US presidential elections

by spencerclarke Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:41 am

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.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:42 am

Depends on the context.....Media is lopsided..

Saving Women till the last two weeks of the election to throw sexual allegations at him isn't gutterall I suppose..

Unless the timing is amazingly coincidental..

All as bad as each other. ..

by kingraf Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:40 pm

Seems the Don wasn't too impressed with his performance in either debates if this is what he's saying.

by GSC Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:34 pm

He's gonna have to stop preaching to his own supporters and start trying to win neutrals sooner than later. Lashing out and claiming conspiracies won't help.

by Lowlandbrit Sun Oct 16, 2016 4:14 pm

GSC wrote:Trump now accusing Hillary of taking drugs?

I think he may have completely redefined gutter politics by now.

It's probably him lashing out at the allegations that were flying around the internet during the debates about him being on drugs.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:04 pm

GSC wrote:He's gonna have to stop preaching to his own supporters and start trying to win neutrals sooner than later. Lashing out and claiming conspiracies won't help.

Think he is trying to shore up his vote....

My guess is he thinks it is over and he's trying to protect his brand by playing to his Base....

Needs to keep Texas and Utah which are strongly Republican and at risk...

Doesn't want to be annihilated...

Think it is all an exercise in vanity....Not sure he wants to be President but I do know he couldn't cope with humiliation in November !!

by lostinwales Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:10 pm

It is interesting how there is almost nothing on actual, you know, policies at all. But then Trump has spent so much time going on about Bill Clinton's alleged affairs and worse he's a fine one to complain about media bias with the allegations against him

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:07 pm

Seems to be a fair few commentators believing Trump is going to start up a new network with former Fox news CEO Roger Ailes after the Election.....

The thought is he is going to get 37% of the vote at least and then say he's been shafted afterwards.........If he gets a decent percentage of the disenchanted to follow him to his enterprise then he is in the money...

The Presidency maybe an after thought.....

Who knows ??...........Certainly isn't acting like a candidate should..

by dyrewolfe Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:42 am

Maybe this shambles of an election will serve as a wake up call to both parties and the American public in general?

i.e. take it more seriously next time you have to nominate / vote for candidates. Don't just go with whoever shouts louder, has the most dirt (real or otherwise) on the other person.

I still have no idea what either candidate actually stands for or what they hope / promised to achieve if elected, apart from Trump's farcical ethnic cleansing policy, (lets get rid of all Muslims and South Americans).

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:19 pm

They took it seriously...

Clinton v Sanders was 53-47...........Even though Clinton out spent him 10-1 and had the race rigged...

Trump was the only anti-establishment candidate on the GOP side..

People are sick of Washington....The corruption......Back slapping and the Status Quo...

But the establishment always wins and it will this time...

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:54 am

Latest poll....

Foreign affairs..........Clinton 57....32 Trump...
Homeland Security...Clinton 58....32 Trump..
Economy...................Trump 50...44 Clinton..

Trump knows what he needs to talk about tonight..

Monmouth poll of those people who think favorably of Trump..

89 percent....White
2 percent....Black
7 percent....Hispanic
2 percent....Asian

by GSC Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:05 am

Probably more likely to try and burn the whole debate down. Seems to have abandoned attempting to win and instead decided to taint Clinton's win.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:15 am

You can see why the Democrats are for open borders..

Hispanics and blacks killed Romney in 2012...Trump only has a third of women voters too....Romney did okay with them..

Trump's only good demographic is white men.....

by dyrewolfe Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:33 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They took it seriously...

Clinton v Sanders was 53-47...........Even though Clinton out spent him 10-1 and had the race rigged...

Trump was the only anti-establishment candidate on the GOP side..

People are sick of Washington....The corruption......Back slapping and the Status Quo...

But the establishment always wins and it will this time...

Sorry but if you end up with candidates like that then something is seriously wrong somewhere.

Maybe you need spending caps, or at least some system of transparency for election campaigns, so that you can't simply spend your way to victory. Also, how was the Democrat vote rigged?

Its all very well saying people are sick of Washington, but having idiots like Trump running for President isn't going to solve anything.

You're right about one thing though (and its as equally true here as in the US) about the establishment winning every time, regardless of who is elected.

Problem isn't the candidates, so much as the political machinery they have to work with in order to get anything done. Only way to solve that is with a root and branch restructuring of how government works.

Maybe sometime in the future a candidate will emerge who speaks out in favour of that?

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:36 am

Agree with your post...

Arms and insurance lobbies are all too powerful...

Spending caps will never happen.....

It's been a depressing election.

by Guest Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:01 pm

Bruce Springsteen seems to think like that of Trussman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9JVEpg579E

by Guest Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:10 pm

Am starting to think about how dark the climate will be after Clinton's win. The Trump fans will carry on barking away, the man himself will not be going anywhere else in a hurry, and Clinton may even have the effect on the public that is the polar opposite of Obama's win in 08.
Britain and America seem so polarised and in time-honoured tradition, when the economy gets tough, the weakest in society get the blame.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:27 pm

Too many commentators seem to think he has a new TV network lined up with Roger Ailes......

Get 45/50 million votes...Tell the rednecks the vote was fixed.......Get the most disenchanted and hot headed to tune in to his new enterprise.....Very possible..

Maybe this is what it was about all along......

Years ago when he was getting stick in the press for Ivanka-Marla Maples and the distasteful Central park five episode...He made the point that at least they were talking about him......

One of his top execs made the point that he was a lonely guy with few friends..

I can believe it.....He has no idea how to relate and seems to have no form of self control..

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:24 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too many commentators seem to think he has a new TV network lined up with Roger Ailes......

Get 45/50 million votes...Tell the rednecks the vote was fixed.......Get the most disenchanted and hot headed to tune in to his new enterprise.....Very possible..

Maybe this is what it was about all along......

Years ago when he was getting stick in the press for Ivanka-Marla Maples and the distasteful Central park five episode...He made the point that at least they were talking about him......

One of his top execs made the point that he was a lonely guy with few friends..

I can believe it.....He has no idea how to relate and seems to have no form of self control..

You could be right. Pretty shoddy behaviour if so, but then this is Trump.

As to why he's lonely and has no/few friends.....I wonder why that might be!

by GSC Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:17 am

I'd say I'm surprised by his behaviour last night, but I don't think anything short of promising to fire nukes would surprise me anymore. What a sad election this has been, America the big loser in all this.

by Guest Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:19 am

Think the British equivalent would be asking us to choose between the two nitwits from Jedward

by GSC Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:24 am

We'd probably get more intelligent policy discussion Dave

by Guest Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:56 am

Good evening these are our new policies

We're replacing currency with...........marshmallows.
Our housing policy is to build houses...out of marshmallows
Re crime and prison reform, we'll make prisons out of marshmallows, everyone likes marshmallows so they'll want to either stay in prison or just go to prison.
"What about the crimes that would be committed in order for people to be sent to prison?"
No problem, all guns will now shoot marshmallows, all knives will be made out of marshmallows, cars...made out of marshmallows so it won't hurt if you get run over. Fraud? just people trying to get their hands on more marshmallows which isn't such a bad thing.
"What about the health implications for people eating so many marshmallows?"
Erm...everyone will be so happy that we have marshmallows they won't worry about going to the doctors?
"What about our defence policy?"
I'm glad you asked, we're building a giant protective dome made of....
"Marshmallows?"
Haha, don't be stupid, it will be made out of super bouncy jelly.
"That might just work..."
Any more questions?
"Yes....do you have any marshmallows?"
Thought you'd never ask...here you go!
"YIPPEEE!!!!!"

by GSC Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am

#makemarshmallowsgreatagain

by dyrewolfe Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:52 pm

DAVE667 wrote:Good evening these are our new policies

We're replacing currency with...........marshmallows.
Our housing policy is to build houses...out of marshmallows
Re crime and prison reform, we'll make prisons out of marshmallows, everyone likes marshmallows so they'll want to either stay in prison or just go to prison.
"What about the crimes that would be committed in order for people to be sent to prison?"
No problem, all guns will now shoot marshmallows, all knives will be made out of marshmallows, cars...made out of marshmallows so it won't hurt if you get run over. Fraud? just people trying to get their hands on more marshmallows which isn't such a bad thing.
"What about the health implications for people eating so many marshmallows?"
Erm...everyone will be so happy that we have marshmallows they won't worry about going to the doctors?
"What about our defence policy?"
I'm glad you asked, we're building a giant protective dome made of....
"Marshmallows?"
Haha, don't be stupid, it will be made out of super bouncy jelly.
"That might just work..."
Any more questions?
"Yes....do you have any marshmallows?"
Thought you'd never ask...here you go!
"YIPPEEE!!!!!"

US presidential elections - Page 17 6a0133f30ae399970b01901c5cf135970b-pi

by **profitius** Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:40 pm

I see Hillary has been taking a battering (no, Donald Trump didn't hit her) in the last week and a half. This thread has been very quiet since. laughing

by Guest Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:38 pm

Hillary Clinton's team need to be careful not to worsen the situation now she is under investigation. By claiming the FBI should not have announced publicly they were re-opening the investigation into Clinton, it sounds like Clinton is covering up something. The FBI director said he felt he had to be honest because he had publicly said that the investigation was closed and that had changed. Basically while investigating the behaviour of certain former aides of Hillary Clinton they had uncovered more emails from Clinton - and these had to be gone through for content.

by **superflyweight** Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:28 am

profitius wrote:I see Hillary has been taking a battering (no, Donald Trump didn't hit her) in the last week and a half. This thread has been very quiet since.

US presidential elections - Page 17 Blackadder-Confused-Look

by Ent Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:51 am

Polls very close apparently.

Only in America.

by SecretFly Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:31 pm

Pasadena Republican Party Pom Pom Platoon's President Pitch:

Trump for Prez!
Trump for Chief!
Got great Hair,
And marvellous teefh!

You know you want him!
So don't act so fussy!
A man's jus' bein' a Man when he's
Liking himself some......?

He's only being natural!
He's only being a guy!
Most girls ignore you
If you act all sweet'n'shy.

So stop being a prude!
Aim pretty High!
Trump's a ready with his bricks and mortar
As Hillary dances with the FBI.

Yeah, so he might press the Red button,
And send us all the Hell.
But maybe Ol' Nick ain't all that bad either,
And you'll wanna vote for him as well.

Wink

"Donald Trump approves this message"

by Guest Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:07 pm

If Trump was a shade more intelligent, if Trump was a shade less egotistical, if Trump was a shade more politically intelligent ... he could have won this contest. Mike Pence looks more presidential and "stable" and "sensible" than Trump.

A Trump presidency would probable by better for a Brexit Britain - as he said Britain would be first in the queue for a trade deal. Whereas Obama (and presumably Hillary) said Britain would be right at the back of the queue indicating that Iran and North Korea and Turkey would come before Brexit Britain.

The BBC, which often acts like a lefty tabloid organisation working towards the economic destruction of Britain, never flag up what would be best for Britain.

by **ShahenshahG** Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:27 pm

Yep he will put Britain first as he has a tendency to turn the screw on people in disadvantageous positions. have a look around at the sort of stuff he got up to in his business dealings and his acquisition of Scottish land for his golf course. Not a man who offers concessions where he doesn't need to.

by **superflyweight** Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:39 am

Nore Staat wrote:If Trump was a shade more intelligent, if Trump was a shade less egotistical, if Trump was a shade more politically intelligent ... he could have won this contest. Mike Pence looks more presidential and "stable" and "sensible" than Trump.

A Trump presidency would probable by better for a Brexit Britain - as he said Britain would be first in the queue for a trade deal. Whereas Obama (and presumably Hillary) said Britain would be right at the back of the queue indicating that Iran and North Korea and Turkey would come before Brexit Britain.

The BBC, which often acts like a lefty tabloid organisation working towards the economic destruction of Britain, never flag up what would be best for Britain.

US presidential elections - Page 17 Tumblr_mmzgvjLxEO1qlvie8o2_250

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:27 am

Nore Staat wrote:Hillary Clinton's team need to be careful not to worsen the situation now she is under investigation. By claiming the FBI should not have announced publicly they were re-opening the investigation into Clinton, it sounds like Clinton is covering up something. The FBI director said he felt he had to be honest because he had publicly said that the investigation was closed and that had changed. Basically while investigating the behaviour of certain former aides of Hillary Clinton they had uncovered more emails from Clinton - and these had to be gone through for content.

No, it doesn't. She's specifically asked that all the information be publicly released. Seems an odd thing to request in public if one's covering something up don't you think?

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:34 am

Nore Staat wrote:If Trump was a shade more intelligent, if Trump was a shade less egotistical, if Trump was a shade more politically intelligent ... he could have won this contest. Mike Pence looks more presidential and "stable" and "sensible" than Trump.

A Trump presidency would probable by better for a Brexit Britain - [1]as he said Britain would be first in the queue for a trade deal. Whereas Obama (and presumably Hillary) said Britain would be right at the back of the queue indicating that Iran and North Korea and Turkey would come before Brexit Britain.

[2]The BBC, which often acts like a lefty tabloid organisation working towards the economic destruction of Britain, never flag up what would be best for Britain.

[1] Yeah, because everything that Fart says is the truth eh? Give him some credit though, somehow he does the Lying/Cooked Hillary thing with a straight face and there's amazingly no traction re. his own obvious BS and possible illegalities.
[2] picard

Another one on the knee-jerk oh so trendy BBC-bashing crusade. How dare they publish anything that doesn't agree with your opinions? They must therefore be leftie tree-huggers!

by SecretFly Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:34 am

Come on folks................ why blame the FBI and Trump for throwing a late spanner in the works of the Clinton machine? Them girls that kept popping up last week or so with alleged stories from yesteryear that they were still crying about but never felt the need to 'go public' on until VOTING TIME!.... ?

Come on now. Let's not be selective Ostrich observers.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:30 pm

SecretFly wrote:Come on folks................ why blame the FBI and Trump for throwing a late spanner in the works of the Clinton machine? Them girls that kept popping up last week or so with alleged stories from yesteryear that they were still crying about but never felt the need to 'go public' on until VOTING TIME!.... ?

Come on now. Let's not be selective Ostrich observers.

Re. the women and Trump, what makes you think they'd have kept schtum, at any time, once that nauseating video of Trump came to light? The video was dug up because of the election; I'm not convinced that the women came out following its release because of the election. Also, maybe they'd thought about mentioning it before, but we all know what a winker Trump is re. using cries of "I'll sue you until the pips squeak!". He's a playground bully with some nasty narcissistic issues and with a lot of money.

by SecretFly Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:42 pm

If the stories aren't true (and what he says on a bus don't make their stories true) then what would stop him suing them now? The threat is still there with them, whether it's today that they come out with their allegations or three years ago. So again, why so drip-feed incremental now, and by the same Lawyer who admits to being a Clinton supporter but claims no campaign strategy links? 'I got this woman...oh and this woman.... and this woman....' That's one lucky lawyer? Did all Trump's victims come from the one town in the one State? All somehow lined up neatly and ready to add their voices in sequence to the initial 'burn' bus tape.

Trump might indded have a lot to answer for.... but so too might Clinton. The timing of both issues (Trump's comments on the bus and the subsequent snow fall of women that remember they were victims of his wandering hands - and Clinton's undying list of emails that she allegedly wanted kept out of officlal archives for some reason) are politically driven by interests aligned to both candidates.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:12 pm

Can't disagree with that. They and the U.S. political campaigns this time around are really scraping the barrel.

by GSC Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:36 pm

It's been a depressing campaign.

by **profitius** Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:38 pm

A good thing from all this is the media have been found out. It's now common knowledge that they've an agenda and always had one.

The general public used to believe the media were honest and fair.

by **ShahenshahG** Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:49 pm

profitius wrote:A good thing from all this is the media have been found out. It's now common knowledge that they've an agenda and always had one.

The general public used to believe the media were honest and fair.

Can someone please turn this into a sticky post/thread and leave it there for the rest of eternity?

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:52 am

They've pretty much always had an agenda; worse these days maybe. Do we actually think they report simply unbiased news? Maybe it's the public that got thicker...

by SecretFly Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:25 am

The public aren't thick. I don't think that's the problem. It's that we Pretend to believe the media are unbiased, so that we can have our own debates at work or online. We're all feeding the lies and bunk 'reality' myth - and have been doing so for as long as I'm on the planet.
That's why it's fun to highlight the fact that simply because you are from a particular political viewpoint, or just because your family have always voted for a certain party, that you so quickly PRETEND to believe the 'unbiased' viewpoint expressed by media sympathetic to your world view.
Russia and Putin...and Corbyn and Trump, and Iran and North Korea are Bad! BOO!!!! They always lie and issue nothing but Propaganda!!! BOO!!!
The Western Liberal Media have integrity! Three Cheers! They tell it like it is. They don't hide anything. They don't orchestrate anything. They have no Propaganda agenda of their own. They protect us from Evil.

Aye Whistle

Well, let's pretend we believe that guff, just for the sake of argument.
Life is a game. The older you get, the more you realise that we're all 'acting' out roles - all of us.

by dyrewolfe Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:10 pm

Well this is just my own take on things:

Being a good businessman (and he has a chequered record at that, to say the least) isn't the same as being a good politican.

In his world, if Trump doesn't like someone, he can fire them, or choose not to deal with them, or even buy them out in a hostile takeover.

Quite often these aren't options in government and you have to work with people you may not like.

Now all presidents and heads of state have advisors and teams of people working for them, but its worth noting Trump ignored his campaign team until he began to realise he had a genuine shot at the White House.

I just wonder how long it would be before he managed to upset / insult some foreign dignitary and cause a diplomatic incident. And if even half the allegations concerning his personal life are true, the Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky scandal would pale into insignificance.

Of course Hillary was idiotic using a private email account to conduct government business and it could have caused sensitive information to end up in the wrong hands...well it did anyway (Wikileaks) but as far as we know it has not resulted in any harm being done to America or her citizens.

I'm sure she won't make that mistake again...

Anyway, in the end your decision should come down to who you think can govern more effectively and get things done. Hillary knows the machinery of government. I'm sure she has plenty of experience of working will all types of people and doing deals with them.

Trump gives me the distinct impression he'd just try to bluff and bluster his way through Congress and Senate and just end up peeing lots of people off, who would then do their best to block him at every turn...rendering him an impotent Commander in Chief.

by **Pr4wn** Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:24 pm

For a preview of what a Trump presidency will be like, take a look at the Philippines.

by dummy_half Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:37 pm

Dyre

agree with much of what you have put above - I think Hillary would be a competent 'professional' President. Trump could be anything, including abdicating all responsibility and putting his VP in de facto charge...

Anyone think Trump would be a competent President, watch any of the Presidential debates, and see if you can find any coherent policy information (or even coherent sentences).

Some clarification on the e-mail issue:
The use of non-Governmental servers for Government work has been an issue in the US for a long time, certainly back to the GWB presidency. There has been a lot of fuss (not Hillary-related) about the use of personal Gmail accounts for Government business as a means of placing information outside the scope of the very liberal freedom of information rules in the States.

The issue with Hillary is slightly more complex, in that State Department messages were sent through a home-based server, including a small number that should not have been outside the supposedly secure State Department system on account of them containing classified information (apparently no Secret or Top Secret information was sent). Of course HRC and her staff then deleting the e-mails was a significant error, especially as a large proportion were cached, as it has a feeling of a cover-up.
The further FBI 'investigation' is one of those cases that is a victim of circumstance, in that one of HRC's main advisors, Huma Abendin, is the soon to be ex-wife of Senator Anthony Wiener. Senator Wiener's electronic devices were seized by the FBI as part of a probe into his sexual relationship with a minor, but on examination of the devices the FBI have found some messages between HRC and Abendin - it is unclear whether these have been examined at all yet, far less whether there is some 'smoking gun' of more significant wrong-doing by Clinton in communicating classified information.

The Wikileaks documents are not the State Department e-mails, but relate to communication between various senior members of the Democratic Party, in particular John Podesta. These are not Hillary Clinton e-mails per se (i.e. that they were not hacked from a Clinton e-mail account), although clearly include a large number of messages to and from Clinton. Now, how damaging they are is open to the reader - most people think they mostly show political operatives being precisely that, which includes plenty of stuff that doesn't look particularly fair or ethical but nothing illegal.

by **profitius** Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:35 pm

Funny how people think a crooked career politician would run things better than a billionaire.

And it isn't Trump who is trying to start a war with Russia.

by dyrewolfe Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:06 pm

profitius wrote:Funny how people think a crooked career politician would run things better than a billionaire.

And it isn't Trump who is trying to start a war with Russia.

Just goes to show how little people think of Trump that they would prefer Clinton.

All Trump has going for him is that he isn't a career politician...and thats a double-edged sword. On the one hand he isn't part of the establishment (and so isn't "tainted" by it). On the other, he has zero previous experience in a role that would make him one of the most powerful people in the world...something that should worry any right-thinking individual.

On the downside he's an obnoxious, misogynist who is used to getting his own way and has all the tact and diplomatic skills of a shark.

Hillary is part of the establishment and could be considered the candidate for no change. On the other hand she has many years of experience. While she may not bring about the changes many people want to see...at least we can be fairly sure she won't make a complete pig's ear of the presidency.

Oh and speaking of crooked...who was it who has refused to publish their tax returns for the last 20-odd years? Why would you do that if you've got nothing to hide?

Also, Putin is getting way too big for his britches and needs his butt kicked (just my opinion).

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:27 am

profitius wrote:Funny how people think a crooked career politician would run things better than a billionaire.

And it isn't Trump who is trying to start a war with Russia.

Actual evidence please? Or are you Trump in disguise? It's laughable that HRC is apparently 'crooked', but somehow Trump isn't. A funnier reality I'd struggle to think of.

by Guest Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:28 pm

For those of you not emotionally tied to the outcome of this election and for those of you that like to exercise their brains - here are (see links below) two professors who have successfully predicted US presidential elections in the past using academic models that predict a Trump win. These are fairly long range forecasts, so they haven't been influenced by week to week news stories. Both models are compelling and at least show how Trump could / should have won. One of the models stresses the importance of a third party candidate able to mop up at least 5% of the vote - these usually take votes away from the party in power (in this case the democrats). One of the provisos at least for one of the professors is the "unprecedented" nature in which this particular presidential election has been run.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/

http://planetfreewill.com/2016/10/24/professor-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-87-chance-winning/

by Sponsored content