2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
langster said:
That's the point though, the Republicans have used so much spin very few actually believe it is a good economy. Trump and Cruz have been telling everyone it's in pieces and ruined for months.
Click to expand...

The spin from both sides is not working...and rightly so. I should have qualified my point about the economy. It is good for investors/upper sectors of the population. Those who already have safe 'nest eggs.' It has not been good for lower income and the poor for decades. Hillary does not give much to the lower income/poor except to say that the world will not collapse with her.

There is no growth for them.
 
Red Dreams said:
The spin from both sides is not working...and rightly so. I should have qualified my point about the economy. It is good for investors/upper sectors of the population. Those who already have safe 'nest eggs.' It has not been good for lower income and the poor for decades. Hillary does not give much to the lower income/poor except to say that the world will not collapse with her.

There is no growth for them.
Click to expand...

I agree about the economy, but it's far better than it was 8 years ago and it is slowly recovering, it's the same in many places. It's hardly going to be in great shape after nearly being a depression. Giving tax breaks to the rich and cutting money from the people that need it most isn't going to make it any better for the poor or lower income families.
 
adexkola said:
Gore should have won, but SCOTUS
Click to expand...

Nader and Gore himself were more to blame. The latter especially for not letting Slick Willie campaign for him. Had he won Arkansas, Florida wouldn't matter.

The recount was very messy. Iirc out of 4 or 5 different counting methods, Gore would have won in only one scenario, and the one they were using when SCOTUS issued the stay had W winning were it to be concluded.
 
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

Win... Tremendous.... The wall...make America great again..

Boy, the Donald really took a leaf out of old uncle Adolf's book.
 
I think Obama in 10-20 years could sound quite similar to Bernie Sanders.
 
Say what you want about whether Bernie is right for President or whether he'd get anything through congress, but he is by far the most normal, rational and stable of all the candidates. He is an intelligent, articulate man who would like to do the right thing by the American people, if given the chance. I'm not from the states, so my opinion doesn't matter, but I think it's an absolute no brainer to give your vote to him. Whether you think he can or can't win a general, I'd always use my vote to vote for the person I think would best represent me. When you see an interview like that compared to an interview with Trump or Cruz or even Hilary, it becomes so obvious just how far ahead of the rest of the pack he is in terms of being a real, genuine person.
 
RexHamilton said:
Say what you want about whether Bernie is right for President or whether he'd get anything through congress, but he is by far the most normal, rational and stable of all the candidates. He is an intelligent, articulate man who would like to do the right thing by the American people, if given the chance. I'm not from the states, so my opinion doesn't matter, but I think it's an absolute no brainer to give your vote to him. Whether you think he can or can't win a general, I'd always use my vote to vote for the person I think would best represent me. When you see an interview like that compared to an interview with Trump or Criz or even Hilary, it becomes so obvious just how far ahead of the rest of the pack he is in terms of being a real, genuine person.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the dilemma - vote for someone that you think represents you or vote for someone who is actually going to win.
 
RexHamilton said:
Say what you want about whether Bernie is right for President or whether he'd get anything through congress, but he is by far the most normal, rational and stable of all the candidates. He is an intelligent, articulate man who would like to do the right thing by the American people, if given the chance. I'm not from the states, so my opinion doesn't matter, but I think it's an absolute no brainer to give your vote to him. Whether you think he can or can't win a general, I'd always use my vote to vote for the person I think would best represent me. When you see an interview like that compared to an interview with Trump or Cruz or even Hilary, it becomes so obvious just how far ahead of the rest of the pack he is in terms of being a real, genuine person.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I see it, and not being American, obviously I feel exactly the same.

Raoul said:
Therein lies the dilemma - vote for someone that you think represents you or vote for someone who is actually going to win.
Click to expand...

That's just stupid. I've never not voted for who I wanted to, regardless of if they would win or not. I've voted either Liberal, Labour or Green for the last 20 years despite knowing they have absolutely no chance in the area I live in.
 
Raoul said:
Therein lies the dilemma - vote for someone that you think represents you or vote for someone who is actually going to win.
Click to expand...
In primaries and whatnot, it isn't much of a dilemma, is it? You can vote Sanders and then if he loses you vote Clinton in order to keep the GOP from winning the GE. Best of both worlds.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
In primaries and whatnot, it isn't much of a dilemma, is it? You can vote Sanders and then if he loses you vote Clinton in order to keep the GOP from winning the GE. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could if you want that feel good vibe of having voted your heart.
 
Raoul said:
Therein lies the dilemma - vote for someone that you think represents you or vote for someone who is actually going to win.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I really do. But if everyone stopped playing tactics and voted for who they genuinely thought would be the best candidate, I think he'd have a chance. But yeah, seeing as everyone isn't, then you might see a vote for Bernie as a wasted vote. I'd 'waste' my vote if I was in the States though. The better he does the more chance you have of getting the disenfranchised back involved.
 
I get tactical voting, of course, but it rarely works out that way or makes sense. I suppose it's different in the States though with only two parties running, tactical votes are for candidates whereas in the UK it's more for parties.
 
RexHamilton said:
In that sense though, aren't you only voting for Hilary for that feel good vibe of being on the winning side?
Click to expand...

Yes, i would if i voted for her. I'm more interested in the balance of power remaining tilted in the Dems favor, which will prevent the GOP from implementing their policies and in the process unwind the work Obama has done. Hillary is clearly the only candidate who meets that bar.
 
Raoul said:
Yes, i would if i voted for her. I'm more interested in the balance of power remaining tilted in the Dems favor, which will prevent the GOP from implementing their policies and in the process unwind the work Obama has done. Hillary is clearly the only candidate who meets that bar.
Click to expand...

Which is completely understandable and acceptable, although not really right, because then people don't really vote for who they want to, they vote for who has the best chance of winning. And as I said to Rex, that doesn't compute or equate to the UK because of having so many political parties.
 
Raoul said:
:lol: Cruz will run again in 4 years and still be branded as Lyin Ted.
Click to expand...
As the old saying goes ''If you throw enough mud at the wall some of it is going to...... hit Ted Cruz in his big lying face''

langster said:
I get tactical voting, of course, but it rarely works out that way or makes sense. I suppose it's different in the States though with only two parties running, tactical votes are for candidates whereas in the UK it's more for parties.
Click to expand...
Plus there's always the off chance that they will vote in a chimp or in this case Donald Trump to be the one in charge of the big red button.
 
Sweet Square said:
Plus there's always the off chance that they will vote in a chimp or in this case Donald Trump to be the one in charge of the big red button.
Click to expand...

It's a scary thought. And so is Cruz. FML, they are awful. Wanting patrols around Muslim areas, to give them badges so people know who they are. I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...
 
For really interesting tactical voting, there is nothing like UP, a politically crucial Indian state.
3 parties and some regionally strong players. People may vote on either caste or religious lines. Parties nominate candidates in proportion to the castes they are courting. Or they try and make it a religious divide instead. And voters, even though many are illiterate, are known to vote tactically.


It's sad for democracy but endlessly fascinating to read about.
 
langster said:
It's a scary thought. And so is Cruz. FML, they are awful. Wanting patrols around Muslim areas, to give them badges so people know who they are. I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...
Click to expand...
Did he really say this?? feck me there's no ways he can win saying those sort of things.
 
langster said:
It's a scary thought. And so is Cruz. FML, they are awful. Wanting patrols around Muslim areas, to give them badges so people know who they are. I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before...
Click to expand...
Yeah could easily put Cruz in there as well. Even Kasich or Clinton aren't going to be good for the US(Well in my view although I'm just looking from the outside)we just know that the chances of them blowing the world up are pretty small compared to Trump and Cruz.

Sanders is really the only candidate who seem to have some ideas that could actually help the US, although would he be able to get any of these ideas through is a another story.
 
Traub said:
Did he really say this?? feck me there's no ways he can win saying those sort of things.
Click to expand...

Cruz said he wants the badges and patrols and wants to carpet bomb ISIS regardless of civilians being there. Trump said the other night.... Direct quote when being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer... "When people are talking about you they are talking about bigotry, racism, xenophobia, misogyny" Trump... (with a straight face) "Well maybe they are talking about intelligence" on top of wanting torture legalised for terrorist suspects.

And these guys are leading the race to be President on the Republican side, and yes, if elected would be able to pass laws and would have control of nuclear weapons.
 
The amount of republicans who are for carpet bombing Syria to destory ISIS is scarily high. Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh 'advise' that these kind of collateral casualties that include civilians and families were common during WW II and should be ok now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.