2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
There are far more issues on the table for both states than Trump's primary rhetoric.
Click to expand...
It really depends on how much his primary rhetoric is just rhetoric. We obviously can't have a close ally that bans muslims from coming to their country.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It really depends on how much his primary rhetoric is just rhetoric. We obviously can't have a close ally that bans muslims from coming to their country.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would affect the relationship at all to be honest. Not that I think Trump would actually follow through on his bluster, much as he won't with the Wall.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it would affect the relationship at all to be honest. Not that I think Trump would actually follow through on his bluster, much as he won't with the Wall.
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure it would, greatly.

I also agree he's spouted nonsense that he is unlikely to try and follow through with.

As long as he continues the bigoted rhetoric, which I think will continue, the majority of the West will be much less inclined to be associated with the US, though. I mean, we'd still have to be, cause you're the dominant global force, but the difference between being comfortable dealing with a country and reluctantly dealing with one is great.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'm quite sure it would, greatly.

I also agree he's spouted nonsense that he is unlikely to try and follow through with.

As long as he continues the bigoted rhetoric, which I think will continue, the majority of the West will be much less inclined to be associated with the US, though. I mean, we'd still have to be, cause you're the dominant global force, but the difference between being comfortable dealing with a country and reluctantly dealing with one is great.
Click to expand...

There are massive economic issues on the table, so there would never any kind of estrangement, even if Trump followed through.
 
Raoul said:
There are massive economic issues on the table, so there would never any kind of estrangement, even if Trump followed through.
Click to expand...
I think you're right about the economic side (unless we elect Corbyn, in which case we'll tell y'all to sod off cause we're Scandinavian now). The rest, not at all. The public relations would be abysmal. The foreign policy ones the same.
 
Raoul said:
Coulter was correct, but she is still insane.
Click to expand...

That observation reminds me of a Newsweek article I read many moons ago in which the writer announced ex cathedra that even if an illiberal view was factually correct, it was still 'prejudiced'. The rewriting of the dictionary was itself an interesting comment on the way ideological prejudice (in this case liberal prejudice) works. Liberal truth is more important than actual truth.

It's reminiscent of 'German physics' and 'German mathematics' and the rejection of 'Jewish science' during the Nazi era.
 
Will Absolute said:
That observation reminds me of a Newsweek article I read many moons ago in which the writer announced ex cathedra that even if an illiberal view was factually correct, it was still 'prejudiced'. The rewriting of the dictionary was itself an interesting comment on the way ideological prejudice (in this case liberal prejudice) works. Liberal truth is more important than actual truth.

It's reminiscent of 'German physics' and 'German mathematics' and the rejection of 'Jewish science' during the Nazi era.
Click to expand...
Think you're reading an awful lot more than he said there.

EDIT - You're also presumably on the wind up but that goes without saying, in your case, really...

Your posts in these threads are basically Guido Fawkes with a word of the day calender thrown in. I enjoy them, mind. You're rather good at it.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Think you're reading an awful lot more than he said there.

EDIT - You're also presumably on the wind up but that goes without saying, in your case, really...

Your posts in these threads are basically Guido Fawkes with a word of the day calender thrown in. I enjoy them, mind. You're rather good at it.
Click to expand...

Haha...indeed.

Reads like Feedingseagulls except he was a screaming liberal.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Broken clock twice a day etc etc, even Schmoe Scarborough called it correctly for Drumpf before Iowa.

Still would though.
Click to expand...

I was there 5 years ago. She's aging badly.

DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I think you're right about the economic side (unless we elect Corbyn, in which case we'll tell y'all to sod off cause we're Scandinavian now). The rest, not at all. The public relations would be abysmal. The foreign policy ones the same.
Click to expand...

Corbyn is pro-Brexit?

Regarding NATO, I've long thought that despite Russia's ongoing dick waving, the primary reason for it's creation is dead, and it needs to be retooled. I don't agree with Trump on many things but he has a point there.
 
adexkola said:
Corbyn is pro-Brexit?

Regarding NATO, I've long thought that despite Russia's ongoing dick waving, the primary reason for it's creation is dead, and it needs to be retooled. I don't agree with Trump on many things but he has a point there.
Click to expand...
Not quite but he's anti-TTIP, from what I've heard and I think probably anti-American in general and most certainly anti-Trump's vision of an America that is 'Great Again' (though we all are, really, so that's not much of a statement).

Yeah, NATO is outdated.
 
Raoul said:
Maher's predictable faux comedian, bong smoke political observation schtick is really terrible.

Coulter was correct, but she is still insane.
Click to expand...

Boiling it down to bong smoke political observation . . . talk about a predictable right wing faux observation!!!

I don´t think he´s that predictable at all, as a lot of what he comes out saying can often be very conservative and off putting to liberals. And tell us how his political observation schtick is so terrible instead of the simplistic one off judgements. We get it you don´t like the fact that he smokes pot in his spare time and is bravely (and a prime time pioneer) in supporting its legality in this day and age, and has the ability to make entertaining political observation and discussion. But I think for a "pothead," he works harder and is donkey loads more "successful" than any of us here can ever dream of being.

But seriously, what is so "awful" about his schtick besides the fact you don´t like it.
 
You know that feeling where you're sure you had a point to begin with but are suddenly aware you've veered well away from it and you're now making unrelated points you're not really sure of?

I may be there...
 
Nobby style said:
Boiling it down to bong smoke political observation . . . talk about a predictable right wing faux observation!!!

I don´t think he´s that predictable at all, as a lot of what he comes out saying can often be very conservative and off putting to liberals. And tell us how his political observation schtick is so terrible instead of the simplistic one off judgements. We get it you don´t like the fact that he smokes pot and in his spare time and is bravely (and a prime time pioneer) in supporting its legality in this day and age, and has the ability to make entertaining political observation and discussion. But I think for a "pothead," he works harder and is donkey loads more "successful" than any of us here can ever dream of being.

But seriously, what is so "awful" about his schtick besides the fact you don´t like it.
Click to expand...

A lot of right-wingers like to sneer at Maher but they are too scared to have him on their shows.
 
Will Absolute said:
That observation reminds me of a Newsweek article I read many moons ago in which the writer announced ex cathedra that even if an illiberal view was factually correct, it was still 'prejudiced'. The rewriting of the dictionary was itself an interesting comment on the way ideological prejudice (in this case liberal prejudice) works. Liberal truth is more important than actual truth.

It's reminiscent of 'German physics' and 'German mathematics' and the rejection of 'Jewish science' during the Nazi era.
Click to expand...

Jesus, cleaving again to your conservative truth is more important to the actual truth again?
 
adexkola said:
I was there 5 years ago. She's aging badly.



Corbyn is pro-Brexit?

Regarding NATO, I've long thought that despite Russia's ongoing dick waving, the primary reason for it's creation is dead, and it needs to be retooled. I don't agree with Trump on many things but he has a point there.
Click to expand...
I've heard xenophobia isn't great for the skin.
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Not quite but he's anti-TTIP, from what I've heard and I think probably anti-American in general and most certainly anti-Trump's vision of an America that is 'Great Again' (though we all are, really, so that's not much of a statement).

Yeah, NATO is outdated.
Click to expand...
Yeah his speech about staying in the Eu was pretty much said through gritted teeth, also pretty sure he was going to give a whole talk of anti Americanism but there was(I think) a terror attack the day before.

It's a bit mad(In a good way) that he could be in with a chance of being PM in a few years.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Yes. You've seemed rather unsure in the past. A confidence that Dave being gone is positive is about as certain as I think I've read from you.
Click to expand...

Except that deciding who i don't feel comfortable voting for is the easy part.. Cameron, Osborne, May, Hammond, Morgan...most of the present Cabinet really. I am not a member of the part of course, so this is more about their suitability for the GE.

If she is the ambitious sort, Heidi Allen could have the makings of a very good centrist leader post 2020 or 2025. Allan's also stood up to the leadership despite her status as a new MP, which i can't but like her for.
 
MrMarcello said:
Saw this on FB page... thoughts?

We, the American people, built Trump, with much help from the GOP and media. Several factors combined to produce Trump.

1. The GOP outsourced its communication strategy to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the like. Those people and corporations are in the business of selling fear. For 20 years, they've been telling people that the only reasonable response to any event is fear -- fear of terrorism, of moderate Democrats like Obama, of losing their guns, of black people, of economic calamity, of homosexuals, of the rise of other countries, of disease, of Obamacare, etc. They've created an entire fear-based culture. Reagan, for all his many faults, was a sunny, optimistic fellow who told us it was morning in America. Now the message of the GOP (crafted by Fox/Limbaugh/Beck) is that America is a shithole where you are in terrible peril. So along comes Trump who cynically exploits those fears, fashions himself as a classic authoritarian strongman who promises to keep everyone safe by being "tough."

2. The GOP allowed itself to become, in Bobby Jindal's apt phrase, the party of stupid. It denied evolution. It denied global warming. It denied geology. It denied the need for any education beyond what might be needed to get a job. It kept returning to the theory that tax cuts would produce a booming economy, despite the fact that there was no evidence that that was so. (Kansas, anyone?) It denied the importance of facts themselves. Some Republicans even denied Enlightenment principles of scientific inquiry and discourse and embraced theocracy. And there was no intellectual enforcer like a Buckley who was willing or able to call out such stupidity. Stupid people are easy for carnival barkers like Trump to manipulate.

3. The GOP was infiltrated by and is now heavily dependent on religious literalists. As Barry Goldwater pointed out years ago, those people are impossible to work with in a democratic government because they refuse to compromise. If you are acting in accordance with God's law, then even the smallest deviation from that (i.e., the compromises democracy relies on for its very survival) becomes heresy. Though Trump is far from religious, he promises no-compromise tactics in defeating ISIS, in keeping Americans "safe."

4. The GOP became the party of the Lost Cause, the party of the south. Though it drives some of my Republican friends crazy to hear this said, the party went out of its way to embrace bigoted voters. And the party encouraged their racism, especially when Obama won the presidency. But for years, Republicans thought they had to couch their racism in dog whistles and cutesy allusions. Now comes Trump who proudly disdains polite speech and openly expresses his bigotry. And the reaction is delight and relief: finally, we can say what we really think and express our prejudices -- by voting for a man who does just that.

5. The GOP adopted Leninist tactics. "No enemies to the right" became its electoral message. No matter how kooky, antidemocratic, or reactionary you were, the GOP was willing to embrace you. And so unsurprisingly, the party moved right. Far, far right. Fear of being called a RINO drove party members to extreme positions. And at the extreme end of every ideology is authoritarianism (which is true of both left and right). Today the party bears almost no resemblance to the one my parents supported. So along comes Trump, whose ideology (to the extent he has one) isn't conservative, but is authoritarian. His very campaign slogan is revanchist: Make America great again. While his policies are not in line with past GOP policies, his tone and his authoritarian style are the inevitable result of the Republican's embrace of more and more extreme ideas.

6. Trump is a celebrity. He's best known as a reality TV personality, not a politician. We live in a culture that glorifies celebrities, but for years few celebrities have identified as Republicans. The entertainment industry is overwhelmingly moderate to liberal. For years, Republicans had to make do with C-list celebrity endorsements (Ted Nugent?). Suddenly, here comes an A-list guy and the Republican faithful are delighted. Finally, a celebrity who isn't a Democrat!

There are many other factors, of course. But these, I think, are a good starting point. As a liberal, I cop to feeling some schadenfreude at seeing the GOP in a Trumpian dilemma. But as an American, I am dismayed. Our democracy needs a principled, intellectually coherent, forward-looking conservative party. It doesn't have one now. And that's dangerous."

-Jim Trumm, 2/26/16 Facebook
Click to expand...
Good one
 
I was confused about a lot of posts disappearing :lol:

Trump rules out Nikki Haley, doesn't rule out Marcobot. Other options apparently include New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. Yesterday, there was a bit of talk about Gingrich.

What do you lot think about his running mate?
 
Adisa said:
Paul Ryan has refused to endorse him for now.
Click to expand...
Kochs are sitting it out. Bushes are refusing to endorse. Doubt the previous two GOP nominees will either.

Heh.
 
MrMarcello said:
Saw this on FB page... thoughts?

We, the American people, built Trump, with much help from the GOP and media. Several factors combined to produce Trump.

1. The GOP outsourced its communication strategy to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the like. Those people and corporations are in the business of selling fear. For 20 years, they've been telling people that the only reasonable response to any event is fear -- fear of terrorism, of moderate Democrats like Obama, of losing their guns, of black people, of economic calamity, of homosexuals, of the rise of other countries, of disease, of Obamacare, etc. They've created an entire fear-based culture. Reagan, for all his many faults, was a sunny, optimistic fellow who told us it was morning in America. Now the message of the GOP (crafted by Fox/Limbaugh/Beck) is that America is a shithole where you are in terrible peril. So along comes Trump who cynically exploits those fears, fashions himself as a classic authoritarian strongman who promises to keep everyone safe by being "tough."

2. The GOP allowed itself to become, in Bobby Jindal's apt phrase, the party of stupid. It denied evolution. It denied global warming. It denied geology. It denied the need for any education beyond what might be needed to get a job. It kept returning to the theory that tax cuts would produce a booming economy, despite the fact that there was no evidence that that was so. (Kansas, anyone?) It denied the importance of facts themselves. Some Republicans even denied Enlightenment principles of scientific inquiry and discourse and embraced theocracy. And there was no intellectual enforcer like a Buckley who was willing or able to call out such stupidity. Stupid people are easy for carnival barkers like Trump to manipulate.

3. The GOP was infiltrated by and is now heavily dependent on religious literalists. As Barry Goldwater pointed out years ago, those people are impossible to work with in a democratic government because they refuse to compromise. If you are acting in accordance with God's law, then even the smallest deviation from that (i.e., the compromises democracy relies on for its very survival) becomes heresy. Though Trump is far from religious, he promises no-compromise tactics in defeating ISIS, in keeping Americans "safe."

4. The GOP became the party of the Lost Cause, the party of the south. Though it drives some of my Republican friends crazy to hear this said, the party went out of its way to embrace bigoted voters. And the party encouraged their racism, especially when Obama won the presidency. But for years, Republicans thought they had to couch their racism in dog whistles and cutesy allusions. Now comes Trump who proudly disdains polite speech and openly expresses his bigotry. And the reaction is delight and relief: finally, we can say what we really think and express our prejudices -- by voting for a man who does just that.

5. The GOP adopted Leninist tactics. "No enemies to the right" became its electoral message. No matter how kooky, antidemocratic, or reactionary you were, the GOP was willing to embrace you. And so unsurprisingly, the party moved right. Far, far right. Fear of being called a RINO drove party members to extreme positions. And at the extreme end of every ideology is authoritarianism (which is true of both left and right). Today the party bears almost no resemblance to the one my parents supported. So along comes Trump, whose ideology (to the extent he has one) isn't conservative, but is authoritarian. His very campaign slogan is revanchist: Make America great again. While his policies are not in line with past GOP policies, his tone and his authoritarian style are the inevitable result of the Republican's embrace of more and more extreme ideas.

6. Trump is a celebrity. He's best known as a reality TV personality, not a politician. We live in a culture that glorifies celebrities, but for years few celebrities have identified as Republicans. The entertainment industry is overwhelmingly moderate to liberal. For years, Republicans had to make do with C-list celebrity endorsements (Ted Nugent?). Suddenly, here comes an A-list guy and the Republican faithful are delighted. Finally, a celebrity who isn't a Democrat!

There are many other factors, of course. But these, I think, are a good starting point. As a liberal, I cop to feeling some schadenfreude at seeing the GOP in a Trumpian dilemma. But as an American, I am dismayed. Our democracy needs a principled, intellectually coherent, forward-looking conservative party. It doesn't have one now. And that's dangerous."

-Jim Trumm, 2/26/16 Facebook
Click to expand...
Excellent post. Kudos to your friend.
 
Ubik said:
Kochs are sitting it out. Bushes are refusing to endorse. Doubt the previous two GOP nominees will either.

Heh.
Click to expand...

That helps him. Confirms that he isn't bought and paid for.

What else are repubs gonna do...vote for their most hated enemy Hillary? I don't think so.
 
Grinner said:
That helps him. Confirms that he isn't bought and paid for.

What else are repubs gonna do...vote for their most hated enemy Hillary? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
A lot will do that without publicising it. Many more just won't vote for President and only go for the downballot options, or go for a third-party/write-in. Some will relent and go for him, unenthusiastically.

All in all, not exactly a recipe for turning blue states red.
 
Grinner said:
That helps him. Confirms that he isn't bought and paid for.

What else are repubs gonna do...vote for their most hated enemy Hillary? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Sitting it out. I'd imagine a lot will do just that.

There are increasing talk of an establishment type going independent to help down ballot tickets, will do just as well.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Sitting it out. I'd imagine a lot will do just that.

There are increasing talk of an establishment type going independent to help down ballot tickets, will do just as well.
Click to expand...

If they do that HRC deffo wins. Their choice is between someone who may do things they hate, to somebody who will deffo do things they hate. Seems a pretty easy choice to me. They are better off supporting him, hoping that turnout will keep them in power in the Congress and then actually do some lawmaking to get things that they want by working with him.
 
Ubik said:
A lot will do that without publicising it. Many more just won't vote for President and only go for the downballot options, or go for a third-party/write-in. Some will relent and go for him, unenthusiastically.

All in all, not exactly a recipe for turning blue states red.
Click to expand...

Wait... You scoff at the idea of Bernie diehards not voting for Clinton come election time, yet buy the notion that Republicans will vote for Hillary? Help me reconcile that
 
Ubik said:


Glad to see our Prime Minister is sticking to his principles and not cow-towing.
Click to expand...


Reminds me of the flip flop Britain and USA did when Modi was coming close to becoming India's PM.

Earlier they allegedly even denied him Visa's as Gujarat CM for alleged role in 2002 Riots.
 
Grinner said:
If they do that HRC deffo wins. Their choice is between someone who may do things they hate, to somebody who will deffo do things they hate. Seems a pretty easy choice to me. They are better off supporting him, hoping that turnout will keep them in power in the Congress and then actually do some lawmaking to get things that they want by working with him.
Click to expand...

True, but contrary to what we like to think, some of them are actual thinking people who do put country over party. 5-10% will be enough for Hillary, coupled with the usual cross voting percentage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.