2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
Interestingly, Sanders seems to have crafted a very moderate message relative to perceptions of him as a socialist.
Click to expand...

That's hardly surprising, considering the connotations the word carries for large swathes of the US population.
 
Raoul said:
Interestingly, Sanders seems to have crafted a very moderate message relative to perceptions of him as a socialist.
Click to expand...
I like Sanders a lot, he's more what I presumed Corbyn over here to be like before I learned more. But still think the Dems would be mad to go with him.
 
Ubik said:
I like Sanders a lot, he's more what I presumed Corbyn over here to be like before I learned more. But still think the Dems would be mad to go with him.
Click to expand...

The trouble with Sanders is he has no foreign policy credentials and would flop when confronted with geopolitical problems like Putin or ISIS - and i'd suspect Corbyn wouldn't be too much different in that regard.
 
Raoul said:
The trouble with Sanders is he has no foreign policy credentials and would flop when confronted with geopolitical problems like Putin or ISIS - and i'd suspect Corbyn wouldn't be too much different in that regard.
Click to expand...

How can you say Sanders has no foreign policy credentials? He was a congressman for 16 years and nearly ten in the senate, through donkey loads of foreign crises and a couple of wars. And he seems a pretty studied guy as well. You can´t just say, oh he´ll flop facing the big bad Putin and or Isis. How do you know? Seems like a pretty resilient, brave guy. Put his ass on the line during the civil rights times as well.

Now Dick Cheney, there was a guy with foreign policy cred. What a fecking idiot he turned out to be.
 
Nobby style said:
How can you say Sanders has no foreign policy credentials? He was a congressman for 16 years and nearly ten in the senate, through donkey loads of foreign crises and a couple of wars. And he seems a pretty studied guy as well. You can´t just say, oh he´ll flop facing the big bad Putin and or Isis. How do you know? Seems like a pretty resilient, brave guy. Put his ass on the line during the civil rights times as well.

Now Dick Chehey, there was a guy with foreign policy cred. What a fecking idiot he turned out to be.
Click to expand...

As in, the general electorate won't buy his dovish positions - certainly not in a world where the likes of ISIS and Putin are running rampant.
 
The Iraq debacle . . . one of the few along with Obama who had sense enough to vote against it. Right as rain on that one. Hilary? Hmm.

Hopefully the US in this day and age will start listening to these so call "doves" or non interventionists as they used to be called when Republicans were like this. This war mentality has to go, along with this big bad wolf scare crap. Look at this mess Bush/Cheney created. I hope these "fiscal hawks" and fed up tax payers will stop being such hypocrites when it comes to funding the war machine.

I also think Bernie could be a tough old coot.
 
If he wants to compete in the present and future, he will need to formulate proper policy positions on how best to deal with the current geopolitical problems - namely Putin, ISIS, North Korea, Iran, Syria and others. If all he says is the US should disengage from those area, then he will lose. If he has nuanced positions on how to deal with ISIS and Putin in particular, then he may have a chance.
 
Eriku said:
My bad. Still rich that she's coming out against Super-Pacs though.
Click to expand...

campaign finance reform is one of the issues, where she was forced to readjust her position. Democrats talk about it for decades, so it is hardly news, that Hillary is also having a position in line with this. Still if I remember correctly, she offered actually some details, which was quite surprising.
 
Raoul said:
Grim news for the GOP establishment. :D

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/19/9353865/republican-poll-debate-fiorina
Click to expand...
The more certain we are after every debate that "he's really fecked up this time", his poll numbers grow even more. What makes it even worse is that his narcissism is invested in those poll number almost entirely, so he's probably thinking this vindicates him being a scrote of a human being. Even though it'd obviously be brilliant for the Dems for him to be nominee, I really want him to do monumentally bad in the primaries just to utterly destroy his self worth. From that poll Rubio has had a short term bounce, I'm thinking he has the best upside for the GOP overall despite still likely not having what it takes to overcome the Clinton machine in a general election.
 
Ubik said:
The more certain we are after every debate that "he's really fecked up this time", his poll numbers grow even more. What makes it even worse is that his narcissism is invested in those poll number almost entirely, so he's probably thinking this vindicates him being a scrote of a human being. Even though it'd obviously be brilliant for the Dems for him to be nominee, I really want him to do monumentally bad in the primaries just to utterly destroy his self worth. From that poll Rubio has had a short term bounce, I'm thinking he has the best upside for the GOP overall despite still likely not having what it takes to overcome the Clinton machine in a general election.
Click to expand...

This imo just illustrates how unstable the GOP apparatus is - three non elected, non politicians are leading the pack. Each of them are unelectable, which suggests that even if someone like Bush, Walker, or Rubio get the nomination - they still wont receive maximum enthusiasm from the base in the Gen election.
 
Everest Red said:
Because a lot of people like GWB and GHWB was a great president and a great American



Bill Clinton laid the foundations, to be honest.



:rolleyes:


I'll give this



Because, just because they are different people? Bastian was a great midfielder for Bayern, should they give Tobi a runaround in the first team?




Walker is a creep. Trump is great, might rename both Rockefeller republicans and RINOs to Trump republicans. Repubs are facing an identity crisis but they're no less joke than Dems. Shillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Martin O'Malley are all horrible leaders and democrats.
Click to expand...

Wtf is this revisionist horseshit? :lol:
 
Raoul said:
Oddly enough a good number of wealthy and powerful people would not be pleased if Trump wins.
Click to expand...

Right you are on that one. He keeps bad mouthing the hedge fundies as "paper pushers" and "getting away with murder" on the abysmally low tax rates on capital gains, taking the tax burden off the middle class and higher taxes on the millionaires. Funny enough, you could see a massive push for Hills from the whole finance sector if she gets the nomination.
 
GHWB was so great he was only allowed to serve one term by the people.

Also, to say that Clinton handed over an economic mess to GWB is absolute nonsense.

President Clinton oversaw a period of considerable economic growth and expansion during his tenure. In particular, real GDP per capita increased from about $38,000 in 1994 to about $45,000 in 2001 (in real 2011 dollars).[1] The U.S. national debt as a percent of GDP also declined from about 66% to about 56% during Clinton's government.[2]
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the encouraging of subprimes, surely the fact that the crisis came to fruition right at the end of GWB's second tenure points to him having had plenty of time to make the corrections needed. You can't put that on Clinton's plate.
 
Eriku said:
Didn't see that post :lol:

The claim about the fiscal inheritance from the Clinton administration in particular :eek:
Click to expand...

Clinton gets a lot of credit but has a lot to blame.

The Bad:

Refused to sign right-to-work-law in Arkansas in 1976. (Also alienated state teachers and demoralized already underpaid teachers)

Gave Tyson Foods millions in subsidies(10 millions) between 88-90.

Attempted to pass a 'managed-healthcare' shit (then dubbed Hillarycare) AND rejected a single payer system. Effectively destroying american healthcare.

Signed a woefully inadequate TANF. Its considered to be worse than AFDC by nonpartisan research.

Reformed Community Reinvestment Act(not a bad thing, but paved way for subprime Mortages) And allowed unregulated credit default swap.

The worse:

Repealed glass-seagull act.

Signed NAFTA.
 
I think when you look around the world and see north Korea having huge inequalities in living standards with the third member of a war mongering family having their finger on a nuclear solution it's clear that America needs to elect Jeb bush to show them that they have no reason to be afraid of democracy.
 
Whoever emerges out of this mess, they will still have to win most of the 7 or 8 key swings states. Hillary is still set up best for that.
 
New polls today....

1. Trump - 24%
2. Fiorina - 15%
3. Carson - 14%
4. Rubio - 11%
5. Bush - 9%
6. Cruz - 6%
6. Huckabee - 6%
8. Paul - 4%
9. Christie -3%
10. Kasich - 2%
 
When will people start dropping out? Christie is a no-hoper you'd think, Huckabee never lasts long, Paul doesn't look like he cares that much. Kasich might stay in a bit for the VP nod I suppose.
 
Eriku said:
Didn't see that post :lol:

The claim about the fiscal inheritance from the Clinton administration in particular :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that poster is the type of person I hate dealing with. Refuse to blame the bad economies of early 90s and the current one on Iraq wars. Clintons fault for 93 and Obama for 09, both succeeding Bushes hmm do you see a pattern? Also no discussion of the loss of the surplus Clinton left and oh 9/11 was Clintons fault too that was my favourite.
 
Ramshock said:
Yes thats why he got wiped out in the 1992 election. GW was polarizing at best. Did you live in america in 2000 to 08?
Click to expand...

No. Came to US in 08. :D

90% of my friends are republicans though, so that might cloud my judgement. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.