's built his campaign on statements about how he's such an amazing businessman.
Looking at the early exit poll stuff, MA looking promising for Sanders.
That is just one video that contains some extremely unsettling things (many from Donald's own mouth) by a comedian. The Mad World of Donald Trump and The Donald Trump story are both documentaries, researched, produced and aired by respectable tv networks with no political axe to grind and both contain far more less comedic information about Donald, his businesses and his life. So do many of the countless articles and interviews you can find about him and the books etc. It's up to you if you choose to research them or not, but until you do, you can't really say I or anyone else is wrong about him. And the undisputable truth is as a politician or even President of the USA you cannot mock women, the disabled or say you are going to bomb terrorists families, which as pointed out in the video above, is a war crime. That is just the tip of the iceberg, he's like the Matrix, once you enter the rabbit hole, you better be prepared for how far you are going to actually go, because it gets far, far worse, as many here will tell you.
Its also all we have to judge his personality, character, decision-making, etc. given that he has no time spent in public office.
y'all watching any particular channel/stream?
I'm a bit of a CNN-whore, if anything because I want the media to be more like in the 90s when only CNN did this job and could therefore focus more on delivering good information instead of click-bait. (My wish is as likely as Ben Carson winning the nomination)
I'm not at home so only have access to freeview and not CNN or FOX, so i'm watching on Sky News, but think I will put The Young Turks on and watch It on there on my laptop instead.
The last bit of energy I waste on a lost cause:
Why I don't like Clinton
Clinton on foreign policy:
Clinton as an economic progressive:
Clinton as a social liberal:
Clinton the Democratic candidate for president:
* She renounced private prison donations which had been coming to her in October last year (but WaPo revealed that her bundlers still get them till today.)
Clinton herself and @Ubik on here have claimed that donation =/= quid pro quo. If that's the case, why say no to pvt prisons (whom she claim to be against) but not big oil/pharma (for whom she has similar rhetoric)?
Why I don't like Clinton
Clinton on foreign policy:
1. Proudly taking advice and endorsements from Kissinger. For any self-respecting Democrat, and definitely for anyone who identifies as liberal or progressive, this should be a straight disqualification.
2. The vote for Iraq.
3. The hawkishness with Libya. If you explain the Iraq vote as bad judgement/feeling pressured/political expediency (these are the 3 I've seen, none flattering), you are implying that it was a one-off. The fact that her adventurism in Libya led to the same result as Bush's decade in Iraq means she didn't learn any lessons. Plus, the "we came, we saw, he died" line could have been out of McCain's campaign (bomb bomb bomb Iran)
Libya was also her main endeavour, alongwith the Russia reset, as Secretary of State. Both failed.
She claims that her sanctions indirectly led to the Iran deal. Either way, Kerry is going to get most of the credit for that on the US side. And I won't talk about her emails or the murky stuff going on with the Clinton Foundation during her tenure, both now under FBI investigation.
2. The vote for Iraq.
3. The hawkishness with Libya. If you explain the Iraq vote as bad judgement/feeling pressured/political expediency (these are the 3 I've seen, none flattering), you are implying that it was a one-off. The fact that her adventurism in Libya led to the same result as Bush's decade in Iraq means she didn't learn any lessons. Plus, the "we came, we saw, he died" line could have been out of McCain's campaign (bomb bomb bomb Iran)
Libya was also her main endeavour, alongwith the Russia reset, as Secretary of State. Both failed.
She claims that her sanctions indirectly led to the Iran deal. Either way, Kerry is going to get most of the credit for that on the US side. And I won't talk about her emails or the murky stuff going on with the Clinton Foundation during her tenure, both now under FBI investigation.
Clinton as an economic progressive:
1. Proudly defends Wall Street one day, says she will reign them next day.
2. Long-time board member of union-busting Walmart, gets endorsed and funded by most major national unions.
3. Was for a path to universal healthcare in 2008, says it won't ever happen in 2016, and that she personally opposes it.
4. Does not see $15/hr as a worthwhile goal for the minimum wage movement.
5. Is well-funded by Wall Street, oil, and private prisons*. Argues that the funds don't affect her stances. As secretary of state, she was enthusiastically pro-fracking abroad and cautiously so at home. Recently confirmed a pro-natural gas stance as part of a future sustainable energy strategy. Claims to be against corporate funding of elections.
6. Trade: supported NAFTA (as one of its main backers) and was the main lobbyist for the TTP (her emails confirm this). A decade later, said that she was always cautious about NAFTA. When Bernie joined the race, she said the current version of the TTP is not perfect, but has not done anything to demonstrate her unhapiness since her initial statement (despite her influence with the DNC.)
2. Long-time board member of union-busting Walmart, gets endorsed and funded by most major national unions.
3. Was for a path to universal healthcare in 2008, says it won't ever happen in 2016, and that she personally opposes it.
4. Does not see $15/hr as a worthwhile goal for the minimum wage movement.
5. Is well-funded by Wall Street, oil, and private prisons*. Argues that the funds don't affect her stances. As secretary of state, she was enthusiastically pro-fracking abroad and cautiously so at home. Recently confirmed a pro-natural gas stance as part of a future sustainable energy strategy. Claims to be against corporate funding of elections.
6. Trade: supported NAFTA (as one of its main backers) and was the main lobbyist for the TTP (her emails confirm this). A decade later, said that she was always cautious about NAFTA. When Bernie joined the race, she said the current version of the TTP is not perfect, but has not done anything to demonstrate her unhapiness since her initial statement (despite her influence with the DNC.)
Clinton as a social liberal:
1. "Would consider" a constitutional amendment regarding abortions working together with Republicans. That would be the end of Roe v Wade.
2. Was among the last Dems to embrace gay marriage, having opposed it explicitly till 2010(?). Explains that she supported the unconstitutional DOMA as a compromise. OTOH, pushed heavily for gay rights abroad as secretary of state.
3. Supported the tough-on-crime bill that led to record minority imprisonment with racist rhetoric she apologised for 2 decades later.
2. Was among the last Dems to embrace gay marriage, having opposed it explicitly till 2010(?). Explains that she supported the unconstitutional DOMA as a compromise. OTOH, pushed heavily for gay rights abroad as secretary of state.
3. Supported the tough-on-crime bill that led to record minority imprisonment with racist rhetoric she apologised for 2 decades later.
Clinton the Democratic candidate for president:
1. Her primary strategy has been to tie herself to Obama, whom Sanders cannot attack for the primaries. He has net disapproval ratings among independents and Republicans.
2. Will be the 1st ever presidential candidate to be under FBI investigation
2. If (as looks likely) she survives Sanders and wins the nomination, this will be her 1st "comeback" in any election (with the caveat that she is returning to a semi-dominant position after early stratospheric leads).
3. Negative favourable ratings, lower at this point than any successful candidate for president in history.
4. Consistently underperforms in national H2H polls - mauled by Rubio, beaten by Cruz, but beating Trump. Swing-states (Iowa, NC, and Ohio - she has not won a single poll in any one of these vs any GOP candidate) are worse. She does well in Florida except against Trump (in a strange PPP poll that had Bernie > Rubio in Fl).
2. Will be the 1st ever presidential candidate to be under FBI investigation
2. If (as looks likely) she survives Sanders and wins the nomination, this will be her 1st "comeback" in any election (with the caveat that she is returning to a semi-dominant position after early stratospheric leads).
3. Negative favourable ratings, lower at this point than any successful candidate for president in history.
4. Consistently underperforms in national H2H polls - mauled by Rubio, beaten by Cruz, but beating Trump. Swing-states (Iowa, NC, and Ohio - she has not won a single poll in any one of these vs any GOP candidate) are worse. She does well in Florida except against Trump (in a strange PPP poll that had Bernie > Rubio in Fl).
* She renounced private prison donations which had been coming to her in October last year (but WaPo revealed that her bundlers still get them till today.)
Clinton herself and @Ubik on here have claimed that donation =/= quid pro quo. If that's the case, why say no to pvt prisons (whom she claim to be against) but not big oil/pharma (for whom she has similar rhetoric)?
You were pretty positive only a few weeks ago. Hopefully Bernie can force her to change slightly though, although that won't be enough, but it's got to be better than the Three Stooges or Rip Van Winkle.
In my head the sequence should have been:
Narrow Iowa win, big NH win, Nevada tie, <15 pt loss in SC.
The 1st 3 went fine though not perfect. National polls were getting really good.
The loss in SC (with that demographic breakdown) has made him unelectable. The fact that today is all southern states means that his momentum is gone and reversed.
I never said it's not a great country in many ways. Your average person is certainly doing better in most OECD countries, though.
This text became too long if I include MarceloFalcon's post, so I'll refer to the post I'm answering by URL: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/2016-us-presidential-elections.403345/page-214#post-18863682
Alright, wall of text will beget another wall of text. This might just be me venting, so I won't blame you for quitting this half-way through. I'm not sure I'm interested in a big back and forth either (and a lot of this is probably going to miss the mark and make it seem like I'm making straw men, that's not my intention), but here are my immediate thoughts:
This isn't borne out of some cushy Norway-centric view. I've seen your country both through the prism of slumming it (well, I didn't sleep in the favela gutters, but we certainly saw some of the shadier areas) and staying with wealthy people. I've been to ghettos in Burma and Cambodia, refugee camps on the border of Thailand, I've visited people afflicted with the fall-out from Chernobyl in Belarus (the most despondent country I've ever visited), and my career for the past five years has been working with refugees from Afghanistan, Somalia, Eritrea, etc. I know the US isn't THE worst... But as far as an OECD country goes, it's doing pretty shit and it's getting worse.
I don't come from a US bashing viewpoint either. I grew up adoring the US, but that's been tempered in later years. I admire the way it's so dynamic, it's so on the cutting edge of so many things, and it's stood for the greatest feat in all of human history IMO, the Apollo missions. I wish I could honestly agree with you about the US being on a decent path, but I can't. My negativity has also been worsened through getting to know my wife. Here's a small love-tap of what her experience has been:
She grew up poor, had no familial support after the age of 17, battled her way through college earning straight As and getting her BA and MA in Psychology, only to find that there were no jobs for her (despite hundreds of applications) and having massive debt and no chance to fund a PhD. For lodging she had to rely on friends and acquaintances, as well as stints staying in her car, and not qualifying for welfare, having to go through her savings. She's known plenty of people who've been fecked over by the health care system, including someone who got cancer that wrapped itself around her spine, and who is one of VERY few people who survived thanks to stellar health care that she got through some organisation. However, once she was "cured", and past a certain age, she couldn't afford the check ups, and so the cancer returned and she wound up dying a few years later, completely needlessly.
She also visited an uncle once, and he started feeling what might have been the beginnings of a heart-attack, which then prompted a family meeting to see what their finances were like and what they could sell and put up so that they could afford to pay for his trip to the emergency room. In the end it cost them their house to save him. This kind of thing is grotesque, but not exactly unheard of, and it's symptomatic of a system that's profoundly fecked up. The US has better health care than Norway, in theory, but availability is atrocious. $10,000 being a low-balled estimate for giving birth in secure surroundings? What the feck is that? Thousands of dollars JUST to get an ambulance to pick you up, nevermind the actual costs of whatever treatment you need after?
I recognise that anecdotal evidence isn't exactly the scientific way of going about it, but like I said, it's not really that abnormal.
There's so many things I could pick on. Try to form a union, you can be fired if the company is ruthless enough, with nobody batting an eye, women being fired for getting pregnant, women dying in Catholic hospitals that refuse to abort ectopic pregnancies, women being at the mercy of the whims of doctors who might not want to prescribe the pill, and even if that works out, a pharmacist can refuse to fill the prescription. The 5 per cent unemployment omits the underemployed, people who are having a hard time making ends meet, despite pulling 60-70 hour weeks, as well as people who've given up on finding employment, and a number of other people who make that stat a bit of a joke. The world has been roped into a futile drug war that does more damage than the drugs themselves, and private prisons lobby lawmakers to make sure 3 strikes and mandatory minimums remain for non-violent drug offences. 5 per cent of the global population, 20 per cent of its prisoners.
Meanwhile, there are huge companies that GET money back rather than pay taxes (unless I've been duped on this point?), they contribute obscene amounts to campaign war chests at virtually every level, they can get Supreme Court Judges to sign off on money being the same as speech, they can get ketchup designated as a vegetable, they look the other way when oil companies copy paste their security procedures and list dead people as contacts in case of emergency, and have a small segment of society tank the economy, bail them out, and then look the other way as they give themselves a fecking BONUS the next year with tax payer money, while the world economy is flailing.
No, it doesn't need tweaks. It needs a fecking corporate double by-pass, and then some. It's not ok, it's not going to be fine, it's fecking inverting the pyramid, balancing it on the edge of a fecking needle, while trying to scoop things from the lower tiers and stack it on top, until it doesn't hold anymore. Companies paid scientists to refute the notion of second-hand smoke being harmful, and in more modern times used some of the same scientists for the hitjob on the credibility of anthropogenic climate change (which, apparently, Exxon's own scientists affirmed quite early). Then there's the war machine, and the continuing horror-show of foreign intervention leaving vacuums, as well as fostering anti-American (and anti-western, what with our complicity) sentiments, leaving us with the current climate of clash of civilisations.
This corporatism isn't just an American beast, obviously. I see the same shit take root here, and I was hoping for the US to make a turn for the better in this election, making this the high watermark of a world preoccupied with quarterly reports, rather than considering the aftermath that will haunt people for decades. I still have a tiny amount of hope, as this kind of movement is what's behind Corbyn, the Greens growing in several countries, Podemos, and so on, but I certainly don't agree we're talking about tweaks in order to avert myriad disasters.
Lastly, the mrs (and me, for that matter) has beef with Norway, too. She reckons we're prone to thinking "that's good enough" and don't have the same drive for perfecting ourselves, we're homogenous and hard to engage, we're sheltered and naive, and we could definitely need more tough love and responsibility in our upbringing. For a bonus, we are being as disappointing as anybody else these days, with fear-mongering and a clear dread of the "other" flooding our society in the current refugee crisis. However, what we (at least for now) do well is that people don't have to sweat it about things like food, medical help, education, etc... The US could EASILY do the same, if it wanted to.
A more egalitarian US might not reach the same dizzying heights in some ways, but at least it could cease this incredibly callous inverted Robin Hood act, and regain some of its humanity.
Edit: ugh, I feel sick. I can't believe I bothered to type all that. I'll also probably just come across as some Marxist with verbal diarrhea...
As expected, Georgia and Virginia called for Clinton straight away, Vermont for Bernie. Super Tuesday woo!
Early exit poll results -
Hillary wins Georgia, Virginia,
Bernie wins Vermont
Trump leading MarcoBot by 3 in Virginia
Hillary wins Georgia, Virginia,
Bernie wins Vermont
Trump leading MarcoBot by 3 in Virginia
Potentially the surprise of the night of he can reverse that.
Wasn't Virginia suppose to be 10+ points for Trump.
Fox already called GA for Trump.
No man, thanks for posting. Point taken, and I can't offer a reply now, but will feature in my thoughts.
- Status