2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
MrMarcello said:
In all honestly, and I'm aware who makes the laws that condone such, but why is lobbying allowed?

It's clearly bribery. I'm sure there is "good" lobbying for noble, altruistic reasons. But it seems there's too much "bad" lobbying.
Click to expand...


The US SC has interpreted the 1st amendment very broadly in terms of money-as-speech*, and the definition of bribery very narrowly (direct and explicit quid-pro-quo). Which means what is illegal and under the table (though still widespread) everywhere else happens semi-openly in the US.

*There have been some strong restrictions on the 1st amendment agreed to by the SC at the height of the war on terror, by the same judges who wrote Citizens United.
 
Spock said:
Even in Arizona, this isn't going to go down well. McCain has a serious re-election fight, he's now behind in the polls and looks likely to lose to the Dem (Ann Kirkpatrick) in November.

McCain is a great American who served his country nobly in Vietnam, but he had lost his marbles by 2008. I met him that summer and had a chance to discuss immigration policy with him then. He really hadn't a clue what we was talking about.
Click to expand...

You do love a bit of name-dropping, don't you.

He should just see out his days spending the money from his oven chips empire.
 
Nobby style said:
. . . According to data from the Center of Responsive Politics, no member of Congress has received more direct and indirect support from the National Rifle Association than the $7.7 million that has gone to McCain over the course of his career. In 2008 alone, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Obama and elect McCain, who was the Republican candidate that cycle.

Hmmm?

Bark John, bark! Daddy says bark!
Click to expand...

The gun toting MILF joined in as well

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sarah-palin-obama-gun-control-224491

We've come full circle. It's 2008 mk.2.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-allies-000000292.html?nhp=1

Hillary Clinton invokes unlikely allies on the stump — the Bushes


Ah, triangulation, nice to see you back.
The more I read the more I admire the ideological purity that the GOP demands. It blew up in their faces this time but they have been (to borrow a best word) winning for 3 decades.


Edit:
But will it alienate liberals, especially those who wanted the political “revolution” Sanders promised? “There are certainly liberals who won’t like this, but they’re the same people who don’t like Hillary Clinton’s votes on the Iraq War, or surveillance policy or her general hawkishness anyway — and those people have already shown, by and large, that they’ll fall in line and back her,” Mair said.
Click to expand...

She is right. People who concede without seeing demands met will never succeed. Liberals have been spineless for decades.

This also ties in with excerpts from the DNC mail hacking - they were looking to push the GOP as far to the right as possible. Will it help winning elections? Maybe, though the evidence is mixed (2012 vs 2010 and 2014). Will it help creating progressive politics? Never, it will continue the politics of voting-by-fear.
 
berbatrick said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-invokes-unlikely-allies-000000292.html?nhp=1

Hillary Clinton invokes unlikely allies on the stump — the Bushes


Ah, triangulation, nice to see you back.
The more I read the more I admire the ideological purity that the GOP demands. It blew up in their faces this time but they have been (to borrow a best word) winning for 3 decades.


Edit:


She is right. People who concede without seeing demands met will never succeed. Liberals have been spineless for decades.

This also ties in with excerpts from the DNC mail hacking - they were looking to push the GOP as far to the right as possible. Will it help winning elections? Maybe, though the evidence is mixed (2012 vs 2010 and 2014). Will it help creating progressive politics? Never, it will continue the politics of voting-by-fear.
Click to expand...

You see what she's doing don't you - expanding her coalition beyond Dems to include GOP Trump refugees who see her as the lesser of two evils. If she can patch together a coalition of mainstream Dems, a few wantaway GOPers, and the Sanders/Warren coalition, then she will win.

Trump is btw doing the same thing by trying to woo Bernie supporters who don't like Hillary. Trouble is, they hate him more.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
:lol: I've heard him do it THREE times.
Click to expand...

:lol: Unbelievable. He has his own dictionary. I think a lot of it is down to (aside from him being thick as feck, and having a poor vocabulary) the fact he really wants to swear all the time and can't. I reckon he really struggles without effing and blinding all the time.
 
Raoul said:
You see what she's doing don't you - expanding her coalition beyond Dems to include GOP Trump refugees who see her as the lesser of two evils. If she can patch together a coalition of mainstream Dems, a few wantaway GOPers, and the Sanders/Warren coalition, then she will win.

Trump is btw doing the same thing by trying to woo Bernie supporters who don't like Hillary. Trouble is, they hate him more.
Click to expand...

I do. It's a good, broad coalition and a winning electoral strategy. It's not a good base to allow progressive policies.
 
berbatrick said:
I do. It's a good, broad coalition and a winning electoral strategy. It's not a good base to allow progressive policies.
Click to expand...

Nor would allowing Trump to get elected. Sometimes you have to build a coalition to simply make it into office, at which point you can work on policy.
 
Raoul said:
Nor would allowing Trump to get elected. Sometimes you have to build a coalition to simply make it into office, at which point you can work on policy.
Click to expand...

Yup, I reckon the Dems got a little scared. The unpredictability of Trump would be worrisome, also Bernie beating her and then giving her a great run for her money must have shaken her confidence a little. I'm sure they are just making sure they beat Trump and beat him well.
 
Raoul said:
Nor would allowing Trump to get elected. Sometimes you have to build a coalition to simply make it into office, at which point you can work on policy.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, but if your focus is on winning the election and just that, you get what's happened in the last 8 years - unprecedented control for the Reps at all levels (except president) at a time when the GOP is very unpopular.
 
berbatrick said:
Oh I agree, but if your focus is on winning the election and just that, you get what's happened in the last 8 years - unprecedented control for the Reps at all levels (except president) at a time when the GOP is very unpopular.
Click to expand...

This may be a year when Trump loses and his unpopulariy drags the GOP out of control of Congress, in which case Hillary would not make the same mistake Obama did by playing nice during her first two years. She will ram every progressive policy imaginable through before the mid terms and possibly replace a SCOTUS justice or two.
 
berbatrick said:
Oh I agree, but if your focus is on winning the election and just that, you get what's happened in the last 8 years - unprecedented control for the Reps at all levels (except president) at a time when the GOP is very unpopular.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I can see Hillary stabbing them in the back, whereas Obama's biggest failing (imho) was trying for partisanship when he was first elected in to office. I think he tried to include and appease the GOP and Republicans way too much where as he should really have just said "feck em" and forced his agenda through. Admittedly they would have resisted, but at least he wouldn't have been stabbed in the back quite as much as he was.
 
Raoul said:
This may be a year when Trump loses and his unpopulariy drags the GOP out of control of Congress, in which case Hillary would not make the same mistake Obama did by playing nice during her first two years. She will ram every progressive policy imaginable through before the mid terms and possibly replace a SCOTUS justice or two.
Click to expand...

That would be the fantasy scenario; I've resigned myself to the defeat of Trump being the political high-point of the next 8 years.

(edit: I meant in India and the US. We have national elections in 2019 and I've already given up on those). So HRC better do the minimum in November.
 
Pretty sure Hillary has widdled her VP choices down to Tim Kaine and Liz. I think she will go with Liz.
 
langster said:
Yeah, but I can see Hillary stabbing them in the back, whereas Obama's biggest failing (imho) was trying for partisanship when he was first elected in to office. I think he tried to include and appease the GOP and Republicans way too much where as he should really have just said "feck em" and forced his agenda through. Admittedly they would have resisted, but at least he wouldn't have been stabbed in the back quite as much as he was.
Click to expand...
I think the issue that highlights the failure you refer to is when the Democrats opted to prop up the health insurance industry instead of making real change to our health system. To me, they had control of both houses and the White House, and still somehow decided to make concessions with the GOP.
 
Carolina Red said:
I think the issue that highlights the failure you refer to is when the Democrats opted to prop up the health insurance industry instead of making real change to our health system. To me, they had control of both houses and the White House, and still somehow decided to make concessions with the GOP.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for sure. There were a few things in his first year or two that he backtracked on and tried to appease the Republicans with and they just fecked him over and voted against him. It was sad to see, when he could have got them through, health care being the biggest failure.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why he did it, and I respect him for doing so, but they didn't and no way on earth, if the shoe was on the other foot would a Republican President have done the same. That's what was so frustrating about it all. He was trying to play nice, and they just laughed at him for it.

I think he knows now though and hindsight is a beautiful thing.
 
Raoul said:
She could wind up President herself, which would surely "Trump" (hehe) her Senatorial ambitions.
Click to expand...
My ideal ticket was Bernie and Liz, so her going in as VP would at least be something... Then if something does happen with emails and Hillary, happy days! Lol
 
berbatrick said:
That would be the fantasy scenario; I've resigned myself to the defeat of Trump being the political high-point of the next 8 years.

(edit: I meant in India and the US. We have national elections in 2019 and I've already given up on those). So HRC better do the minimum in November.
Click to expand...

If she gets the house then minimum wage and climate bill won't be out of the question. Paid leave, student loan etc... can be patched by executive orders.

This election is all about the Supreme Court though. Never since Eisenhower and the Warren court have the prospect of a liberal SC seems so bright.

I think as things stand, we won't see much of a difference from her in comparison with Barry in office during 10-12. Tread lightly, keep the economy stable, focus on getting re-elected, then pass a slew of progressive policies by executive orders near the end.
 
Carolina Red said:
My ideal ticket was Bernie and Liz, so her going in as VP would at least be something... Then if something does happen with emails and Hillary, happy days! Lol
Click to expand...

Bernie is pretty much done - he has played an effective role in expanding Democracy for Dems as well as pushing various policies like a minimum wage hike etc.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
If she gets the house then minimum wage and climate bill won't be out of the question. Paid leave, student loan etc... can be patched by executive orders.

This election is all about the Supreme Court though. Never since Eisenhower and the Warren court have the prospect of a liberal SC seems so bright.

I think as things stand, we won't see much of a difference from her in comparison with Barry in office during 10-12. Tread lightly, keep the economy stable, focus on getting re-elected, then pass a slew of progressive policies by executive orders near the end.
Click to expand...
The only thing executive orders can do is enforce more or enforce less existing law. She will need to hope for control of Congress like Obama had 2008-2010 in order to have a chance to push through progressive policies.

And with the groundswell of support for Sanders, would that not simultaneously be the pathway for reelection?
 
Raoul said:
Bernie is pretty much done - he has played an effective role in expanding Democracy for Dems as well as pushing various policies like a minimum wage hike etc.
Click to expand...
I know. I'm referring to if Liz does accept the VP role... happy days as in if something happened and Hillary had to leave office.
 
Raoul said:
Bernie is pretty much done - he has played an effective role in expanding Democracy for Dems as well as pushing various policies like a minimum wage hike etc.
Click to expand...

Seriously, he has appeared to capture serious support from lots of younger voters. He has energised a massive part of the country, and he has also resonated with lots of older voters too. Do you think he may have paved the way for more progressive policies and candidates in the future? And do you think he might have started something that will eventually push on further?

It does seem as a large part of the USA is coming round to more progressive and "fair" ideas, and moving away from the more privileged or selfish attitudes that seem very prevalent in American society and culture.
 
Carolina Red said:
The only thing executive orders can do is enforce more or enforce less existing law. She will need to hope for control of Congress like Obama had 2008-2010 in order to have a chance to push through progressive policies.
Click to expand...

It tend to be a fair bit murky, depends on how you choose to interpret the law, that's why the right wingers push Obama's EOs to court all the time. For you guys sake, I hope Drumpf continues digging his hole and you flip the House this cycle, but realistically you are looking at 2020 at the earliest to regain full control of Congress.

Carolina Red said:
And with the groundswell of support for Sanders, would that not simultaneously be the pathway for reelection?
Click to expand...

Young voters are notoriously unreliable. Clinton takes a lot of flak for triangulating, but if you can't count on one demographic to vote reliably then you need to make up the deficit somewhere else. Sanders's 'revolution' needs to prove that they are not a flash in the pan like OWS but actually get organized to be the left's version of the conservative movement.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
It tend to be a fair bit murky, depends on how you choose to interpret the law, that's why the right wingers push Obama's EOs to court all the time. For you guys sake, I hope Drumpf continues digging his hole and you flip the House this cycle, but realistically you are looking at 2020 at the earliest to regain full control of Congress.
Click to expand...
The non-murky part is that you can't use executive orders to create new legislation.
Young voters are notoriously unreliable. Clinton takes a lot of flak for triangulating, but if you can't count on one demographic to vote reliably then you need to make up the deficit somewhere else. Sanders's 'revolution' needs to prove that they are not a flash in the pan like OWS but actually get organized to be the left's version of the conservative movement.
Click to expand...
These "young voters" aren't going to be that "young" anymore by 2020, and Bernie's push for progressive social democratic policies are widespread, so I imagine support for these things will grow over the next 4 years rather than shrink.
 
GOP delegates are apparently trying to wiggle out of being forced to Trump at the convention. Trump claims that would be illegal. This will get tasty in the coming weeks.
 
Grinner said:
You do love a bit of name-dropping, don't you.

He should just see out his days spending the money from his oven chips empire.
Click to expand...

I only mention that because I was surprised at how little game McCain actually had -- and this was before he picked Palin. And that was 8 years ago. One can only imagine what his mental faculties will be like over the next six years. Better to have a Dem serve in that seat than someone who can barely hold a coherent thought. Even if he didn't mean to suggest that Obama was "directly responsible for Orlando" the fact is that he said it, which is beyond outrageous. Where these clowns, Trump and McCain and others, are going is that Obama is an agent of ISIS. That is what they want Americans to believe. Screw them the moronic minions.

Let me copy and paste for you another email I received today from a Trump supporter:

I believe he engages in nostalgic romanticization of Islam that coupled with his fathers anti-colonial and anti European bias leads him to an anti-American agenda. ​

I know this theory has been around for a while, that Obama harbors a secret hatred of America and that he romanticizes Islam. I suppose that could be true, but there isn't a scintilla of evidence to support the claim that he "engages in nostalgic romanticization of Islam" and that his agenda is "anti-American". One can reasonably object to his Middle East policy but one cannot plausibly argue that Obama's "agenda" is "anti-American".
 
Carolina Red said:
Trump could end up shattering the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Spock said:
If Trump ends up being the Rep nominee, he will shatter the party.
Click to expand...

The NeverTrumpers will definitely launch an insurrection between now and the convention. The rules committee meet a week or so before and may change the rules to unbind all Trump delegates, which would cause a massive riot and make the GOP seem like a banana republic party on the brink of implosion. All Hillary has to do is continue looking vaguely normal and keep chipping away at Trump's gaffs.
 
Raoul said:
GOP delegates are apparently trying to wiggle out of being forced to Trump at the convention. Trump claims that would be illegal. This will get tasty in the coming weeks.
Click to expand...
Finally, the GOP starts to crack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.