|
Post by bashamwonderland on Aug 3, 2016 11:52:26 GMT
If the political classes listened and accurately represented the will and fears of the People instead of self-serving and pandering to the liberal agenda, we wouldn't have a presidential candidate who had to pretend to be a lunatic to get through to people. I really hope Trump wins. Not because I agree with his theories or methods, but because the people need to show the global system that it doesn't work for us anymore. Lol. 'lol' indeed. Keep up the stunning contributions.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Aug 3, 2016 13:28:18 GMT
talking of ukip steven woolfe seems like best candidate to take over plus the left cant use the racist excuses with him considering his background would be funny seeing them trying to put him down . He isn't the best candidate as he isn't a candidate at all as he didn't put in his nomination until too late, WHOOPS.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Aug 3, 2016 15:04:31 GMT
Fresh divisions are emerging within the US Republican Party over its presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Republican donor Meg Whitman has endorsed his rival Hillary Clinton, saying Mr Trump's "demagoguery" had undermined the national fabric.
Senior party activist Jan Halper-Hayes told the BBC she thought Mr Trump was "psychologically unbalanced".
In the latest controversy, Mr Trump has refused to support two senior figures in his own party.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on Aug 3, 2016 15:07:09 GMT
'lol' indeed. Keep up the stunning contributions. The USA isn't a particularly liberal country, though, just thought it was an odd thing to bring up. There are individual states that are fairly liberal, which is fair enough, but the federal government isn't, especially with the Republicans controlling both houses of congress and the senate. The word liberal means different things to different people, too. Some in the USA would consider abortion liberal, yet over here it's pretty much a basic human right. Would you consider allowing abortion clinics as pushing the liberal agenda?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 3, 2016 15:59:14 GMT
If the political classes listened and accurately represented the will and fears of the People instead of self-serving and pandering to the liberal agenda, we wouldn't have a presidential candidate who had to pretend to be a lunatic to get through to people. A couple of points, bolded. Historically speaking the best defence of 'representative democracy' is to moderate and lead the 'people' (I object to the capital - were not, by and large, an organic mass, we're a bunch of ignorant, credulous oafs.). The will of the people is nasty, brutish and short, as are their lives in a classical representative democracy, and must be restrained for the good of us all. That's not just liberal, that's conservative as well. I quite like repdem because it stops you lot doing mad things like setting up internment camps for sedulous lesbians or leaving the EU - that's what it's for. A country run by Trump supporters would be a charnel house, and bring down the comfortable life that our rulers provide for the likes of you under representative democracy. He's not pretending.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 3, 2016 20:40:44 GMT
Fresh divisions are emerging within the US Republican Party over its presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Republican donor Meg Whitman has endorsed his rival Hillary Clinton, saying Mr Trump's "demagoguery" had undermined the national fabric.
Senior party activist Jan Halper-Hayes told the BBC she thought Mr Trump was "psychologically unbalanced".
In the latest controversy, Mr Trump has refused to support two senior figures in his own party. Demagogue is certainly a word that the Democrats are enjoying using at the moment. Then again it's a tactic that Obama hasn't been shy of using, but far more subtely. The Republicans are running around saying everything is ok when senior people are voting for Clinton because of the hatred of Trump. I don't think everything is ok when they'll vote for the enemy
|
|
|
Post by The Bearded Oxonian on Aug 4, 2016 10:46:41 GMT
It was being reported yesterday that Trump kicked a baby out of one of his rallies for crying.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Aug 4, 2016 11:24:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Aug 7, 2016 8:04:44 GMT
The Trump election campaign just keeps on giving! 'Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has suggested that the November election could be "rigged". He told a rally in Columbus, Ohio, that he had heard "more and more" that the contest would be unfair. He offered no immediate evidence.'
'At another event he called Democratic rival Hillary Clinton "the devil".''Mr Trump has come under fire from across the political divide for remarks he made about the parents of a US Muslim soldier killed in action.'
'Earlier this year, he also complained the Republican primary system was also "rigged" amid party efforts to stop his march to the candidacy.'
Full BBC Article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36950083No doubt there will be more to come. This man won't become president, will he? An American election rigged, that would never happen....... Wasnt Gore v Bush a little "iffy" with Bush' brother? in charge or part of counting the decisive Florida? area? Ballot boxes missing, voters turned away, spoilt papers, allegedly..... No could never happen. I think both candidates are scary, although I wouldnt like to see the result of a "debate" between Putin and Trump, could be very messy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2016 18:56:30 GMT
That election with Jed Bush was definitely rigged
|
|
|
Post by mojofilter on Aug 8, 2016 8:10:59 GMT
That election with Jed Bush was definitely rigged Bush did 9/11, the royal family are lizards who killed Diana, chemtrails control your mind, flouride in the water is used to make poor people sterile...
|
|
|
Post by grumpygit on Aug 10, 2016 11:16:14 GMT
I think Trumps views remind me of a certain Austrian whose rabble rousing led to millions of deaths. He advocated the beating up of protesters at his rallies.nSeems to hate gays. Has mimicked a disabled reporter. Has publicly ridiculed the parents of a dead Muslim serviceman. Now he eludes that someone from the NRA might just take out Hilary Clinton. The guy is unhinged, he should be sent to the nuthouse not the White House. God help America
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 10, 2016 12:24:26 GMT
Unfortunately, both sides are as shrill as each other. That election is really turning into the tallest little person winning. Bernie Sanders fans are nutters, the NRA are protecting their turf with Trump and Clinton's lot are racing around deflecting like crazy from their candidates failings.
I'm glad we aren't that bad.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 10, 2016 16:31:31 GMT
I think Trumps views remind me of a certain Austrian whose rabble rousing led to millions of deaths. He advocated the beating up of protesters at his rallies.nSeems to hate gays. Has mimicked a disabled reporter. Has publicly ridiculed the parents of a dead Muslim serviceman. Now he eludes that someone from the NRA might just take out Hilary Clinton. The guy is unhinged, he should be sent to the nuthouse not the White House. God help America Actually on gay rights, Trump is actually quite progressive for a Republican. He was just about the least anti-gay (though it would be a stretch to call him gay friendly) of all the Republican candidates. And he gave Peter Thiel one of the most prominent speaking slots at his convention. Agree with the rest of the post though!
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Aug 11, 2016 14:05:35 GMT
Trump has accused Obama of being the founder of Isis along with Hilary Clinton. He also remade his false claims about Obama being born in Kenya and being a secret Muslim.
Somebody needs to point out George W/the Republicans were in power in 2003 to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by grumpygit on Aug 11, 2016 17:25:27 GMT
Trump has accused Obama of being the founder of Isis along with Hilary Clinton. He also remade his false claims about Obama being born in Kenya and being a secret Muslim. Somebody needs to point out George W/the Republicans were in power in 2003 to Trump. The orange Nazi is too thick and stubborn to listen.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 11, 2016 20:30:36 GMT
Like anything with Trump, he'd have a reasonable point about foreign policy if he didn't go for the hyperbole so much and went for straight facts. But, he then goes on to say that he'd pull US troops of Iraq which will give ISIS a massive break.
There is an interesting stench starting to emanate around the Clinton Foundation. It all depends what breaks before the election starts.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 11, 2016 21:21:19 GMT
If Trump gets in God help us the c*nt will lead us all to war
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2016 12:30:40 GMT
So the latest poll of polls gives Clinton a 6.2% lead over Trump. Two questions: 1) Has there ever been a presidential race with two more dodgy contenders? 2) Seriously, does anyone on here empathise with or admire Trump in any way?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 12, 2016 12:48:34 GMT
1) I don't think so. The people that are voting for Clinton because she is a woman are as bad as those voting for Trump because of the wall. Completely ignorant. 2) Trump is offering a message of change to people who feel left out and ignored in a similar vein to UKIPs rise over here. It's a highly cynical way of campaigning based on sound bites and little policy, but little different to what Sanders has done on the other side of the political spectrum. Clinton certainly looks down on those sort of people and that is part of the her issue in her ivory tower. She should be running away with the campaign and right now be on the beach sipping cocktails because her opponent is an idiot and will hang himself with his own rope.
I don't generally admire Trump or have any time for him (like I don't 99% of politicians) but his shaking up the political scene in America has been interesting in the context of what has been happening in Europe. The staid nature of US politics has had a shock of energy into it and got into the establishments core. I can certainly admire the way he and Sanders have blown apart the DNC and RNC parties, and got people not into politics, engaged.
The more I see, the more the RNC and DNC got their selections horribly wrong. We are about to see a one term President.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Oct 12, 2016 12:55:31 GMT
1) I don't think so. The people that are voting for Clinton because she is a woman are as bad as those voting for Trump because of the wall. Completely ignorant. 2) Trump is offering a message of change to people who feel left out and ignored in a similar vein to UKIPs rise over here. It's a highly cynical way of campaigning based on sound bites and little policy, but little different to what Sanders has done on the other side of the political spectrum. Clinton certainly looks down on those sort of people and that is part of the her issue in her ivory tower. She should be running away with the campaign and right now be on the beach sipping cocktails because her opponent is an idiot and will hang himself with his own rope. I don't generally admire Trump or have any time for him (like I don't 99% of politicians) but his shaking up the political scene in America has been interesting in the context of what has been happening in Europe. The staid nature of US politics has had a shock of energy into it and got into the establishments core. I can certainly admire the way he and Sanders have blown apart the DNC and RNC parties, and got people not into politics, engaged. The more I see, the more the RNC and DNC got their selections horribly wrong. We are about to see a one term President. I would suggest many aren't voting for Hillary as she is a woman but rather because of Trump's views on women.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 12, 2016 13:25:17 GMT
Quite a lot of Trump's vote is people voting against 'the establishment', 'the system', the Washington elite, the political classes, the Clintons, Obama, the dynastic nature of the American presidency etc. Plus of course there are a lot of NRA nutters, racists, people blinded by 'celebrity', woman-haters and even a few Republicans!
So in a similar way as Brexit, people are voting AGAINST something rather than FOR something - which is why whatever this fool does or says he has kept the race a close one since he demonstrably isn't part of the political status quo (!) whereas Clinton very obviously is.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2016 13:43:05 GMT
It's interesting that all the states Trump is predicted to win are in the ultra-conservative mid west or south, described as 'redneck states' by one commentator, where '(supposed) Mexican rapists' and '(alleged potential) Muslim terrorists' are easy to project as anti-American hate figures.
There are some uncanny parallels with the Brexit vote. Here disillusioned working class people in northern towns who would previously have been staunch Labour supporters feel ignored, so vote for UKIP and to leave an EU they perceive as run by foreigners who don't have the interests of British people at heart. In the US, the downtrodden who see immigrants as a threat to their job prospects fawn to Trump, who's effectively running as an independent right wing loose cannon, disowned by the Republican party.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 12, 2016 14:25:18 GMT
It's interesting that all the states Trump is predicted to win are in the ultra-conservative mid west or south, described as 'redneck states' by one commentator, where '(supposed) Mexican rapists' and '(alleged potential) Muslim terrorists' are easy to project as anti-American hate figures. There are some uncanny parallels with the Brexit vote. Here disillusioned working class people in northern towns who would previously have been staunch Labour supporters feel ignored, so vote for UKIP and to leave an EU they perceive as run by foreigners who don't have the interests of British people at heart. In the US, the downtrodden who see immigrants as a threat to their job prospects fawn to Trump, who's effectively running as an independent right wing loose cannon, disowned by the Republican party. Would that be the "ultra conservative mid west or south states" that always votes Republican ? So the Republican voting Conservative States will (as always) vote for the Republican candidate. Why do you find that interesting ? I'm sorry but i don't see the "uncanny parallels with the Brexit vote" that you talk about ? This isn't about disillusioned Democrats switching sides due to immigration,its about states like Mississippi,the poorest state in the Union and with the most rednecks voting the way they have always voted.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2016 14:41:11 GMT
It's interesting that all the states Trump is predicted to win are in the ultra-conservative mid west or south, described as 'redneck states' by one commentator, where '(supposed) Mexican rapists' and '(alleged potential) Muslim terrorists' are easy to project as anti-American hate figures. There are some uncanny parallels with the Brexit vote. Here disillusioned working class people in northern towns who would previously have been staunch Labour supporters feel ignored, so vote for UKIP and to leave an EU they perceive as run by foreigners who don't have the interests of British people at heart. In the US, the downtrodden who see immigrants as a threat to their job prospects fawn to Trump, who's effectively running as an independent right wing loose cannon, disowned by the Republican party. Would that be the "ultra conservative mid west or south states" that always votes Republican ? So the Republican voting Conservative States will (as always) vote for the Republican candidate. Why do you find that interesting ? I'm sorry but i don't see the "uncanny parallels with the Brexit vote" that you talk about ? This isn't about disillusioned Democrats switching sides due to immigration,its about states like Mississippi,the poorest state in the Union and with the most rednecks voting the way they have always voted. The traditional Republican vote extends beyond the mid west and the south to the Rocky Mountain states and those on the Canadian border. But, according to recent polls, the states that look certain to vote for Trump are in the mid west and south, so it's not as straightforward as 'all Republican states will vote Trump'. It may turn out that way, but the polls don't indicate that yet. The parallels with Brexit were more about the manipulation of people's fears by UKIP and their Brexit allies in the UK and Trump in the USA. I would agree with you, on reflection, that the Trump supporters have probably always harboured those fears, whereas people in Burnley turning on Labour is a new phase in politics.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 12, 2016 15:17:50 GMT
Would that be the "ultra conservative mid west or south states" that always votes Republican ? So the Republican voting Conservative States will (as always) vote for the Republican candidate. Why do you find that interesting ? I'm sorry but i don't see the "uncanny parallels with the Brexit vote" that you talk about ? This isn't about disillusioned Democrats switching sides due to immigration,its about states like Mississippi,the poorest state in the Union and with the most rednecks voting the way they have always voted. The traditional Republican vote extends beyond the mid west and the south to the Rocky Mountain states and those on the Canadian border. But, according to recent polls, the states that look certain to vote for Trump are in the mid west and south, so it's not as straightforward as 'all Republican states will vote Trump'. It may turn out that way, but the polls don't indicate that yet. The parallels with Brexit were more about the manipulation of people's fears by UKIP and their Brexit allies in the UK and Trump in the USA. I would agree with you, on reflection, that the Trump supporters have probably always harboured those fears, whereas people in Burnley turning on Labour is a new phase in politics. "people in Burnley turning on Labour is a new phase in politics" Being born and bred in Burnley and still having family living there,im pretty knowledgeable about local politics there. 2010/2015 Burnley had a Lib dem MP. 2015 Labour won the seat with 37% of the vote,UKIP had 17.3%. In 1960s Burnley,Labour could count on 60% of the vote. The BNP won a seat on the Council as long ago as 2009. So to say the people of Burnley turned there backs on Labour because of Brexit is bull,the people of Burnley started turning there backs on Labour a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 12, 2016 16:24:18 GMT
The traditional Republican vote extends beyond the mid west and the south to the Rocky Mountain states and those on the Canadian border. But, according to recent polls, the states that look certain to vote for Trump are in the mid west and south, so it's not as straightforward as 'all Republican states will vote Trump'. It may turn out that way, but the polls don't indicate that yet. The parallels with Brexit were more about the manipulation of people's fears by UKIP and their Brexit allies in the UK and Trump in the USA. I would agree with you, on reflection, that the Trump supporters have probably always harboured those fears, whereas people in Burnley turning on Labour is a new phase in politics. "people in Burnley turning on Labour is a new phase in politics" Being born and bred in Burnley and still having family living there,im pretty knowledgeable about local politics there. 2010/2015 Burnley had a Lib dem MP. 2015 Labour won the seat with 37% of the vote,UKIP had 17.3%. In 1960s Burnley,Labour could count on 60% of the vote. The BNP won a seat on the Council as long ago as 2009. So to say the people of Burnley turned there backs on Labour because of Brexit is bull,the people of Burnley started turning there backs on Labour a long time ago. Yeh, fair point. Only since 2001 has Labour's vote in Burnley been squeezed by BNP / UKIP / independents, so it would be difficult for them to get the 50/60% they used to, but the voters have certainly spoken.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 12, 2016 20:43:19 GMT
1) I don't think so. The people that are voting for Clinton because she is a woman are as bad as those voting for Trump because of the wall. Completely ignorant. 2) Trump is offering a message of change to people who feel left out and ignored in a similar vein to UKIPs rise over here. It's a highly cynical way of campaigning based on sound bites and little policy, but little different to what Sanders has done on the other side of the political spectrum. Clinton certainly looks down on those sort of people and that is part of the her issue in her ivory tower. She should be running away with the campaign and right now be on the beach sipping cocktails because her opponent is an idiot and will hang himself with his own rope. I don't generally admire Trump or have any time for him (like I don't 99% of politicians) but his shaking up the political scene in America has been interesting in the context of what has been happening in Europe. The staid nature of US politics has had a shock of energy into it and got into the establishments core. I can certainly admire the way he and Sanders have blown apart the DNC and RNC parties, and got people not into politics, engaged. The more I see, the more the RNC and DNC got their selections horribly wrong. We are about to see a one term President. I would suggest many aren't voting for Hillary as she is a woman but rather because of Trump's views on women. I can only go on what I've seen, and a significant portion don't care about Trump as their focus to vote (before the past week anyway), it's about a woman in the White House and breaking the wall down. The fact the woman is flawed and has a questionable past doesn't seem to matter. A theory going around is that Trump is a coke head because all of his sniffling on camera. It makes a difference from the Clinton having a seizure shtick I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 16, 2016 9:57:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Oct 16, 2016 10:59:20 GMT
both would be poor presidents anyway don't see why there is only ridicule for trump and not Hilary thought she is no better .
|
|