American President discussion
517516
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 11 Nov 16 at 10:12
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084
No surprise really. It will be an interesting contest.
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 26 May 16 at 15:37
|
"The election of Trump or Clinton is the old illusion of choice that is no choice: two sides of the same coin.
In scapegoating minorities and promising to “make America great againâ€, Trump is a far right-wing domestic populist; yet the danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the world"
~John Pilger
www.rt.com/op-edge/344623-elections-us-war-obama-/
|
Trump has won despite all the establishment money spend against him.
I agree with John Pilger the less of two evils.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 11 Nov 16 at 10:13
|
>> I agree with John Pilger the less of two evils.
>>
My problem has always been that although I have an instinctive dislike of Clinton as a person, I can't really see that what she has allegedly done is all that wrong, in American terms.
I'm amazed that there are apparently some 30,000 emails to sift through, and wonder how she thought she would have been able to spare the time to be president as well as emailing non-stop.
Trump of course is a revolting person, possibly mentally deranged as CGN has pointed out, and has used language calculated to inflame people's worst passions.
But perhaps the best we can hope for is to reflect that people are not always what they pretend to be, and that having used the methods calculated to appeal to the American mood and basest instincts to get elected, he might conceivably reveal himself to be a different sort of president with all that behind him.
Ronald Reagan liked to present himself as a cheerful moronic joke cracker, but actually turned out to be not half bad at the job.
|
> My problem has always been that although I have an instinctive dislike of Clinton as
>> a person, I can't really see that what she has allegedly done is all that
>> wrong, in American terms.
She no doubt copped a lot of flack for a whole generation of politicians people are angry/feel let down by.
|
|
I hope our politicians are bright e ought to see the writing on the wall, Cameron certainly wasn't.
|
|
They probably can't even see the wall
|
|
I'm just loving the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left-leaning luvvies over Trump's victory. Granted he is a loud mouthed boor and not particularly nice (when did "nice" be a criterion for leadership?), but he is (a) most importantly not Clinton and (b) not part of the failed , self centred metropolitans who think they can ignore the opinions of "the little people".
|
'I'm just loving the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left-leaning luvvies over Trump's victory.'
Because you actually support the idea of Trump as president? Ugh.
'... he is (a) most importantly not Clinton and (b) not part of the failed , self centred metropolitans who think they can ignore the opinions of "the little people".'
So - two things that he is not. What wonderful qualities does he have that recommend him for his role?
He has shown a remarkable ability to harness naive Americans' fondness for conspiracy theories, he is supposedly "straight-talking" (which conveniently ignores his ability to insert his foot in his mouth) and he "relates to us and our concerns" (in other words, he's a shameless demagogue).
None of these recommend him. There are huge gaps in his policies - especially over foreign affairs - so no-one who voted for him knew what he would do on a range of issues; they took him on trust and there's little they can hold him to. (Take a politician on trust? Wow!)
Some of the things he has promised, like the wall (paid for by Mexico, remember), or the jailing of Clinton, will probably never happen.
Personally I couldn't care less about what the idiot voters in America do, but the trouble is, we aren't immune from the fall-out.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 12:38
|
Of course they're not idiot voters, any more than the Leave voters were here.
Trump cannot be as unsuitable as everyone thinks, after all he was elected by a number of people to be their Presidential candidate. That's not something anyone would do lightly.
Trump will now become a politician, learn when to say what, and how, and lose a lot of the attention grabbing rhetoric and shooting from the hip. He will still have the media looking for sound bites to hang him out on, and I suspect he will be a target for one or two nutters to take a shot at.
He will find that his more wild ambitions are stifled by government or others and things will trundle on pretty much as before - America will continue to be the richest country in the world but with many trappings of the poorest, but will be even more divided over politics, in much the way we've seen division here (I mean both here in C4P and across the UK if you can believe the media) over BREXIT.
I think there are a number of parallels with the BREXIT campaign and vote. I'm not going to elaborate as I don't want to revive that whole discussion and I'm sure some would feel aggrieved by my thoughts, even though that would not be the intent. Suffice to say I think we are in a New Age of politics and there are lessons to be learned from both events by what considers itself now a much more savvy electorate.
EDIT: Just read Cliff Pope's comment elsewhere which has some similarity to my last sentence and made me think that it's not just the electorate who need to learn lessons, the campaigners do too.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 13:01
|
"Of course they're not idiot voters..."
They elected George W. Bush.
To have made one such mistake might be regarded as carelessness; to have made two... Well, I suppose we'll just have to see what the Trump era looks like a few years down the line.
|
Trump also promised to withdraw the US from the North American Free Trade Agreement, place a 35 per cent tariff on Mexican imports, ask Congress to repeal Obamacare (removing health insurance from 24 million Americans) and deport more than 2 million “criminal†illegal immigrants.
He said he would do that on his first day in office. Yeah, right.
|
|
I've just listened to his acceptance speech on the radio and it sounded very gracious to me. That was followed by an american playwright (a supporter, I think) who said what a great actor he is. She claimed he'd modified how he enunciates his vowels for the speech.
|
|
There isn't a billionaire on earth who is not ruthless and has not left a trail of poorer and exploited people in his wake.
|
>>but he is (a) most importantly not Clinton
And that is, I think, very important. Trump is going to embarrass the US. Clinton may well have significantly damaged it and us.
>>(b) not part of the failed , self centred metropolitans who think they can ignore the opinions of "the little people".
Oh yes he is. He absolutely is. Wait and see.
Trump is not stupid and not an idiot. He won't do half the damage that people think he will, at least not outside the US. Within the US I think he will cause social division and discontent.
On balance though, if one had to choose between Clinton and Trump, Trump is less awful. Marginally.
How it came down to those two in the first place is another matter.
|
|
I'd be more sanguine if Republicans were not in the majority in Congress.
|
The trouble with insulting voters is that they tend to not then vote for you.
Regards, a British Deplorable.
|
"US President-elect Donald Trump must be given a chance to lead, his defeated rival Hillary Clinton has said." - www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37929562
As opposed to what?
|
From a conservative (small c) commentator.
Usual disclaimers by me: i.e. sources of claims made not checked. :-)
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/cerberus-trumps-triumph-is-americas-brexit-moment/
|
This is what amazes me - people in America throwing their toys out of the pram because they don't like the result of the election ... Who does that remind you of??
nypost.com/2016/11/09/protests-break-out-in-nyc-over-president-elect-trump/
Last edited by: Dog on Thu 10 Nov 16 at 08:54
|
|
It's been a bad year for grapes.
|
Perhaps not surprising when he has at various times said he will ban Muslim immigration (except Scottish ones, who "don't bother me"), repeal the healthcare laws, make abortion illegal, "bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding", de-restrict guns, and probably a few I have forgotten. He is also a climate change denier.
I think he will calm down a lot, now he's in. Or somebody will plug him.
|
People want jobs and to many have gone in America which is hitting so many people hard.
Not everybody can work in silicone valley or has a college education.I can understand the white voters, might sound rascist but not meant to be.
|
>> Not everybody can work in silicone valley
Is that the bit between the implants?
|
This isn't from my pea-sized brain but, I have big ears and I listen well:
"Trump is a salesman and, like all salesmen, he said what he said to get the deal done ... The slate is clean now".
|
Trump said the election would be rigged and hinted that he might not accept the result.
So, the election must have been rigged and he should resign or abdicate or whatever American presidents are supposed to do.
P.S. I gather that Clinton actually got more votes in total than Trump. Not that the Americans would be interested in PR.
|
|
But, he only said he wouldn't accept the result, if he lost :)
|
>> This isn't from my pea-sized brain but, I have big ears and I listen well:
>>
>> "Trump is a salesman and, like all salesmen, he said what he said to get
>> the deal done ... The slate is clean now".
>>
LISTEN TO THIS MAN (Perro). I have been trying to get my missus to understand just how clever the guy is (Donald). He didn't get to be a BILLIONAIRE by being stupid. He rattled cages, got the have nots on board and he has (to date) achieved his goal. I think his tone will moderate somewhat. I find the possibility of upsetting the oh so corrupt and stagnant status quo quite uplifting somehow.
I however, think that he will be limited by the establishment in a terminal manner. Just my thoughts.
|
|
No need to tell me Martine, I am a Trumpeter. Some BIG problems in America though - too big for any mere mortal to even begin to sort out IMO.
|
|
His father started the business he took over - that's the start of him being a billionaire. He didn't start out with nothing. I can only guess the brothels and bars his (German?) grandfather operated was the start of the wealth that was put into his father's real-estate business.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 10 Nov 16 at 23:00
|
>>This is what amazes me - people in America throwing their toys out of the pram because they >>don't like the result of the election ... Who does that remind you of??
Yes it certainly does seem to be the case that certain people are only happy when democracy gives them the result they want.
But what a dismal choice the Americans faced - a real case of the devil or the deep blue sea.
|
I'll go with the devil every time being I not a great swimmer.
:}
|
President Trump goes on a state visit to Israel. While he is on a tour of Jerusalem he suffers a heart attack and dies.
The undertaker tells the American Diplomats accompanying him "You can have him shipped home for $50,000, or you can bury him here, in the Holy Land for just $100".
The American Diplomats go into a corner and discuss for a few minutes. They come back to the undertaker and tell him they want The Donald shipped home.
The undertaker is puzzled and asks "Why would you spend $50,000 to ship him home, when it would be wonderful to be buried here and you would spend only $100!?"
The American Diplomats replied "Long ago a man died here, was buried here, and three days later he rose from the dead. We just can't take the risk".
|
Clinton lost and Trump won because of two key facts:
1. Trump polled nearly as many votes as Romney did in 2012.
2. Clinton polled 6 million votes fewer than Obama did in 2012.
Says it all..Pick a useless candidate and get stuffed (a lesson Labour should take but will ignore)
|
|
Makes you wonder what would have happened had Bernie gone up against Trump.
|
The Clintons wouldn't allow this to happen Bernie had to be stopped.
Straight talking honest politician the younger generation liked him.
|
|
I think he might well have won. He wasn't as popular with blacks and latinos but he would have given people a real choice. I think he had fewer skeletons in the closet than HC and he seemed very popular with young voters. I think I would have voted for him.
|
Bernie might have won.
Bernie might have lost.
Bernie might have had a heart attack.
Bernie might have been abducted by alien reptiles and taken to Mars.
I suspect the fourth option is more likely than the first but wdik.
|
Have you eaten to much honey madf ?
|
|
More convincing win than BREXIT - 55% v 45%. That's counting States, which is how it works out there.
|
>> More convincing win than BREXIT - 55% v 45%. That's counting States, which is how
>> it works out there.
>>
Not really. If you want to compare the US election with the referendum you would have to look at the popular vote which was actually 47.70% to Clinton and 47.50% to Trump.
|
In a straight competition to become a president surely a popular ballot is the correct method. I certainly don't understand why electoral colleges are used.
Hillary must be totally pee'd off, winning the popular vote but not the election!
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 11 Nov 16 at 01:52
|
>> In a straight competition to become a president surely a popular ballot is the correct
>> method. I certainly don't understand why electoral colleges are used.
>>
>> Hillary must be totally pee'd off, winning the popular vote but not the election!
>>
Just as UKIP are peed off with gaining circa 4 million votes at the G.E. and only having one M.P.
Those are the rules under which we currently play.
|
|
Trump means Trump. Let's get on with it.
|
>> Trump means Trump. Let's get on with it.
>>
He may have only four years to change things so finger out time :-)
Now which promise to undertake first ?
I understand he has already peed of the press by flying in to Washington not in " company" transport and excluding the hacks from soiling his own T- Bird.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/donald-trumps-plane-vs-air-force-one---which-is-more-impressive/
So is Hilary off to jail?
|
A number of celebs have vowed to leave the US if he gets in. Will they, won't they?
www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/miley-cyrus-amy-schumer-samuel-9224345
|
|
We should welcome the celebs here: they beat huddled masses any time.
|
>> A number of celebs have vowed to leave the US if he gets in. Will
>> they, won't they?
>>
>> www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/miley-cyrus-amy-schumer-samuel-9224345
Never heard of them.
|
>> Never heard of them.
>>
Not even the gorgeous Miley, Duncan?
Here you go.
youtu.be/W6DmHGYy_xk
Oh, wait. Mind bleach may be required.
|
>> Just as UKIP are peed off with gaining circa 4 million votes at the G.E.
>> and only having one M.P.
>>
>> Those are the rules under which we currently play.
>>
Yes, but its not democracy is it!
|
I'm not sure if proportional representation is any better but that is nearer to democracy.
Never mind we got the house of lords for mad men/women to stop them going to far.
|
>> I'm not sure if proportional representation is any better but that is nearer to democracy.
>>
Ok, but the downside is that you have no elected representatives.
The parties themselves pick a list of candidates, and the party which receives most votes gets X seats in the house, the next party gets Y etc etc etc.
So you have no constituency MPs as such.
And if the party puts a bad apple in one of the top positions on the list, you as a voter have no say.
You can't have a 'protest vote' against your local sleazy MP either.
|
|
That's one form of PR, there are many others.
|
|
Don't you usually end up with an impotent coalition too, with most forms?
|
>> Don't you usually end up with an impotent coalition too, with most forms?
>>
Plenty of countries have it and they all seem to manage.
|
SQ
>> Yes, but its not democracy is it!
>>
Well it's only been like this in the UK for at least two centuries and even 4 centuries .. and no serious attempt have been made to change it..
The people who complain in the UK about it had over 10 years in power to change it - and did not because they were winning with it. So until both major political parties agree to do something, nothing will be done.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 12 Nov 16 at 17:33
|
>> ..................democracy and the rule of law - until the vote goes against them.
>>
>> order-order.com/2016/11/11/guardian-journalist-tweet-presidential-assassination-call-deletes-account/
>>
Outrageous! There may be one or two times when one might call for the assassination of someone (Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Husain etc) and Trump may be a 100% a*** but unless the woman has a crystal ball his talking b***** is no reason to call for his assassination.
|
>> Well it's only been like this in the UK for at least two centuries and even 4 centuries .. and no serious attempt have been made to change it..
To some extent, there was very little awareness among public about the alternatives.
>> The people who complain in the UK about it had over 10 years in power to change it - and did not because they were winning with it. So until both major political parties agree to do something, nothing will be done.
That's the main issue. FPTP system benefits 2 party systems. Thus, those in power and opposition (the 2 largest parties) are not at all willing to change the system.
Interestingly the previous referendum was between FPTP and AV and not for PR.
|
>> That's the main issue. FPTP system benefits 2 party systems. Thus, those in power and
>> opposition (the 2 largest parties) are not at all willing to change the system.
>>
>> Interestingly the previous referendum was between FPTP and AV and not for PR.
Well that was what the LimpDems wanted. And what they got in the Referendum..
Their own fault for asking the wrong question..
(I have to say I am becoming increasingly annoyed by voters protesting that the other party won. Or politicians saying the voters voted the wrong way..Tough. Democracy means you always have losers.
Some losers appear to be perpetual losers)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 12 Nov 16 at 17:35
|
>>Tough. Democracy means you always
>> have losers.
>>
>> Some losers appear to be perpetual losers)
>>
But it is not a pure democracy when the popular vote winner does not get to represent the people. The system is clearly at fault when in 2000 Bush won the election but Gore won the popular vote and again in 2016 when Trump won the election but Clinton won the popular vote.
The person that the majority of people voted for is not The President. The system is skewed so that voters in smaller states have a bigger say than voters in larger states - again that is not a pure democracy.
I therefore think the protesters have a right to protest, but they may be better focusing their protests on getting the system changed to a more democratic one.
|
mega SQ!!!
>> I therefore think the protesters have a right to protest, but they may be better
>> focusing their protests on getting the system changed to a more democratic one.
>>
I would agree IF - and only IF - the Democrats has been out of power for decades and the voting system stopped them winning power. But it has not stopped them having a Democratic President for the past 8 years.
And what have they done about voting reform in that time? NOTHING..
Special pleading is risible when you have had the opportunity to change something and did - NOTHING.
See also the Labour Party - but even more so.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 12 Nov 16 at 17:34
|
If whoever won the popular vote, won the election, then Trump would have changed his electioneering strategy as would Clinton. The popular vote result would then have been different depending upon how successful each candidate was with their revised electioneering strategy and how good they were at getting their voters out.
As it was, given the electoral system, Trump was more successful at targeting the all important swing states than Clinton.
I wonder what you think about UKIP getting 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 election but only 1 MP compared to the Tories with 36.9% and 331 MPs... or worse, the SNPs 4.7% returning 56 MPs?
|
>> I wonder what you think about UKIP getting 12.6% of the vote in the 2015
>> election but only 1 MP compared to the Tories with 36.9% and 331 MPs... or
>> worse, the SNPs 4.7% returning 56 MPs?
If one believes in PR then, however wrong and misinformed one thinks UKIP is seats in parliament proportionate to votes are inevitable.
Bringing the SNP into the equation though is apples/oranges territory. Any form of PR that retained a constituency link would give an apparently disproportionate representation to regional parties that stand only in a limited number of seats but win them overwhelmingly.
|
>>
>> But it is not a pure democracy when the popular vote winner does not get
>> to represent the people.
That's by your definition of democracy.
One could equally argue that a snapshot taken of opinions on one day should not necessarily be binding in its entirety for the whole duration of a parliament. That's the point of the alternative, representative democracy. You give your representative your broad support, but he is under no obligation to carry out your wishes slavishly if circumstances change, and he may still be open to persuasion and revision over time.
If the overall vote winner was really the only pure democracy then you would need a system of continuous vote counting - technically feasible, but not seriously advocated by even the most ardent of the head-counting persuasion?
|
|
I reckon this democracy thing is seriously overrated. I mean we have given it a good go and recent events have clearly proved it doesn't work. Time for a change.
|
*PLEASE NOTE*
I have given mad f a thumbs up!
:}
|
So have I....that's a first:)
Pat
|
www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/
Don't click the link if you don't like the language but for me, and many others it just about sums it up!
.....and explains how I feel about the scowly face too:)
Pat
|
Well thanks for all the thumbs up. I had no idea they existed.
Your cheques are in the post..
|
He goes on a bit but he's not wrong.
The attitude of too many on the left (and I am more left than right I think) amounts to "god is on our side".
|
I saw a cartoon about the anti-Trump riots. The caption was something along the lines of "No wonder millennials riot, they were given prizes as children for coming last." Some truth in that, I think.
No, I do not think that the losing party has the right to protest. The whole point of democracy is that you have a winner and a loser.
No part of me felt like rioting on 2 May 1997.
|
|
Bremainers are a riot in themselves IMO.
|
"No, I do not think that the losing party has the right to protest"
YOU don't really understand democracy do you?
In a democracy everyone has a right to peaceful protest whether you agree with them or not
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 14 Nov 16 at 11:59
|
I like to think that Dog means "challenge the result" rather than protest - if he does, I tend to agree.
I say tend...where there has been foul play I can understand people feeling robbed. I suspect the FBI effect in the presidential elections was foul play.
The people who have been elected of course must represent all of the electors, not just the ones who voted for them. I think even Trump realises that.
|
|
I was replying to Mapmaker's post and the meaning of "protest" was quite clear.
|
|
I don't think he was saying they don't have the right, but that protesting against a democratic outcome because it doesn't align with your view is out of order
|
>> I don't think he was saying they don't have the right,
Well he did say
"I do not think that the losing party has the right"
So I'm not convinced.
|
I was using 'protest' in the Miners' Strike fashion. Thus:
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uselection/donald-trumps-victory-sets-off-protests-on-both-coasts/ar-AAk5hUT?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=LENDHP
"In Oakland, more than 100 protesters took to downtown streets. KNTV-TV reported that protesters burned Trump in effigy, smashed windows of the Oakland Tribune newsroom and set tires and trash on fire."
|
|
Violence is of course to be condoned but in a democracy people have a right to take to the streets to protest however unreasonable the cause might seem. Take that away and you are on the way to tyranny.
|
>> Violence is of course to be condoned but
You mean of course "is to be condemned" or alternatively "is not to be condoned".
|
To some extent yes, but there's also the view that once the democratic process has produced an outcome, people should accept it.
If that result is not what one voted for then that's tough.
|
>> No part of me felt like rioting on 2 May 1997.
Not sure I'd have said same in 83 or 87 but hey ho.
All three were landslides. Not really much to contest.
OTOH last two UK General Elections, Brexit and Trump/Clinton were marginal outcomes where lies and jiggery pokery did/could have affected outcome. Last time in UK right were defeated on those terms was February 74.
The right, at least in UK and US, control much of media, see Murdoch, Fox, HArmsworth and the Barclays. They also have money and the establishment's hold on levers of power. Do you really think they'd have said The whole point of democracy is that you have a winner and a loser and gone silent for a Brown led coalition, a Miliband SNP arrangement or a 52/48 vote for Remain?
Perhaps, without that advantage, street protests are only option.
Meanwhile the woman having the audacity to challenge TWMBO over use of Royal Prerogative has had to go into hiding (albeit in salubrious circs) :
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/11/article-50-claimant-gina-miller-safe-outside-brexit
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 14 Nov 16 at 21:14
|
Alternative John Lewis Christmas Advert - Donald Trump and Hillary
youtu.be/VDVU_TGLJU0
|
>> Alternative John Lewis Christmas Advert - Donald Trump and Hillary
>>
>> youtu.be/VDVU_TGLJU0
>>
I saw that on Facebook, but couldn't find a postable link!
|
Handy guide to the language used by the Trump meltdown lobby:
Fascism: anything I disagree with
Populism: anything the public likes
White people: stupid people
White women: stupid people / selfish bitches
White supremacy: election results that don't go my way
Middle America: s***hole
Rust Belt: s***hole but I kinda feel sorry for it
Experts: my friends who agree with me
Low information: ignorant masses
Internalised misogyny: dainty female brains warped by cultural messaging
Reach out: re-educate
White nationalists: Them
Cosmopolitans: Us
|
|
With regard to the Trump/Farage link-up, isn't there a convention that opposition politicians do not take upon themselves the role of talking to foreign leaders as if representing their own government?
|
I see that Trump wanted Farage to be UK's ambassador in USA.
I think TM can do a better trick by making Farage USA's representative in EU. That would be double bonanza for UK.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 22 Nov 16 at 13:05
|
>>I see that Trump wanted Farage to be UK's ambassador in USA.
That's the equivalent of Corbyn suggesting Rich Hall should be the USA's ambassador in the UK.
Trump ain't president yet, as Corbyn ain't PM, yet..........................................
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Tue 22 Nov 16 at 19:50
|
From the Independent...:
"Hillary Clinton’s lead in the US presidential election popular vote now stands at more than 1.7 million – despite the Democrat losing the overall election to Donald Trump.
With the last remaining ballots being counted, Mrs Clinton so far has 63.6 million votes compared to 61.9 million for her Republican rival – meaning she has received more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama.
The Democrat has received 48 per cent of votes counted so far compared to Mr Trump’s 46.7 per cent, according to figures compiled by the Cook Political Report."
Wow she must be fuming!
|
>>
>> Wow she must be fuming!
>>
>>
Probably wishing she had not neglected to canvass the states she complacently assumed she would win.
|
I see he has won the nomination - smokie