US presidential elections

First topic message reminder :

Morning all,

So after the win in Iowa for Ted Cruz last night where do we see this going?

I'm thinking Clinton v Rubio. Lots of twists and turns still to come though.

Again mate, keep that head buried.

Sanders isn't proposing full-blown communism, far from it. He's proposing a fairer politics where the lobbying of massive corporates and the super wealthy doesn't come before the needs of the people.

At the moment, according to your own logic, the super-rich are a cost funded by the poor. In the USA, they withdraw more than they contribute.

Lol

Love that you think it's ME with my head buried.

Enjoy escaping your island bubble and running away for a few months. All the best.

Another put-down comment that offers absolutely zero in terms of substance. Seems to be your speciality.

There are tens of millions of underpaid workers in the US and patience is wearing more thin than ever. Sanders' view is becoming increasingly mainstream, just look at the surge in popularity since he started. And it's not just young people, either. You think he's won all of these states just through only young people voting for him?

Sanders wants....Reduction of tuition fees..higher minimum wage..and an NHS style system..

Guess your Clement Attlee was a communist too..  

Ignorance of some posters is startling.

Wages aren't subject to a normal distribution curve, there'll always be more under the line than over it, hence the popularity of a guy that says he'll offer a better life to those people under without costing them anything.

Who wouldn't want to vote for that??!

Wages in the USA have no curve at all. It's a straight line.

Try again.

According to a Clinton memo...The race was going to be over in March ..Headed now for California on June 7..

Pr4wn wrote:Wages in the USA have no curve at all. It's a straight line.

Try again.

Back to school for some stats lessons.....

Cue predictable 'substance' response......

The only Problem a guy like Saunders has is ______ he walks into office with a bounce in his step, he does his inauguration pledge, he goes back to the Oval office, kicks off his ill fitting suit shoes, slips on his slippers, stretches himself, sits into his chair and says; "Let's get to work"

From that day forth, virtually every person he meets in the White house, even his aides, and both Houses of the US administration will be out to slow, stall and stop virtually anything he tries to do - because the concepts and plans will be alien to them.

Unfortunately for Bernie, he wouldn't be able to give all his junior online army centralised government jobs.

When you look at it, possibly the weakest placement for any social revolutionary in America is that White House.  It's a place where grand new ideas go to die a slow death.

Better for the soldiers of conscience to stay on the outside and keep up their fight from there.

Pr4wn wrote:Another put-down comment that offers absolutely zero in terms of substance. Seems to be your speciality.

There are tens of millions of underpaid workers in the US and patience is wearing more thin than ever. Sanders' view is becoming increasingly mainstream, just look at the surge in popularity since he started. And it's not just young people, either. You think he's won all of these states just through only young people voting for him?

Not only young people (point of reference: young people in this case being under thirty), but the majority of his voters would be from that demographic.

Sanders' view - doubling the minimum wage in four years - will simply lead to a great number of small and medium-sized businesses laying multitudes of people off because they wouldn't be able to afford the increase.

Surely anyone can see that?

I mean the minimum wage was recently increased in this country by a tiny fraction of what Sanders is proposing, and there were widespread fears of thousands of job losses (still waiting for the exact figures, though).

Again, nothing from you. Just a cheap remark. Keep them coming.

US average wages have shown no increase (after taking inflation into account) since the late 80s.

But the super-rich earn how much more?

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Another put-down comment that offers absolutely zero in terms of substance. Seems to be your speciality.

There are tens of millions of underpaid workers in the US and patience is wearing more thin than ever. Sanders' view is becoming increasingly mainstream, just look at the surge in popularity since he started. And it's not just young people, either. You think he's won all of these states just through only young people voting for him?

Not only young people (point of reference: young people in this case being under thirty), but the majority of his voters would be from that demographic.

Sanders' view - doubling the minimum wage in four years - will simply lead to a great number of small and medium-sized businesses laying multitudes of people off because they wouldn't be able to afford the increase.

Surely anyone can see that?

I mean the minimum wage was recently increased in this country by a tiny fraction of what Sanders is proposing, and there were widespread fears of thousands of job losses (still waiting for the exact figures, though).

Just like what happened when Blair introduced the minimum wage in the UK? Thought not.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Another put-down comment that offers absolutely zero in terms of substance. Seems to be your speciality.

There are tens of millions of underpaid workers in the US and patience is wearing more thin than ever. Sanders' view is becoming increasingly mainstream, just look at the surge in popularity since he started. And it's not just young people, either. You think he's won all of these states just through only young people voting for him?

Not only young people (point of reference: young people in this case being under thirty), but the majority of his voters would be from that demographic.

Sanders' view - doubling the minimum wage in four years - will simply lead to a great number of small and medium-sized businesses laying multitudes of people off because they wouldn't be able to afford the increase.

Surely anyone can see that?

I mean the minimum wage was recently increased in this country by a tiny fraction of what Sanders is proposing, and there were widespread fears of thousands of job losses (still waiting for the exact figures, though).

Just like what happened when Blair introduced the minimum wage in the UK? Thought not.

Oh yes, because the economic situation of the UK in 2000 was exactly the same as the USA today, wasn't it?

And you say I provide no substance!

US economy is improving....Obama had an idiot who nearly bankrupted the Country..

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Another put-down comment that offers absolutely zero in terms of substance. Seems to be your speciality.

There are tens of millions of underpaid workers in the US and patience is wearing more thin than ever. Sanders' view is becoming increasingly mainstream, just look at the surge in popularity since he started. And it's not just young people, either. You think he's won all of these states just through only young people voting for him?

Not only young people (point of reference: young people in this case being under thirty), but the majority of his voters would be from that demographic.

Sanders' view - doubling the minimum wage in four years - will simply lead to a great number of small and medium-sized businesses laying multitudes of people off because they wouldn't be able to afford the increase.

Surely anyone can see that?

I mean the minimum wage was recently increased in this country by a tiny fraction of what Sanders is proposing, and there were widespread fears of thousands of job losses (still waiting for the exact figures, though).

Just like what happened when Blair introduced the minimum wage in the UK? Thought not.

Oh yes, because the economic situation of the UK in 2000 was exactly the same as the USA today, wasn't it?

And you say I provide no substance!

Did I say they were? But the fact that they're not the same is irrelevant. The US economy has grown how much since the late 80s? And wages haven't gone up for anyone except the super-rich.

You think that's sustainable? You think that's just and fair? If so, you should see someone.

Did I say the current situation was just and fair?

I merely commented that doubling the minimum wage in such a short space of time would be counter-productive - it would harm more people than it would help.

Anyway, we shouldn't waste our time by talking about the ramblings of such an irrelevant politician.

It's Clinton v the people's champion Trump that matters.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Another put-down comment that offers absolutely zero in terms of substance. Seems to be your speciality.

There are tens of millions of underpaid workers in the US and patience is wearing more thin than ever. Sanders' view is becoming increasingly mainstream, just look at the surge in popularity since he started. And it's not just young people, either. You think he's won all of these states just through only young people voting for him?

Not only young people (point of reference: young people in this case being under thirty), but the majority of his voters would be from that demographic.

Sanders' view - doubling the minimum wage in four years - will simply lead to a great number of small and medium-sized businesses laying multitudes of people off because they wouldn't be able to afford the increase.

Surely anyone can see that?

I mean the minimum wage was recently increased in this country by a tiny fraction of what Sanders is proposing, and there were widespread fears of thousands of job losses (still waiting for the exact figures, though).

Just like what happened when Blair introduced the minimum wage in the UK? Thought not.

The MW which was a bare fraction above average low pay wage rates anyway? Thought not.

#nosubstance

The same doom warnings were forecast. What did we see? Large-scale economic growth.

Duty281 wrote:Did I say the current situation was just and fair?

I merely commented that doubling the minimum wage in such a short space of time would be counter-productive - it would harm more people than it would help.

Anyway, we shouldn't waste our time by talking about the ramblings of such an irrelevant politician.

It's Clinton v the people's champion Trump that matters.

I remember the Tories saying thet the introduction of the minimum wage would bankrupt the Country.....

Everything in life is a compromise......I'm sure raising it by a decent amount would be acceptable..

You really shouldn't be focusing on policies anyway being a TRUMP fan...

Pr4wn wrote:The same doom warnings were forecast. What did we see? Large-scale economic growth.

Attributable to the MW???? Hardly.

Doomsayers were idiots. I supported that MW as I did the new NLW.

But neither are on a par with what's proposed by Sanders.

Pr4wn wrote:Not everyone earns above average salaries. It wouldn't be the average otherwise.

It does, however, illustrate that far more people earn below the average salary than above it. And, as you know, the average salary in the US hasn't gone up since the 80s.

But go ahead, keep your head in that selfish little sandpit of yours and pretend like nothing is happening here.

Toppy's right though, in the sense that most(?) people who were 'socialist' in their teens/early 20s, move well to the right as they get older, for a variety of reasons, not always to do with salary.

You must be a complete donut if you think any of the candidates are going to bring in exactly what they propose...

Mexicans aren't paying for a wall....
Hillary isn't going to cure Alzheimer's in 8 years....
Muslims will be allowed into America...

Geez............Some naive types on here......

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Not everyone earns above average salaries. It wouldn't be the average otherwise.

It does, however, illustrate that far more people earn below the average salary than above it. And, as you know, the average salary in the US hasn't gone up since the 80s.

But go ahead, keep your head in that selfish little sandpit of yours and pretend like nothing is happening here.

Toppy's right though, in the sense that most(?) people who were 'socialist' in their teens/early 20s, move well to the right as they get older, for a variety of reasons, not always to do with salary.

GE2015 voter breakdown......IPSOS....
-----------

Age
------
25-34.......... Con 33 Lab 36
35-44.......... Con 35 Lab 35
45-54..........Con 36 Lab 33
55-64..........Con 37 Lab 31
0ver 65........Con 45 Lab 21.....

Move to the right when they are pensioners....

"Most" as they get older perhaps not !!..................

Not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not there Truss. Your IPSOS data would tend to agree, even if it isn't Earth-shattering. You will please note that I did say it wasn't all salary-related won't you? Do the over 65s not count then? They'll likely be in the group where it isn't salary-related..

I certainly agree there is a trend of movement to the right...But it seems a lot less of a gradual shift and more an instantaneous one when people hit pension age...

Is Megyn Kelly running for President?  Or maybe she's thinking of being Trump's vice President.  He's certainly helped her into that new chair she's sitting in with the lovely red dress - Trump loves red.

And this woman certainly knows how to keep herself in the limelight - "Trump, you did me wrong - but you got me this job...don't I look delightful?"  

Trump:  "Wonderful.  Wonderful  I told you all it needed was for you to clash with me.  I told you it was the best career step you'll ever take to mess with me and pick a fight.  Didn't I say that?  Glad it worked out for you - happy to have been able to help out.... I'm here too now to help your ratings."

Move over Megyn and give politics a chance?

As it stands as reported by the BBC:
Hilary Clinton says the race to the Democratic Nomination is over.  "The race is done":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36335319

Yet the votes are the following
Clinton delegates: 1768
Sanders delegates: 1494
Clinton superdelegates: 525
Sanders superdelegates: 39

I am not sure what the percentage of popular votes is, but it seems to me that Sanders support is growing.  If Clinton wins it will be due to the establishment votes (superdelegates) and she will be classed as the establishment.

If then we have a Clinton vs Trump Presidential election, Trump can point to Clinton being the establishment figure.  It seems that both Trump and Clinton are going to be polarising figures.  It seems that the US is heading for some difficult times - "civil war", without the war.  I also agree with Trussman that there will be some trying to "take out Trump" during the election campaign - especially in terms of the way he is being portrayed by some.  We even have the Mayor of London (self proclaimed defender of the faith) getting involved as well as the House of Commons and David Cameron.

The States in the democratic race dish out delegates proportionally.....You get a proportion allocated by how much of the vote you get in total..and you also get delegates allocated to you by winning districts ..

Clinton is well ahead in normal earned delegates and too far ahead to be caught by the margins in which Sanders is winning his States by...

That is before the superdelegates are added..

Clinton wins the big States which rightly contain more delegates..

She's going to win and she will have won fair and square without SDs..within the rules..

However disgruntled Sanders fans have a case when it comes to the DNC deliberately scheduling all the Clinton v Sanders debates for holidays and weekends when they know less people will see Clinton's robotic an unpleasant personality exposed...and other naughty tricks like making voter information harder for his camp to acquire..

DNC made it obvious from the get go they were going to help Hillary..

My guess is she would win wit out the help.....She has a majority of women  and ethnic voters..

The US will rally around a strong leader in times of perceived crisis. As long as Trump softens on some of the rhetoric, stays in the Republican mould (some suspect him of being more democrat than republican), and surrounds himself with competent people, that can curb his excesses, then he might have a chance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36372929

They'll be rallying around an ego driven maniac that wants to be called President but doesn't want to the job...... Or a desperate man-hating crook that will have no honeymoon period because the GOP hates her even more than she hates them..and they own both houses..

She'll win...........Her reach out is stronger...and she has more money..

More women voters than Men in the USA and she does better with the ethnic voters..

Nore Staat wrote:.... stays in the Republican mould (some suspect him of being more democrat than republican),

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36372929

And they say he's a buffoon.............. He can spin both sides into a tizzy and they still wonder what side of the fence he's really on.

You could warp the old saying and state that if nobody trusts you, then you got to be doing something right

Have to remember that most Southern Democrats are more right wing than Northern Republicans....Bill Clinton's policy agenda was more right wing than Reagan's.....

Clinton brought in NAFTA....Gutted the welfare system...Brought in legislature to prohibit same sex marriage...

Banned openly Lesbians and gays from entering the armed forces....

At least Reagan brought tax breaks in for the working classes as well as the middle and 1%....and gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.....He also protected Women's right to choose when it came to abortion.....

This "fence" isn't really a fence at all.......You choose a right wing administration either way...

Generally dividing lines are usually Roe v Wade and spending..

Reagan spent more than "Democrat" Carter..

Sanders is a one off.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/exclusive-donald-trump-signed-off-deal-designed-to-deprive-us-of/

Thoughts truss? Will this have a significant impact you think?

He's been caught on tape saying he hoped there'd be a housing bubble burst so he could buy up tons of cheap real estate......Never mind good people losing their homes..

Look he's a T**T...everyone knows he is one....Like Richard Nixon before him you know what he is all about......

Questions are ...

Do you think that America is in such a mess that you don't care ??.....
Are you sick of the establishment ??...
Can you stomach voting for the man-hating crook on the Democratic side ??...

Sanders 54 Trump 39 !!!!!!....Kind of says it all and he is considered far left !!.

All the GOP or Democrats needed to do was get a decent candidate and they'd have the White House....

Instead according to a poll........People would prefer headlice than any of the two that will be fighting for it....

"Let's get out and vote! Let's make our voices heard! We've been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd. It's democracy in action so put your freedom to the test! A big fat turd or a stupid douche, which do you like best?"

I see Bernie's Internet Twitterite Police have taken to the streets again, trying to stop old Trump talking once more............

The Youth...... "We've heard enough"

Oh yeah? Well, relax then, and go back to your chatrooms to hear some more about the Kardashians as you all wait for voting time.

Most of the people causing trouble at Trump rallies are from "Black lives matter" with plenty of hispanic groups thrown in for good measure...

Spend your time getting more informed....

None of them like the Kardashians?

Fools! Don't know what they're missing.

I've heard enough.

It's a shame I reckon you could probably hold a decent conversation.....

But I think trying to converse with you is a redundant exercise..

I'll leave it for the more patient 606ers..

Truss, you simply fail to see deathly seriousness in anarchic prose.
You write your way, I write mine. My way is no less serious in intent, just a different delivery mechanism.

I fail to see a lot of things....

I see an email has turned up which has Clinton turning down an offer from the State department to use one of their servers when her Private one that she shouldn't have been using for State dept business went down....She had freedom of information act worries apparently..

That shows intent to hide information......

That should be very naughty.......But it's hillary Clinton..

Maybe she should just blow the cobwebs off the thing and just come clean: "I don't fully trust the State Department"

BOOM!

Why Hillary.... and who, what, where, when and why on the instinct?

Will the US public vote Hillary Clinton for the next President?  Will she be a good president?  From across the pond she seems to be not a particularly assertive leader.  Bill Clinton was a born leader - affable and intelligent and pretty straight forward (as far as I could tell).  I wasn't interested in his various extra relationships with local interns - it didn't affect his politics and Presidents preceding him were well known for having various mistresses but the culture at the time was not to report it.  However Hillary Clinton - I am not sure she is presidential material?  Maybe vice presidential material.  Maybe US politics has become like UK politics - in terms of poor quality of the politicians.

Trump over the "finishing line" for the Republican nomination:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084

Hillary Clinton almost over the finishing when one includes the superdelegates (only 78 delegates short):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36198641

That's the strange thing. Bill has led a colourful life...and perhaps even more colourful than any of us even really know. But if I had a vote I'd still vote for him instantly if he was going again.

And yet, his wife - who has already admitted she'd use him in some financial advisory role??? - I still wouldn't vote for her. Strange - because, sure, he's going to have influence over her if she gets it but still.................. if the choice is Hillary and Trump. I'd still vote for mad dog Trump.

Nore Staat wrote:Will the US public vote Hillary Clinton for the next President?  Will she be a good president?  From across the pond she seems to be not a particularly assertive leader.  Bill Clinton was a born leader - affable and intelligent and pretty straight forward (as far as I could tell).  I wasn't interested in his various extra relationships with local interns - it didn't affect his politics and Presidents preceding him were well known for having various mistresses but the culture at the time was not to report it.  However Hillary Clinton - I am not sure she is presidential material?  Maybe vice presidential material.  Maybe US politics has become like UK politics - in terms of poor quality of the politicians.

Trump over the "finishing line" for the Republican nomination:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36392084

Hillary Clinton almost over the finishing when one includes the superdelegates (only 78 delegates short):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36198641

JFK was loved, adored, but he shagged around like a Geordie Shore rotter....

Trussman seems to believe that Trump is running for vanity reasons and has no interest in actually working / grafting when President.  But I just don't buy it.  The British media have gone bonkers in trying to present him as vain and as a crude thug.  But a lot of what he says makes sense.  He has made some comments that seem impractical and excessive - one just hopes he will surround himself with a good set of people.

Bill Clinton was only the third President in history to suffer impeachment proceedings..

Straightforward guy was Billy. .

In company with Nixon and racist Andy Johnson who wanted to hand the South over despite Lincoln winning the war..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNkwP4zL2DA

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bill Clinton was only the third President in history to suffer impeachment proceedings..

Straightforward guy was Billy. .

In company with Nixon and racist Andy Johnson who wanted to hand the South over despite Lincoln winning the war..

Makes you wonder where Impeachment got to when George W was in charge. Did his people have 'Impeachment' kidnapped during his tenure?