|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 16, 2016 11:03:59 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 . This thread is titled 'Trump watch'. Feel free to start one called 'Clinton watch' if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 16, 2016 12:27:30 GMT
Trump is flailing around as usual - but only saying what has been said about him I suppose. In other election this would be laughed out of the house, but the US election is some backwards I'm not surprised. Be interesting to see if Wikileaks dumps some more stuff for Trump to use at the next debate. Plenty of questionable stuff is coming out about the Foundation and all sorts
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 22, 2016 7:18:22 GMT
Just in case you have a last minute urge to vote for a first woman president............since the Press came out with something nasty Trump said about women in 2005!
EIGHT QUOTES FROM DIFFERENT BOOKS
Her actual words: everyday of her life
1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn f*cking flag up every morning at f*cking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 (2) "f*ck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning." From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90 (3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your f*cking ass over here and grab those bags!" Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book "The First Partner" p. 25 (4) "Stay the f*ck back, stay the f*ck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f*cking do as I say, Okay!!?" Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton 's FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139 (5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as "Bill Clinton") Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 (6) "You f*cking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84 (7) "Put this mother-fucker on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those f*cking sunglasses! We need to go back! Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 (8) "Come on Bill, put your dick away!....You can't f*ck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243
There it is ....book, chapter and page....the real Hillary! Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a No-Class act !! This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander-in-Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life . Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: "What difference at this point does it make?"
Most recent of her outbursts was to Obama when she learned that the FBI was investigating her: "Call off your f*cking dogs".
Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft,
"BROOMSTICK ONE "
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 22, 2016 8:54:54 GMT
Yep, Hillary is an unpleasant foul-mouthed bully. I'd rather have her finger on the button though, unless you think swearing at Putin might upset him?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 22, 2016 8:59:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yuriyeller on Oct 22, 2016 9:09:17 GMT
Just in case you have a last minute urge to vote for a first woman president............since the Press came out with something nasty Trump said about women in 2005! EIGHT QUOTES FROM DIFFERENT BOOKS Her actual words: everyday of her life 1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn f*cking flag up every morning at f*cking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 (2) "f*ck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning." From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90 (3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your f*cking ass over here and grab those bags!" Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book "The First Partner" p. 25 (4) "Stay the f*ck back, stay the f*ck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f*cking do as I say, Okay!!?" Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton 's FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139 (5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as "Bill Clinton") Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 (6) "You f*cking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84 (7) "Put this mother-fucker on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those f*cking sunglasses! We need to go back! Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 (8) "Come on Bill, put your dick away!....You can't f*ck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 There it is ....book, chapter and page....the real Hillary! Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a No-Class act !! This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander-in-Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life . Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: "What difference at this point does it make?" Most recent of her outbursts was to Obama when she learned that the FBI was investigating her: "Call off your f*cking dogs". Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft, "BROOMSTICK ONE " You said 'book, chapter and page' but haven't given the chapter details.
|
|
|
Post by outsidethebox on Oct 22, 2016 9:31:08 GMT
Always wondered why voting/polling cards don't have a "none of the above" option on them". Be interesting if combined with compulsory voting as in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Oct 22, 2016 9:59:06 GMT
Always wondered why voting/polling cards don't have a "none of the above" option on them". Be interesting if combined with compulsory voting as in Australia. Isn't that implied by a non vote? What do you do if 'none of the above' wins the seat?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 22, 2016 12:59:34 GMT
The worst part is Clinton didn't deny the Clinton Foundation was used as a pay to play outfit for access to her as Secretary of State. Would alarm me if Boris Johnson or Philip Hammond had a charity that took donations and got access to them. Dodgy as hell!
|
|
|
Post by outsidethebox on Oct 22, 2016 13:45:14 GMT
Always wondered why voting/polling cards don't have a "none of the above" option on them". Be interesting if combined with compulsory voting as in Australia. Isn't that implied by a non vote? What do you do if 'none of the above' wins the seat? To me a non-vote says "I don't care who wins and governs me". Physically taking the trouble to register a "none of the above vote" says I care about who governs or represents me and I'm not satisfied thay any of the candidates put forward can adequately perform the role. I always vote. It is disrespectful to those who fought and died for the right to vote not to. However, where none of the candidates have demonstrated they are up to the job I add my own "none of the above" option and write the reasons for not selecting candidates by their names. I'd urge others to do the same. If "none of the above" wins then in the name of democracy the parties need to reconsider their choice of candidate. The electorate should have an alternative to making do with the best of a bad bunch.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 22, 2016 20:53:57 GMT
Isn't that spoiling your ballot paper in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by mojofilter on Oct 23, 2016 7:50:41 GMT
Those eight quotes look a lot like b*llshit. But even so, presidents don't need to be nice. It is probably a disadvantage
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Oct 23, 2016 10:39:42 GMT
If "none of the above" wins then in the name of democracy the parties need to reconsider their choice of candidate. The electorate should have an alternative to making do with the best of a bad bunch. Define "reconsider". Are you suggesting that the vote should be held again, but with different candidates? That would be ridiculous. If you don't like a set of candidates, you can stand yourself. Anyone can stand for a seat.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Oct 23, 2016 11:04:43 GMT
Never understood why someone would stand for a seat till I went on a rush-hour tube.
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Oct 23, 2016 11:27:35 GMT
If "none of the above" wins then in the name of democracy the parties need to reconsider their choice of candidate. The electorate should have an alternative to making do with the best of a bad bunch. Define "reconsider". Are you suggesting that the vote should be held again, but with different candidates? That would be ridiculous. If you don't like a set of candidates, you can stand yourself. Anyone can stand for a seat. They start campaigning for the party nomination almost straight after the presidential election, if I was an American I couldn't think of anything worse than being forced to sit through that shit again, even Trump or Clinton as President.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Oct 24, 2016 8:55:13 GMT
The worst part is Clinton didn't deny the Clinton Foundation was used as a pay to play outfit for access to her as Secretary of State. Would alarm me if Boris Johnson or Philip Hammond had a charity that took donations and got access to them. Dodgy as hell! Then again The Donald's charitable foundation can be seen as equally as dodgy buying a life size portrait of Trump and paying off his fines for one of his holiday resorts. Some of the allegations about the Clinton Foundation are ridiculous such as only 10% of contributions go to charity. Independent reviews have shown the contributions* spent through overheads being 12%, external charity contributions 10% and 78% on the Foundation's own charitable work. Perfectly reasonable splits and the overheads were in line with other charities. *The split is from what I remember from reading an article on it but they maybe a % or 2 either way.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 24, 2016 12:08:51 GMT
The worst part is Clinton didn't deny the Clinton Foundation was used as a pay to play outfit for access to her as Secretary of State. Would alarm me if Boris Johnson or Philip Hammond had a charity that took donations and got access to them. Dodgy as hell! Then again The Donald's charitable foundation can be seen as equally as dodgy buying a life size portrait of Trump and paying off his fines for one of his holiday resorts. Some of the allegations about the Clinton Foundation are ridiculous such as only 10% of contributions go to charity. Independent reviews have shown the contributions* spent through overheads being 12%, external charity contributions 10% and 78% on the Foundation's own charitable work. Perfectly reasonable splits and the overheads were in line with other charities. *The split is from what I remember from reading an article on it but they maybe a % or 2 either way. Don't get me wrong, his foundation is pretty murky. Just cash to use for whatever you want But some of the stuff appearing on Wikileaks is pretty concerning re: the Clinton Foundation, let alone what else is already in the public. The fact Clinton didn't deny pay to play really make me notice it - it's like she doesn't care or see the problem. The foundation also pay men more than women! It makes the Trump Foundation seem positively virtuous in comparison, which for 99% of the world is an impossibility. All so very grubby for both candidates
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Oct 24, 2016 14:59:21 GMT
Then again The Donald's charitable foundation can be seen as equally as dodgy buying a life size portrait of Trump and paying off his fines for one of his holiday resorts. Some of the allegations about the Clinton Foundation are ridiculous such as only 10% of contributions go to charity. Independent reviews have shown the contributions* spent through overheads being 12%, external charity contributions 10% and 78% on the Foundation's own charitable work. Perfectly reasonable splits and the overheads were in line with other charities. *The split is from what I remember from reading an article on it but they maybe a % or 2 either way. Don't get me wrong, his foundation is pretty murky. Just cash to use for whatever you want But some of the stuff appearing on Wikileaks is pretty concerning re: the Clinton Foundation, let alone what else is already in the public. The fact Clinton didn't deny pay to play really make me notice it - it's like she doesn't care or see the problem. The foundation also pay men more than women! It makes the Trump Foundation seem positively virtuous in comparison, which for 99% of the world is an impossibility. All so very grubby for both candidates I have no doubts there are serious issues with the Clinton Foundation but I also seriously doubt Trump's Foundation is even vaguely cleaner and has been/will be used to promote his businesses just the same. What a horrible choice to have to make, although there is a clear winner in Hilary Clinton for me even if it is only as she is the least worse candidate.
|
|
|
Post by outsidethebox on Oct 24, 2016 17:23:18 GMT
If "none of the above" wins then in the name of democracy the parties need to reconsider their choice of candidate. The electorate should have an alternative to making do with the best of a bad bunch. Define "reconsider". Are you suggesting that the vote should be held again, but with different candidates? That would be ridiculous. If you don't like a set of candidates, you can stand yourself. Anyone can stand for a seat. Ok, firstly I doubt "none of the above" would win very often. On the rare occasion it does happen then, yes, hold another vote. It would make the paties seriously consider if it was an issue of policy or personality and get them out among the electorate to see what went wrong. You're right, anyone can stand for a seat but independent candidates seldom win (just one on Oxford City Council, I think). However, a "none of the above" win may actually encourage a strong, popular, independent candidate to step forward for the revote and possibly take the seat. I think it would be a worthwile and valuable addition to the electoral process. As for the US, ridiculously long winded process but if that's the way they like to do things then who am I to argue.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Oct 24, 2016 18:43:11 GMT
Define "reconsider". Are you suggesting that the vote should be held again, but with different candidates? That would be ridiculous. If you don't like a set of candidates, you can stand yourself. Anyone can stand for a seat. Ok, firstly I doubt "none of the above" would win very often. On the rare occasion it does happen then, yes, hold another vote. It would make the paties seriously consider if it was an issue of policy or personality and get them out among the electorate to see what went wrong. You're right, anyone can stand for a seat but independent candidates seldom win (just one on Oxford City Council, I think). However, a "none of the above" win may actually encourage a strong, popular, independent candidate to step forward for the revote and possibly take the seat. I think it would be a worthwile and valuable addition to the electoral process. As for the US, ridiculously long winded process but if that's the way they like to do things then who am I to argue. Could I suggest that UKIP stood in for the role of "none of the above" in the last election? Not a chance of getting many seats, despite what a few on here may think, but they certainly caused some ripples. I'm not saying I'm against the idea, it would be an interesting experiment for sure.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 24, 2016 18:57:31 GMT
Could I suggest that UKIP stood in for the role of "none of the above" in the last election? Maybe for some people - but I would never vote for them even if they were unlikely to win the seat!
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 24, 2016 21:06:58 GMT
Don't get me wrong, his foundation is pretty murky. Just cash to use for whatever you want But some of the stuff appearing on Wikileaks is pretty concerning re: the Clinton Foundation, let alone what else is already in the public. The fact Clinton didn't deny pay to play really make me notice it - it's like she doesn't care or see the problem. The foundation also pay men more than women! It makes the Trump Foundation seem positively virtuous in comparison, which for 99% of the world is an impossibility. All so very grubby for both candidates I have no doubts there are serious issues with the Clinton Foundation but I also seriously doubt Trump's Foundation is even vaguely cleaner and has been/will be used to promote his businesses just the same. What a horrible choice to have to make, although there is a clear winner in Hilary Clinton for me even if it is only as she is the least worse candidate. I am glad I'm not American and having to make a choice that I wouldn't want to make. How to elect a individual you know is either so corrupt they should be in court and then jail (let alone the party seemingly breaking various federal laws), or one that cannot hold a thought for 5 minutes that is largely despised by the party he is running for, is beyond even me. I suspect it will get even worse HRC in the days leading to the election. If she wins, who knows what federal sanctions she may face if certain emails reappear.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Oct 25, 2016 7:56:55 GMT
I have no doubts there are serious issues with the Clinton Foundation but I also seriously doubt Trump's Foundation is even vaguely cleaner and has been/will be used to promote his businesses just the same. What a horrible choice to have to make, although there is a clear winner in Hilary Clinton for me even if it is only as she is the least worse candidate. I am glad I'm not American and having to make a choice that I wouldn't want to make. How to elect a individual you know is either so corrupt they should be in court and then jail (let alone the party seemingly breaking various federal laws), or one that cannot hold a thought for 5 minutes that is largely despised by the party he is running for, is beyond even me. I suspect it will get even worse HRC in the days leading to the election. If she wins, who knows what federal sanctions she may face if certain emails reappear. Trump is worse than somebody who can't hold a thought for 5 minutes. He is a racist, a xenophobe and a misogynist. He is divisive blaming immigrants (ie. Illegal Mexican immigrants are "rapists and murderers) and Muslims for a lot of America's ills. He uses the legal system to bully opponents and he has constantly lied about being self made as he isn't. He was able to build his business thanks to his Dad's and family's money, as well as his Dad's contacts. He would never have got his 1st multi million dollar loan without his Dad, and his Dad's contact guaranteeing the development if his son went bust. He claims to be knowledgeable about utilising the tax system with his taxes that showed a near $1bn loss but his Accountant did the return, not Trump. He is impulsive, short tempered and he should permanently move around with his foot in his mouth as he puts it there often enough. His suggestion to carpet bomb Syria is utterly scary and shows a complete lack of understanding. Do you think he will listen to his Military Advisors or follow his impulses? I seriously fear the latter and this is a man who would have his finger on the Nuclear button.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2016 8:27:34 GMT
It is a contest between two rather awful people.
However. Clinton is an awful person who has some sort of policy framework, thinks before she speaks and promotes at least the idea of racial/religious equality in the country she is aiming to lead. Trump is an awful person who is also a misogynist bigot with no consistent policies, seems to have no concept of thinking about what he says before he says it, seems to have no grasp of world politics and is only really interested in his own posturing ego.
So yes, two dreadful individuals - but one who is so much more awful than the other one that surely the American people (which includes Muslims, Mexicans, women etc!) cannot vote him in?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 25, 2016 12:37:21 GMT
I am glad I'm not American and having to make a choice that I wouldn't want to make. How to elect a individual you know is either so corrupt they should be in court and then jail (let alone the party seemingly breaking various federal laws), or one that cannot hold a thought for 5 minutes that is largely despised by the party he is running for, is beyond even me. I suspect it will get even worse HRC in the days leading to the election. If she wins, who knows what federal sanctions she may face if certain emails reappear. Trump is worse than somebody who can't hold a thought for 5 minutes. He is a racist, a xenophobe and a misogynist. He is divisive blaming immigrants (ie. Illegal Mexican immigrants are "rapists and murderers) and Muslims for a lot of America's ills. He uses the legal system to bully opponents and he has constantly lied about being self made as he isn't. He was able to build his business thanks to his Dad's and family's money, as well as his Dad's contacts. He would never have got his 1st multi million dollar loan without his Dad, and his Dad's contact guaranteeing the development if his son went bust. He claims to be knowledgeable about utilising the tax system with his taxes that showed a near $1bn loss but his Accountant did the return, not Trump. He is impulsive, short tempered and he should permanently move around with his foot in his mouth as he puts it there often enough. His suggestion to carpet bomb Syria is utterly scary and shows a complete lack of understanding. Do you think he will listen to his Military Advisors or follow his impulses? I seriously fear the latter and this is a man who would have his finger on the Nuclear button. I was reading a blog about the their election by Scott Adams about Trump playing campaign as a "master persuader" -http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149983115751/why-trump-doesnt-scare-me . In particular " Making a Huge First Offer Trump has been consistent for decades in his practice of making an aggressive first offer and negotiating down to something reasonable. He talks about it in his book, The Art of the Deal. So when Trump announced he would deport 11 million people, I saw that as an aggressive opening offer, consistent with his history, and nothing worthy of fear. Most of the world saw it as a final offer.
It wasn’t.
Recently we learned that my interpretation from last year was accurate. Trump is now focusing on the “criminal” aliens who committed additional offenses after entering the country illegally. He plans to “prioritize” that group and get around to the rest at some future date, when circumstances might be different. That’s how a Master Persuader talks.
The problem is that Trump can’t say today that he will be lenient with illegal immigrants tomorrow because that would encourage more people to enter the country. The best play – and the only one likely to work – is to scare people into thinking he will deport everyone, then soften after the bad ones have been expelled and the wall is working. Trump is approaching immigration like a persuader. If you trust him to be kind later, his approach looks both humane and practical. But if you are afraid of the dark, and afraid of New York-style talking, you might see something sinister. I predicted last year that Trump would soften on deporting 11 million people, and he is doing just that, right on schedule. To me, Trump has never been scary on this topic. He was acting like a Master Persuader and using fear to slow incoming immigration as well as to get elected" That very thing happened with Muslims. First it was all Muslims, more recently the tone has drastically changed and been more focused. I'm not backing him, but seeing that blog changed my perception slightly in terms of what he is saying and why he does it when is on script. Off script, it's a car crash. Much like Clinton, to be fair. My suspicion is that he will listen to people more than we assume he would - I don't fall for the façade that he is a reckless and impulsive maverick. At all. He's a just a sales person being a sales person that has some of those tendencies but isn't it all day every day. The US law will prohibit him doing certain things, along with other international laws re carpet bombing. Maybe I've read him wrong, but I don't think so. Clinton and Trump are shrewder than we give them credit for.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2016 12:59:57 GMT
I don't agree. Trump is a classic bully - using his wealth and his lawyers to get his own way. And it is all very well saying stupid things (or starting a negotiation with 'an aggressive first offer' if you prefer that!) when you are a billionaire in business or a host on a TV game show - try that with international leaders and you will find some who won't respond to that or back down. And then we are ALL in deep trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 25, 2016 15:07:58 GMT
I think both are ultimately different types of bullies and Trump is a version that rarely exists in today's world which is why he really stands out. Brash, boorish, uncaring, aggressive - a hark back to the 70s/80s if you will. I don't endorse his behaviour, but I do think he is far sharper than he is given credit for. Part of me is interested to see how he would get on as a leader of a country. Part of me isn't. Same for Clinton in all honesty.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 25, 2016 17:05:59 GMT
I think both are ultimately different types of bullies and Trump is a version that rarely exists in today's world which is why he really stands out. Brash, boorish, uncaring, aggressive - a hark back to the 70s/80s if you will. I don't endorse his behaviour, but I do think he is far sharper than he is given credit for. Part of me is interested to see how he would get on as a leader of a country. Part of me isn't. Same for Clinton in all honesty. I'm not going to suggest that he isn't sharp in some ways - he's clearly a master at brand management, and has done a stunning job of manipulating a certain demographic of the US electorate into backing him regardless of anything he says or does. It's won him a nomination as the representative of a party with which he shares only a moderate proportion of policy views. But he's been running a campaign for almost a year now, and still shows zero sign of real knowledge of what the President of the United States does. He shows minimal foreign policy understanding, minimal domestic policy understanding with absolutely no nuance, and seemingly minimal constitutional understanding of the role of his Office, and the other branches of the US legislature. He seems capable of discussing issues only in terms of half a dozen big, populist sound bites. In both the first and third debates, he started well before descending into whining, bickering and incoherent rambling. The US president doesn't have to be a policy wonk - he just needs to appoint good advisors who are. But I would expect to see some evidence of deeper understanding by now, or at least some evidence of an ability to quickly process and evaluate new facts and information. I've seen nothing of that from Trump - in fact the worry is becoming that, at 71 years old, he may no longer be able to assimilate all the information he needs to do the job. And when you tie in his misogyny, casual racism and almost childlike sensitivity to criticism, then he would be a terrifying prospect as US President. I think Conservative author PJ O'Rourke said it best back in May: "I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises," O'Rourke continued. "It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."On another note - there are several other candidates that US voters can back if they (quite reasonably) reject both the options that the major parties are offering. Unfortunately the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, is a weird stoner who keeps having brain freezes live on camera. Jill Stein, the Green candidate, is lacking substance and is way to the left of most mainstream voters. Evan McMullin, an Independent NeverTrump Conservative, is on the ballot in several states and is looking like he may actually win Utah.....which would be a US electoral oddity, but doesn't look like it will have great influence on the election as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 25, 2016 20:39:11 GMT
I don't think Trump cares to know policy detail or is that motivated by it. Why bother now? Which is amazing considering he could be one of the most powerful people in the world. Very much the anti policy of Clinton who has a large amount of micro policy details in her that she can repeat easily. If you could take Trump's outward personality and Clinton's level of detail, you'd have a very good candidate. Instead, it's asking to a blind man to steer the car while a deaf person is responsible for the accelerator.
In some respects, Trump is the worst candidate for Clinton to run against because he just will not conform to the system and is just so persistent.
I see some people saying if only Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't so whacko on immigration, I'd vote for them. The 2 party system is really hurting the US. The legacy of Trump could be to get people who were unengaged back into politics again.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 26, 2016 19:19:13 GMT
I don't think Trump cares to know policy detail or is that motivated by it. Why bother now? Which is amazing considering he could be one of the most powerful people in the world. Very much the anti policy of Clinton who has a large amount of micro policy details in her that she can repeat easily. If you could take Trump's outward personality and Clinton's level of detail, you'd have a very good candidate. Instead, it's asking to a blind man to steer the car while a deaf person is responsible for the accelerator. In some respects, Trump is the worst candidate for Clinton to run against because he just will not conform to the system and is just so persistent. I see some people saying if only Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't so whacko on immigration, I'd vote for them. The 2 party system is really hurting the US. The legacy of Trump could be to get people who were unengaged back into politics again. Although I think in the end, Trump is the best candidate for Clinton to run against because he's the one she can beat. Almost no one is pulling the lever for Clinton with any particular excitement. They're doing so because: a) They're committed Democrats and always vote on party lines b) They believe in the work that the Obama administration has been doing, and see Hillary as the best (only) option to ensure that isn't rolled back, or c) They're frickin' terrified of Donald J. Trump and will vote for anyone to stop him from getting to the White House. I'm not sure that Hillary would be favoured to win if it wasn't for group c). Reckon if someone like Marco Rubio was the Republican candidate - charismatic, smart & knowledgable - then she'd be in a whole heap of trouble. Even if he is severely inexperienced, and prone to the occasional high profile gaffe (so is/was Obama). For all that Trump has managed to engage a portion of the electorate that aren't typically engaged by politics.....he's also turned off a massive swathe of voters that are grudgingly going to vote for Hillary. Or just stay home. Also, you're absolutely right - the US is long, long overdue an expansion from 2 party politics. There's nuances of the political spectrum that just don't have representation under the current system. But if Trump's candidacy doesn't kick off a strong third party movement, either pre- or post-election.....then you have to believe that nothing will.
|
|