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.

I bet Hillary can't wait to get her grubby mitts on him, she'll eat him alive.

Pr4wn wrote:I bet Hillary can't wait to get her grubby mitts on him, she'll eat him alive.

She is a very wooden performer.........It's why she hasn't had a press conference in 8 months and why all the debates with Bernie were scheduled to coincide with ball games..

He'll steal the show but whether it is for the right reasons...is another matter.

He might. Depends on what facts/dirt Hilary throws his way I guess. Lord knows she's got way too much to choose from.
Mind you, so's he. What a wonderful pair of candidates.

Debates will be fun but not important..Unlike Like Ford v Carter...Carter V Reagan or when George Bush Sr kept looking at his watch v Clinton..

Everyone knows what they are getting with these two.

navyblueshorts wrote:He might. Depends on what facts/dirt Hilary throws his way I guess. Lord knows she's got way too much to choose from.
Mind you, so's he. What a wonderful pair of candidates.

Hillary may be a security risk, playing fast and loose with her official email account, (and lets face it, its hardly the worst thing a senior politician or leader has been caught doing), but Trump is an ill-mannered, xenophobic, misogynist jackass.

Clinton at least has experience of being in government and understands things like "subtlety" and "tact", while I get the impression Trump is just far too fond of the sound of his own voice and hasn't yet learned it isn't always good to say out loud the thoughts in your head.

He may think he's a hotshot businessman, great at making deals, but if he carries on like that with other heads of state, he'll get very short shrift. I also imagine he will find it hard to accomplish anything if he gets on the wrong side of the Senate and Congress.

Hillary plays the misogynist card too readily.......

Don't think knowledge of government is too necessary.....He'll have a big staff to smooth any rough edges.......Don't forget the Vice President is the presiding officer in the Senate.....He'll carry water both ways and in Pence he's got someone well known in Washington (Former Chair House of reps)......and someone with experience Governing in Indiana....

Lest not forget we've had Presidents like Grant, Taylor and Harding who weren't fit for purpose and had little experience and if Reagan wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's in his second term he made a good job of acting like a sufferer......

Besides he hasn't much to live up to....Obama has been crap.........

Poverty levels have risen.....Incomes have fallen for the middle classes...Food stamp usage has gone up....The rich have got wealthier.......

"Change we can believe in"......Only thing that has changed is his golf handicap has gone down..

Glad he's going.......Just a timewaster..

Anyway Trump is on an ego trip........It's Clinton's to lose.....Demographically it would be very hard for her to lose..

Clinton by landslide or Clinton comfortably..

Yeah, the affordable health act is crap...

Fair play. ..He stayed off the golf course long enough for that..

Though skimpy coverage..Higher premiums and fewer doctors ain't that great.

But overall I'm a fan..

He's been battling with a partisan house for most of his presidency. Sure, he's not perfect. But he's better than the guy that came before him and he sure as hell is better than whoever is going to come after him.

Also, you can't blame skimpy coverage on Obama. He would have covered more had he not had a hostile legislative body to deal with.

This ^^^^^^^^

Pr4wn wrote:He's been battling with a partisan house for most of his presidency. Sure, he's not perfect. But he's better than the guy that came before him and he sure as hell is better than whoever is going to come after him.

Also, you can't blame skimpy coverage on Obama. He would have covered more had he not had a hostile legislative body to deal with.

Prawn he had both houses in his first term...and was lazy..

The reason he became the first President to visit Cuba and is desperate to shut down Guantanimo is because his legacy is bare..

"Change we can believe in"...Not enough of it..Too much golf.

Obama has a up and down legacy. Seems very few Americans have a middle ground opinion of the Obama years, which is strange cause I think he's just been middling. Similar to Clinton, I think he too was rather meh, and got a little lucky that he was elected as an economic wave took place.
As a rule, with the vastness of America, and the autonomy which the states possess, the iron cast nature of the constitution and the overall powers of the Senate and house of representatives... I sometimes wonder if presidents are given a little too much credit/criticism for the overall state of the nation

Someone still believes that Presidents run America?


Hmmmm....

Sure wasn't it a bunch of them nice "Yes sir, Mr President Sir" types that eventually got rid of that nuisance Kennedy when he wouldn't play ball with them?

SecretFly wrote:Someone still believes that Presidents run America?


Hmmmm....

Sure wasn't it a bunch of them nice "Yes sir, Mr President Sir" types that eventually got rid of that nuisance Kennedy when he wouldn't play ball with them?

You must be lost. The '' Lee Harvey Oswald is not a lone gunman" memorial stand is a little further down the road.

kingraf wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Someone still believes that Presidents run America?


Hmmmm....

Sure wasn't it a bunch of them nice "Yes sir, Mr President Sir" types that eventually got rid of that nuisance Kennedy when he wouldn't play ball with them?

You must be lost. The '' Lee Harvey Oswald is not a lone gunman" memorial stand is a little further down the road.

Oh sorry! You're right. I didn't know I was at the "George W had no Puppeteers' hands up his ass" stand.

kingraf wrote:Obama has a up and down legacy. Seems very few Americans have a middle ground opinion of the Obama years, which is strange cause I think he's just been middling. Similar to Clinton, I think he too was rather meh, and got a little lucky that he was elected as an economic wave took place.
As a rule, with the vastness of America, and the autonomy which the states possess, the iron cast nature of the constitution and the overall powers of the Senate and house of representatives... I sometimes wonder if presidents are given a little too much credit/criticism for the overall state of the nation

He gave it the big un.......He was going to change America...The way Washington was run.......

He's a disappointment because he promised a new America and was an empty suit......no one raised expectations like Obama.

Obama only had one vote.  He can't be blamed for duping the great American public.

The great American public are to blame - twice.
First, because they bluntly only voted for him in such great numbers because he was black and they fell in instant 'affected' love with that hip poster.  They wanted to be remembered as the generation that chose the first Black guy.  It was more about their selfishness than his charisma.
Second, the American public love to produce this system whereby they vote for a Democratic President and a Republican Senate or vice versa.  All to keep either one from being too powerful, so the story goes.  But it's a sure-fire bet for stagnation as the senate are going to object to everything a rival President wants to do - both to make him ineffective and to blame him for being ineffective.

At least Obama was voting for himself for a good reason.  "If I get this, I'll make oceans of money after I finish."

He beat McCain 53-46...........He only beat Clinton in 2008 because Florida was barred from the Democratic nomination........Clinton won all the big States....

Factor in McCain was 71 and had a special as his running mate and he was linked as a Republican to Bush.......You over sell Obama's appeal..

He over sold himself too.......That is why his reign is a disappointing one..

Obama's 'appeal' is all that got him elected. The colour of his skin and the urge of a generation to be remembered for doing something 'special' is all that got him elected. Politics, his or his opponents', had nothing to do with it.
Obama himself didn't have to do too much except step up on a platform, be the colour he was and make a few 'aspirational' speeches.

He got elected because he wasn't a Republican like Bush....

Like I said If Florida hadn't have been frozen out.....Clinton would have won..

Clinton only just beat the loony left Bernie sanders..

Truss

Hillary in 2007-8 was not quite the same as Hillary in 2015-16. Her health wouldn't have been an issue, nor her somewhat cavalier use of e-mail servers while SoS.

I happened to be in the US in October 2008 and remember seeing part of one of the Presidential debates (while in Yosemite) - I thought McCain looked a much better option for President, but he was hamstrung by his party and his running mate. Obama came across as being a bit out of his depth and inexperienced. Probably the Democrats got their nominees the wrong way round: HRC first and Obama now would have given two competent to good Presidents (especially with the Clintons coming as a BOGOF deal...).

Joe the Plumber debates....Wonder what happened to him ??..

After 8 years of W and being in recession...It was Obama's to lose..

Certainly the promotion of Palin to try to clean up disillusioned Clinton supporters backfired..

However looking back 2008 was always a formality for the Democratic candidate.

McCain never had a prayer.

Perhaps the only thing wrong about everything is the length of time it takes.  The length of time it takes Americans to decide on who they want to 'lead' them has become pretty comical in this modern age where truly anyone on the planet that wants to, can access live speeches/debates from any of the candidates.

The duration was originally meant to service the speed of a horse and carriage, or a steam train, or a car, or a plane.  Candidates couldn't be everywhere at once and everyone had a right to a time frame during which they might be able to hear from a candidate in person at some rally.

Truncate the process - charge through it - stop pretending it needs all this time for people to form their opinions.  My opinion hasn't changed.  I picked a candidate a long while back, and despite him being a bit of a wild, off-the-planet kind of a card!, he's still the guy I'd 'x' on a voting sheet.

The time frame is now only there to serve the media, to allow them cook up some rating juice for themselves, and for the comedians and satirists to pick up material that might last them until the next election.  It's a circus, and circuses are outdated..... as anyone who tried to watch but couldn't stomach the Olympics will have noted.

Uncle Don has just had a Huge week.....Just 4 points down nationally and pretty much level in the swing states and they are the ones that matter..

If the Democrats had anyone better than man hating Aunty it would be goodnight by now..

Black voters last month 90 - 10 Aunty

Black voters this month 71 - 29 Aunty

This scumbag Rahami's bomb planting is playing into Trump's hands........

As if New York hasn't had enough of this kind of dangerous vermin and he must be dangerous because anybody with any sense would know that bombing New Jersey could only improve the place !!! (I thought these guys wanted to hurt America)..

Seriously though the one great unknown in the race is ISIS...........Any kind of sizeable atrocity close to polling day could turn the race upside down...

Bush rode the terror card against Kerry in a race Kerry should have won..

It's stunning that the USA is seemingly incapable of realising that they (along with their key allies) created this mess themselves. Would ISIS exist if the USA and its allies hadn't bombed the living daylights out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc? Probably not.

That's what Isis wants truss. They want to put trump in charge so they can get hundreds or thousands of more recruits. You can pretty much count on them to do a massive attack with regularity. They want territory and recruits and trump will give it to me. Just like Brexit emboldened racists here trumps victory would embolden them there. Complete f*cking mess.

The Americans have been playing into the hands of extremists for decades now.

Pr4wn wrote:It's stunning that the USA is seemingly incapable of realising that they (along with their key allies) created this mess themselves. Would ISIS exist if the USA and its allies hadn't bombed the living daylights out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc? Probably not.

Doesn't change where we are now if what you say is true....Which it isn't..........

You're generalising and you're better than that !!...You add the people that didn't vote or voted for kerry in 2004......The majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush same in 2000 where he lost the vote anyway......

Common mistake people that blame America for everything tend to forget..

Chamberlain's white paper.....Cameron's Libyan intervention.....

All history.....I prefer to look forward..

But looking forward only is naive. You know that. You have to look back in order to learn lessons. America still isn't learning anything.

Look at the situation the USA finds itself in now. You have the choice of a moronic demagogue with no diplomatic or political experience or a proven warmongering liar who has been against the interests of the common American since she began her political career. They weren't put there automatically, they were voted in!

People (including your brainwashed self) called Sanders a loony but look at what you're faced with now! I really pity Americans.

Pr4wn wrote:But looking forward only is naive. You know that. You have to look back in order to learn lessons. America still isn't learning anything.

Look at the situation the USA finds itself in now. You have the choice of a moronic demagogue with no diplomatic or political experience or a proven warmongering liar who has been against the interests of the common American since she began her political career. They weren't put there automatically, they were voted in!

People (including your brainwashed self) called Sanders a loony but look at what you're faced with now! I really pity Americans.

Brainwashed self......Really ????......Is it worth continuing with a cheap shot merchant ??

I like Sanders but he'd bankrupt America......Free education...Double the minimum wage.......The magic money tree..

I'm all for learning lessons Pr4wn but not for blanket statements like "America never learns"....

Might as well say "Britain is for austerity.."

Money talks everywhere pal....Sorry to break it to you..

You have absolutely no proof (and no solid theory either, apparently) that Sanders would bankrupt America. America has pathetically low wages for an economy of its size and those at the very top can easily afford to double to minimum wage. The biggest recipients of welfare in the USA are the Waltons. The entire system is upside down and America has borrowed so much that it's practically bankrupt anyway. You'll get more of the same from Clinton and Trump doesn't appear to have any economic policy whatsoever.

At least Sanders produced a viable, workable alternative. It's been proven in countless other countries that raising the minimum wage has a negligible effect on the price of goods. Competition is still there to keep prices down.

Honestly, most Yanks can't see the wood for the trees.

Afghanistan and Iraq crippled America as well as the subprime mortgage crisis.....

You can't say Sanders was viable........How was he going to pay for Free Education a NHS system and a $15 minimum wage ??????????....The national debt is already 19 trillion...

You don't know and neither did he !!!!.........

Don't make assumptions about me either.............I'm all for all the above.....But not now...Middle class is already struggling.......It's time for realism not idealism



Reason all his supporters were kids.....

So what's realism? Allowing the super-rich to keep everything and squeezing everyone else? Because that's what you're going to get with anyone except for Sanders.

Pr4wn wrote:So what's realism? Allowing the super-rich to keep everything and squeezing everyone else? Because that's what you're going to get with anyone except for Sanders.

That's what you get in every Country.......

What is the minimum wage in the UK £7 ??...........What can that buy you ?????.....

Too many vested interests Pr4wn...........America isn't good but don't kid yourself it is any different anywhere else....

Slowly slowly catchy monkey...

Sanders books didn't add up and you can't spend what you haven't got......Besides USA national debt has got worse under Obama............

Bush - 11 trillion
Obama - 19 trillion..............Though in fairness he inherited a mess................

Maybe Clinton will surprise us............She's got a 60% chance of winning the Senate.........The other house maybe more difficult but she'll pick up seats.....

I never said it was any better anywhere else? What I was saying was that America had an alternative to vote for and it refused out of pure ignorance.

Haven't read a single word I've written have you ??

Yep the USA didn't want Sanders because everyone is ignorant...

How is Corbyn doing again ????

Agree with Pr4wn or you are ignorant.....Ok..

Yawn.

What I'm saying is that the current model clearly isn't working. Every single candidate other than Sanders proposed the continuation of the that current model. Am I wrong?

This also has absolutely nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn, not sure why you're mentioning him.

You can yawn all you like...But the model is working for enough people..

Sanders and Corbyn need to formulate better cases....

If you're a loser...Look at yourself before you blame others...

Sanders lost...He didn't convince..

Yawn all you like..Doesn't change a damn thing..

Sanders wasn't any different to any of the other candidates.  There is no high moral ground there that the 'stoopid' American public didn't appreciate.  He was playing the very same game as the others and only changing the colour of his shirt to try to stand out more from the crowd.  The smartphone generation fell for it.  

His true colour arrived when he was beaten and then told his followers to put their support behind the candidate [Clinton] he had up to that point lambasted pretty much as ruthlessly as Trump had: "Oh you know that bitch I told you all you could never trust and that I said was pretty much totally corrupt and owned by big business/contributors? - yeah her - vote for her, she's our only hope, folks"

It's her or Trump. What would you do??

Pr4wn wrote:It's her or Trump. What would you do??

How is Sanders going to get stuff passed through congress ??.....

Pr4wn wrote:It's her or Trump. What would you do??

I'd vote for Trump.

But if I campaigned against Clinton and used the language he often used to describe her, I wouldn't lose my 'principles' by then advocating her at the end-game.
He was either honest in his evaluations of her through the campaign - or he was just being another usual politician using a hatful of usual political tricks like 'not meaning' all the bad things he said about an opposition candidate.

Case in point - Hilary's daughter and Trump's daughter are best buddies. Trump says things he doesn't mean. Clinton says things she doesn't mean. They are political animals playing the game. But Sanders was selling himself as a different product - a principled character who didn't want to play the 'political' game 'cause real life is too important for stunt playing and smokescreens.

But that's what he did...played a big game like the rest of them. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, I'm just saying he proved himself a hypocrite - as all politicians do. It's a qualification you need to be one.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It's her or Trump. What would you do??

How is Sanders going to get stuff passed through congress ??.....

He's not. He didn't win.

SecretFly wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It's her or Trump. What would you do??

I'd vote for Trump.    

But if I campaigned against Clinton and used the language he often used to describe her, I wouldn't lose my 'principles' by then advocating her at the end-game.  
He was either honest in his evaluations of her through the campaign - or he was just being another usual politician using a hatful of usual political tricks like 'not meaning' all the bad things he said about an opposition candidate.

Case in point - Hilary's daughter and Trump's daughter are best buddies.  Trump says things he doesn't mean.  Clinton says things she doesn't mean.  They are political animals playing the game.  But Sanders was selling himself as a different product - a principled character who didn't want to play the 'political' game 'cause real life is too important for stunt playing and smokescreens.  

But that's what he did...played a big game like the rest of them.  I'm not saying he's a bad guy, I'm just saying he proved himself a hypocrite - as all politicians do.  It's a qualification you need to be one.

You're reading way too much into this, as usual.

The guy was faced with a choice. Endorse Clinton or Trump. He did the only thing any pragmatist would do in his situation. As bad as Clinton is, she's not Trump.

Spot on Pr4wn.....

Libertarian candidate is on 8%
Green candidate is 2%

Unheard of numbers for third party candidates......Usually they are all below 1 percent...

Pr4wn wrote:

You're reading way too much into this, as usual.

The guy was faced with a choice. Endorse Clinton or Trump. He did the only thing any pragmatist would do in his situation. As bad as Clinton is, she's not Trump.

No I'm not.  I'm saying Sanders proved he was nothing special, just yet another ordinary politician hoping you'd forget all that he said last week 'cause it isn't politically expedient to say it this week.  A guy like that could forget a lot of his promises after getting into office too.   Pragmatism.

Anyway, we - as voters - like to play that game too.  Politics, from politicians to voters...it's all a game, Pr4wn.

You're so full of it, I really don't know what to say to all of this tripe.

Me? Or Truss?

Full of it for telling the truth that all politics is a game?

You also didn't answer my question. What was Sanders supposed to do in his situation? Carry on with his hopeless crusade regardless, knowing that there was a chance that he could hand the keys to the White House to Trump?

Don't be ridiculous. He did the only thing he could do at that time. That doesn't make him a hypocrite at all.