2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
JustAFan said:
I just left the bar in the middle on all questions, to see what would happen. Need to find time to take it again and see how much moving that bar on each question affects the outcome.
Click to expand...

I did that test twice, the first time I adjusted the bar seriously and got Clinton 94%, Sanders 92%and Jill Stein 91%. The second time I left it alone but put 'Most' on all the questions having to do with campaign finance and electoral reform. Sanders 96%, Stein 94% and Clinton 88%.
 
Nobby style said:
Putin is a paper tiger and China is more interested in economy than anything else these days. We´ve got to get over this thinking of America ceding places half way around the world to other supposed powers. Europe and Asia can take care of themselves just fine. The Republicans have just elected Trump as their leader, America would do better to take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

With all due respects, I'll let the Europeans speak for themselves, but as an Asian, you don't know what you are talking about.

The rate of cancer in Vietnam spiked in the last 20 years due to Chinese goods with high lead content and other toxins. People are literally dying because of Chinese 'economic interest'. As bad as they are, US corporations do have better environmental and human rights standard when they invest in the region. A Chinese hegemony over SouthEast Asia would be an absolute fecking disaster.
 
Nobby style said:
Putin is a paper tiger and China is more interested in economy than anything else these days. We´ve got to get over this thinking of America ceding places half way around the world to other supposed powers. Europe and Asia can take care of themselves just fine. The Republicans have just elected Trump as their leader, America would do better to take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it isn't like a game of Risk.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
With all due respects, I'll let the Europeans speak for themselves, but as an Asian, you don't know what you are talking about.

The rate of cancer in Vietnam spiked in the last 20 years due to Chinese goods with high lead content and other toxins. People are literally dying because of Chinese 'economic interest'. As bad as they are, US corporations do have better environmental and human rights standard when they invest in the region. A Chinese hegemony over SouthEast Asia would be an absolute fecking disaster.
Click to expand...
That's without thinking about the implications on Japan and South Korea getting nukes, which they inevitably would.
 
Grinner said:
Japan and S. Korea have nuclear weapons programs?

Wow, that is a surprising development.
Click to expand...
Japan have a "bomb in the basement" capacity. South Korea has the materials and technology necessary.

If you think they'd both just happily stand still with a China and North Korea armed with nuclear weapons after losing US support in the area, then good-oh.
 
Grinner said:
Indeed, it isn't like a game of Risk.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that if there's someone playing Risk with the world, it's not the US, at least in this part of the world:

main-qimg-0ae722370b5d8c13728fe1f56fd80cb4


That's the 'nine-dash' line, based primarily on China pulling that out of their ass and not a lot else. Essentially, it's China declaring the entire South China Sea theirs, why? Because feck you, that's why.

That map speaks for itself on who islands like the Spratlys should belong to - or at the very least, who it shouldn't. But here's what they're doing on it, anyway - building missile bases.

2659.jpg


What happens if you persist in your pathetic ignorance that the laws of the sea should somehow apply to you, despite China's obviously superior nine-dash claim to your waters?



Yeah - they ram and sink you. There's no video I can find, but they've done this even to Vietnamese coast-guard vessels, I believe.

I don't wanna get going on this because once I start on China I can't stop. I'll summarize it with this - I respect very, very much the anti-war, isolationistic sentiment now in vogue in the West. I sincerely believe it's rooted in noble, humanistic impulses; that it's purveyors mean well for both themselves and the world; and even that as a general rule it's probably the appropriate default position to take.

That all being said, I'd be cautious of one-size-fits-all mentality. Even from a purely anti-war perspective, I think it's clear that the odds of miscalculation are significantly worse in a situation where it's every man for himself against China; @Ubik has rightly alluded to the prospect of a nuclearized East Asia. But more fundamentally, I don't think it's disproportionate, imperialist, or "neo-liberal" to recognize that historically, America has mutually-beneficial relationships with many friends in this region, who have legitimate interests in fearing a rampant Middle Kingdom reborn, who genuinely want and welcome American involvement in the area as a counterbalance.

Put it this way - is it better, even from a purely selfish consideration of the American national interest, to periodically steam the Seventh Fleet through the region, talk a good game on "historic friends and allies", show up at a few regional summits, and reap the trading and diplomatic advantages thereafter - or pick up the pieces of war afterwards?
 
Last edited:
InfiniteBoredom said:
All hypothetical, but Putin with a free hand on Europe could see the whole region destabilised. All the major powers like UK, France and Germany now spend a fraction of their GDP far less than what America does on military budget, and it's entirely feasible that if they can't count on American support, they will increase spending on this area due to Russian aggression. If you see nothing wrong with an arm race in Europe, and the fact that with their military superiority, Russia can be free to encroach on Eastern Europe the same way they did in Crimea or Georgia, then yes, silly me.

On Asia, this isn't even a question. Without US presence in the region, developing countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines etc... will have their economic and even geographical sovereignty imposed upon by China, in the case of Vietnam/Myanmar, land and Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan etc.. the South China Sea. Cheap Chinese goods of dubious quality, most of the time downright toxic will flood these countries market, harming consumers, local companies will be put out of business due to their Chinese counterparts, I can go on and on. Human rights will certainly go down the toilet without a US-led UN warning dictators, and Chinese current strain of racism and Islamophobia threaten the security of the region as a whole, as well as their tendency to disregard others' borders, be it Tibetan, India, Myanmar, Vietnam etc..

And even if you disregard all of that, it's not in the US interest to cede Asia. It's the fastest growing region both demographically and economically. It's a great source for labor and new market for US corporations. Why would any responsible policy maker let China have sole control over it and put the US under a competitive disadvantage?
Click to expand...

You make good points, but you have to look at this from America's point of view.

More than 60 years after the end of WW2, and quarter of a century after the end of the cold war, it's past time Western Europe took responsibility for its own defense. It has the technology and financial resources; all that's lacking is the will, which will remain the case as long as the US continues to wet nurse the continent. Let Europe put aside its toys and join the grown-ups; maybe the European left will benefit from a dose of the real world and think better of its childish mantra 'it's all America's fault'.

Asia is a different case. The economically undeveloped countries of the region are vulnerable to Chinese economic, political and military aggression. America has a lot at stake and needs to provide a counterbalance. But do American troops really have to be stationed in Korea, protecting an economic superpower from its impoverished neighbour? Like Western Europe, Japan needs to shed its Peter Pan complex. It has the resources to defend itself and should be expected to do so. After all, it, not America, is sitting across the East China Sea from the dragon.
 
Grinner said:
Japan and S. Korea have nuclear weapons programs?

Wow, that is a surprising development.
Click to expand...

Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Canada and a few other nations have very short breakout periods (time from nothing to a bomb) because they possess the resources and technology to produce nuclear weapons if they wanted.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
With all due respects, I'll let the Europeans speak for themselves, but as an Asian, you don't know what you are talking about.

The rate of cancer in Vietnam spiked in the last 20 years due to Chinese goods with high lead content and other toxins. People are literally dying because of Chinese 'economic interest'. As bad as they are, US corporations do have better environmental and human rights standard when they invest in the region. A Chinese hegemony over SouthEast Asia would be an absolute fecking disaster.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the rate of cancer and genocide and all that good stuff was from America´s influence in Vietnam. What the feck do you want America to do about Chinese goods in Vietnam? How about we let them deal with it? How much better of a record do American corporations have in Asia with the 1000s of sweatshops and poor regulated standards so Americans can consume cheaply. Dow Chemical and Union Carbide and Bhopal anyone. Was that the Chinese too?

How about this new Trumpy geezer elected in the Philippines. Bet he´ll be great for civil rights.

As a Latin American, believe me, be careful about what you wish for with the Gringos.
 
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the protest vote or the want for change, I really do, but there have been candidates that reflect that change and they have been ignored. Surely people can see the real danger in Trump? Surely they have seen his flip-flopping and his inadequacies and complete and utter lack of experience or knowledge in most of what he has spoken about? Surely they can't want someone that will piss off superpowers like China and Russia or upset friends and allies in Europe while at the same time destabilising the Middle East even further due to not knowing what the feck he is on about?

I can't believe that so many people can be so stupid, deluded, naïve, gullible, thick, or just on a protest vote wum. Surely the sensible and intelligent outnumber them? Surely? If not, it's a very sad reflection of American society today. Celebrity status, selfishness, fear mongering and hate outweigh compassion, love, understanding and equality. I can't believe that is true and I sincerely hope it is not.

Edit! Stop calling me surely!
 
On the more serious side, PPP’s newest national poll finds that Republicans are just as unified around Trump as Democrats are unified around Hillary Clinton, spelling a much more competitive general election race than one might think.

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans - 72% - say that they’re comfortable with Trump as their nominee, functionally identical to the 75% of Democrats say that they would be comfortable with Clinton as their nominee.

As for general election prospects, Clinton leads Trump 42% to 38% when the ticket includes with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4% and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 2%. In a head-to-head match between Clinton and Trump, the former secretary of state’s lead expands to 47% to Trump’s 41%.
Click to expand...

At this early stage it seems the establishment and donors are far more uncomfortable than the base. And given her problems with independents...
 
Even aside from the usual warnings of the lack of reliability at this stage and the danger of cherry picking individual results (another one released the other day had Trump only 1 point ahead in Georgia, for instance), those Qpac results have raised eyebrows with their samples.
 
QPac polls have been consistently off this cycle. Their latest polls sample have white percentage of the electorate up 3-4 points from 2012 exits. That's bonkers.
 


West Virginia, the place where they keep forgetting to update their party registration.
 
Sanders leading too.
People really dont like Hillary.. She has it wrapped up, yet people wont vote for her.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
All hypothetical, but Putin with a free hand on Europe could see the whole region destabilised. All the major powers like UK, France and Germany now spend a fraction of their GDP far less than what America does on military budget, and it's entirely feasible that if they can't count on American support, they will increase spending on this area due to Russian aggression. If you see nothing wrong with an arm race in Europe, and the fact that with their military superiority, Russia can be free to encroach on Eastern Europe the same way they did in Crimea or Georgia, then yes, silly me.

On Asia, this isn't even a question. Without US presence in the region, developing countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines etc... will have their economic and even geographical sovereignty imposed upon by China, in the case of Vietnam/Myanmar, land and Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan etc.. the South China Sea. Cheap Chinese goods of dubious quality, most of the time downright toxic will flood these countries market, harming consumers, local companies will be put out of business due to their Chinese counterparts, I can go on and on. Human rights will certainly go down the toilet without a US-led UN warning dictators, and Chinese current strain of racism and Islamophobia threaten the security of the region as a whole, as well as their tendency to disregard others' borders, be it Tibetan, India, Myanmar, Vietnam etc..

And even if you disregard all of that, it's not in the US interest to cede Asia. It's the fastest growing region both demographically and economically. It's a great source for labor and new market for US corporations. Why would any responsible policy maker let China have sole control over it and put the US under a competitive disadvantage?
Click to expand...
Why should my taxes be used to protect other countries? Let them spend more money like us here.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
With all due respects, I'll let the Europeans speak for themselves, but as an Asian, you don't know what you are talking about.

The rate of cancer in Vietnam spiked in the last 20 years due to Chinese goods with high lead content and other toxins. People are literally dying because of Chinese 'economic interest'. As bad as they are, US corporations do have better environmental and human rights standard when they invest in the region. A Chinese hegemony over SouthEast Asia would be an absolute fecking disaster.
Click to expand...
Looks the problem is the governments for letting Chinese products in the country with no regulations.
 
prateik said:
Yeah. Trump has that too.
Doesnt mean she isnt widely unpopular even among the democrats.
Click to expand...
It's West Virginia ffs :lol: 41% of primary voters there voted against Obama being renominated in 2012!

Another interesting side-story - Nebraska is holding a primary for the Dems today which doesn't decide delegates, the caucus that Bernie won a couple of months back was the binding one. Bernie won the caucus 57-43, whereas Hillary is winning the primary currently by 60-40 with 10% reporting.
 
Think her gender is hindering her, personally. She has a confused narrative - being the establishment candidate that represents continuity whilst also being the first serious female candidate and as such representing change and a challenge to the male dominance of US politics. At the moment I think being a woman is hurting her more than it's helping her. I think this could change, though, once it's just her and Trump and his inability to refrain from sexist comments takes centre stage.
 
Though, if America does get back in to the spirit of having another 'first', I wouldn't put it past Trump to suddenly announce he's gay, just to see if it helps. He seems willing to change everything else.
 
barros said:
Why should my taxes be used to protect other countries? Let them spend more money like us here.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that big European powers shouldn't pay more for their own defense, but it should not be an arm race from a position of weakness. Continued American presence is necessary for the stability of the region. As for Asia, Japan and SK should do the same, and the developing countries are already paying for it by favorable treatments to US corporations. It's on your gov to tax them properly.

barros said:
Looks the problem is the governments for letting Chinese products in the country with no regulations.
Click to expand...

False. They are a gigantic monolith literally on top of us. A vastly weaker nation has no clout to resist the flows of their goods into our country, as it would feck our economy in mere months. The only way to escape that is trade partnerships with Europe and US, Australia, India etc.. to grant our local producers and industries the chance to develop until we are self-sustainable.

As an aside, Oregon poll shows Clinton up comfortably on Sanders.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/elec...ers-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-oregon-poll/

Salt profusely, due to favorable Sanders demographic advantage, but it's interesting to see what unfolds.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
No one is saying that big European powers shouldn't pay more for their own defense, but it should not be an arm race from a position of weakness. Continued American presence is necessary for the stability of the region. As for Asia, Japan and SK should do the same, and the developing countries are already paying for it by favorable treatments to US corporations. It's on your gov to tax them properly.



False. They are a gigantic monolith literally on top of us. A vastly weaker nation has no clout to resist the flows of their goods into our country, as it would feck our economy in mere months. The only way to escape that is trade partnerships with Europe and US, Australia, India etc.. to grant our local producers and industries the chance to develop until we are self-sustainable.

As an aside, Oregon poll shows Clinton up comfortably on Sanders.

http://www.opb.org/news/series/elec...ers-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-oregon-poll/

Salt profusely, due to favorable Sanders demographic advantage, but it's interesting to see what unfolds.
Click to expand...

Sanders will win Oregon handily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.