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.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
How could the experts, the commentators, the pundits get this so wrong?

Really really easily Laurie Was watching the BBC Special last night and they were going on exit polls & favouritism. Then it got to apparently America's 2 most important points i think was ability to bring change was 82% to 13% for Donald & something else i can't remember which he was miles ahead in. You wonder who makes these exits polls really Never underestimate the simplicity of voters, If you're doing what they want they will vote in force.

Nore Staat wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You would vote for someone but of his rascist stance? Wow.

What do you think of Donald Trump supporters? What would happen if you find out your best friend was actually a Donald Trump supporter?

I wouldn't be friends with someone like that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You would vote for someone but of his rascist stance? Wow.

What do you think of Donald Trump supporters?  What would happen if you find out your best friend was actually a Donald Trump supporter?

I wouldn't be friends with someone like that.

Id bet you are now

No?

Just John wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:So um yeah, he actually won

Following Brexit, it's not a surprise. People are sick to death of the establishment & nobody is fooled by the media nowadays. Very rare to get three terms in the US & what would be the point of passing the torch from Obama to Hillary & them having no power in the Senate. Pointless.

Time to drain the swamp & bang up crooked Hillary.

But its like the Churchill line about Democracy being the worst form of government apart from all the alternatives.

Lots of people are peed off with the political elite so vote for the alternative, even though the alternative is going to be much worse.

Who'da thunk it? A fart as POTUS. Ah well. I've given up being amazed by this sort of thing now.

What's the odds on Prime Minister Corbyn by the end of 2017?

Hero wrote:What's the odds on Prime Minister Corbyn by the end of 2017?

Unlikely.  He has a history of hating everything British, he hates the monarchy and he supported terrorists against the establishment.

A better bet would be the break up of the United Kingdom - I think the SNP will likely eventually get the split they desperately want.

But the SNP are putting great stock in the EU continuing in present form. This Trump result might see some changes in some of the countries that presently constitute the EU.

Okay, the one thing I'm taking from this morning (apart from a very smug expression ) is that the same people/TV commentators/stars/social activists etc.  that rubbished Trump's presumption of taking high office, those who felt he hadn't a chance, those who said American liberalism wouldn't allow him in, those who said the Global corporate leaders and employees wouldn't allow it, those who quoted polls eternally, ............ those are the very same people who I'll now see being invited back to studios to now give their opinions about why Clinton failed and why Trump won.  So not only do the majority of previous commentators (in all Nations - America, GB, Ireland, France etc) KNOW why Trump would never be elected, they'll now be  the continuing 'experts' lined up to tell us why they were Wrong.  But of course, just like Brexit, they'll word it that the American people didn't listen to nobel expertise and decided instead to vote in a 'wrong' ignorant way.
I got news for those folks - they don't know anything; they never knew.  They buried their heads in the sand and hoped for a wish-fulfilment result.  They prayed all night: "Please let me be right.  Please let me be right.".
They're in the dark.  Their time for knowing commentary is over for four years.  Time for people who actually backed Trump to be taken into these news studios and onto these chat-shows to explain why Trump won and Clinton lost.  They're the experts now.

I thought the BBC would be too scared to open up a comments section on the US General Election.  SO they have opened up a comments section on a Business section article saying how Trump is causing financial instability on the world markets ... and people are taking this opportunity to hammer the BBC:

7.  Posted by   SryNoAutographs  
Just when you thought the BBC couldn't lose on another political campaign, they go and surprise us.

Backed Miliband over Cameron and lost.
Backed Smith over Corbyn and lost.
Backed Remain over Leave and lost.
Backed Trump over Clinton and lost.

Probably time to start reporting the news, rather than create it, don't you think?

5.  Posted by   Dave1965  
The BBC interprets 'diversity' to mean employing ethnic minorities.

More important is diversity of opinion. 95% of the BBC reporting staff are clearly out of step with majority public opinion on this side of the Atlantic (Brexit) and the other (Trump victory).

Let's have some diversity of *thought* in reporting rather than BBC groupthink ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37921036

That said some BBC people are not biased - Andrew Neal seems to be pretty balanced and insightful.  But the people controlling the BBC website in my view are tabloid-like biased.

People have a habit of seeing bias where people don't agree with their own opinion.

Well whatever else the myth that Americans don't like coloured folk has been well and truly debunked. First they elected a black guy and now they've elected an orange one!

GSC wrote:People have a habit of seeing bias where people don't agree with their own opinion.

What are your views on the Daily Mail? In your view is it biased or unbiased?

Here is another comment from the BBC comments section mentioned above:

50. Posted by HowStupidDoYouThinkIAm
Well, BBC : the man you have done your best to slur on a daily basis for the last few months is now president. I wonder how much damage you have now done to our country with your constant corporate lefty agenda.

You did it in Brexit and now you did it again. You have failed completely to represent the democratic view of the majority.

I hope a review of the BBC follows and heads roll.

GSC wrote:People have a habit of seeing bias where people don't agree with their own opinion.

No, bias is bias.  People know when it's about.  But it's grand.  Humans are humans and even the supposedly scientific pollsters begin to meld with the personal choices of the people behind the science.  Bias always gets through - it's a human virus.

Orange is the new black, Shah.

Yeah nore we all remember you crying and running away during Brexit too well to take seriously any of your selective choices of posts that agree with you.

I was determined to get an orange joke in. it paid off but sadly some other fecker will claim credit as I don't have Facebook or twitter

That joke was already doing the rounds a few hours ago sorry.

ShahenshahG wrote:I was determined to get an orange joke in. it paid off but sadly some other fecker will claim credit as I don't have Facebook or twitter

I thought "orange" was now a trademark?

I did a little search and was surprised to find the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah nore we all remember you crying and running away during Brexit too well to take seriously any of your selective choices of posts that agree with you.

I remember receiving a lot of abuse and getting fed up with the abuse. Can't remember if you were one of those using the ad hominems.

Those parties at the White House are going to be very tame affairs from now on.   A lot of silent twiddling of awkward thumbs.  No hip musicians, no hip actors, no Springsteen

Who is gonna be singing at the White House? - that's my main concern!  These are the issues that now need to be discussed on those politics shows.

Thieving ho. I demand an investigation hero

SecretFly wrote:Those parties at the White House are going to be very tame affairs from now on.   A lot of silent twiddling of awkward thumbs.  No hip musicians, no hip actors, no Springsteen

Who is gonna be singing at the White House, that's my main concern!  These are the issues that now need to be discussed on those politics shows.

It's going to like the Playboy Mansion!

Hero wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Those parties at the White House are going to be very tame affairs from now on.   A lot of silent twiddling of awkward thumbs.  No hip musicians, no hip actors, no Springsteen

Who is gonna be singing at the White House, that's my main concern!  These are the issues that now need to be discussed on those politics shows.

It's going to like the Playboy Mansion!

Well I promised it would be, Hero. Let me tell ya, believe me..... Heff now got competition.

Nore Staat wrote:I thought the BBC would be too scared to open up a comments section on the US General Election.  SO they have opened up a comments section on a Business section article saying how Trump is causing financial instability on the world markets ... and people are taking this opportunity to hammer the BBC:

7.  Posted by   SryNoAutographs  
Just when you thought the BBC couldn't lose on another political campaign, they go and surprise us.

Backed Miliband over Cameron and lost.
Backed Smith over Corbyn and lost.
Backed Remain over Leave and lost.
Backed Trump over Clinton and lost.

Probably time to start reporting the news, rather than create it, don't you think?

5.  Posted by   Dave1965  
The BBC interprets 'diversity' to mean employing ethnic minorities.

More important is diversity of opinion. 95% of the BBC reporting staff are clearly out of step with majority public opinion on this side of the Atlantic (Brexit) and the other (Trump victory).

Let's have some diversity of *thought* in reporting rather than BBC groupthink ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37921036

That said some BBC people are not biased - Andrew Neal seems to be pretty balanced and insightful.  But the people controlling the BBC website in my view are tabloid-like biased.

Typical nonsense posts on a BBC HYS; worse if you list the comments by 'Highest rated'. I don't know why they bother to let people comment these days. They don't moderate properly either i.e. that's an article about Trump's win on the markets and yet people are posting trendy 'I-Hate-The BBC' posts, which are wildly off-topic and yet remain there. The comments also aren't simply in disagreement with the article, huge amounts of the highest rated comments are of the type:

"LOL at the outraged left-leaning liberal loonies"
"Time the rake out the PC multi culti liars and sneering leftist bigots that infest the BBC"
"Oh dear the BBC will be crying into their herbal tea and consoling themselves with organic carrot cake."

That's not hate of the BBC, that's hate of what they perceive to be 'liberal' values disguised as hate of the BBC. Nice.
You also have to wonder at the BBC haters - they seem happy to read the material there (why bother if you hate the BBC?), but if opinion/comment doesn't agree with their view, it's the BBC that's scheiss.

Heff will probably be made Head of Human Services.

Well congrats America. They say you get the government you deserve. I shall await developments on the other side of the pond with great interest...






...from here...




Interesting that just about every poll got the result wrong...

BBC are paid for by the British taxpayers.  Anyone who owns a television in Britain has to pay for the BBC.  It is only fair that some form of feedback channel is provided.

Nore Staat wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah nore we all remember you crying and running away during Brexit too well to take seriously any of your selective choices of posts that agree with you.

I remember receiving a lot of abuse and getting fed up with the abuse.  Can't remember if you were one of those using the ad hominems.

Not at you I was abusing that dumbars Welsh businessman who was blaming eu for business rates. I asked you for examples of the sovereignty question about Brexit.

Nore Staat wrote:BBC are paid for by the British taxpayers.  Anyone who owns a television in Britain has to pay for the BBC.  It is only fair that some form of feedback channel is provided.

Of course. There are and have been for ages, channels to do just that. What's really thick though is corrupting every single HYS on the BBC with 'The BBC is biased and scheiss' comments. Pathetic.
Hopefully, the 'feedback' provided by the ranting tin-foil hat Nazis (see, I can take that tack too) will be taken with a pinch of salt, although I won't hold my breath as the wind blowing from Government over the last decade or so has been to emasculate the BBC.

More concerned with the sh*t the judiciary is taking at the moment navy. Bad times ahead if the press can attack them unimpeded by anything resembling decency or honesty.

Wonderful.


It's a great day. Brexit a few months back now this. The people are waking up.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
How could the experts, the commentators, the pundits get this so wrong?

They were intentionally oversampling the democratic vote to make Clinton look good. The whole establishment was against Trump.

The BBC website are airing a story of US celebrities effectively calling for the assassination of Donald Trump. One wonders what the motivation of the BBC is in creating this story of a "celebrity" led call for revolution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37920835/katy-perry-says-revolution-is-coming-as-donald-trump-is-elected-us-president

The pollsters are on the run as a profession. I suggest they could take up dog walking duties for the Rich and Famous in Beverley Hills. It's bound to be a more productive life.

It's hard to find people with a sensible argument who support Trump to be fair to the BBC. Still looking forward to no more IS within 100 days of 20th January...as long as he didn't mean that none of us will be alive by then!

Nore Staat wrote:The BBC website are airing a story of US celebrities effectively calling for the assassination of Donald Trump.  One wonders what the motivation of the BBC is in creating this story of a "celebrity" led call for revolution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37920835/katy-perry-says-revolution-is-coming-as-donald-trump-is-elected-us-president

"Do not sit still. Do not weep. MOVE. We are not a nation that will let HATE lead us."

ps.................. I Hate Donald Trump and all who voted for him.....................


You see people, this is why Trump winning is a win for everyone.  The Entertainers are - for one time only - actually going to do some real honest to goodness entertainment.  It's a started already.  Prepare, Trump, for a litany of raptastic tunes in your honour - foul mouthing you every which way (and forcing Mrs Obama to protect her delicate children's ears from the offensive words).  It's going to be a whacky four years.

Penny for Obama's thoughts. This is as much a rejection of his presidency as Hillary.

Bill tried to cheer Hillary up earlier by telling her even Nelson Mandela had to spend 27 years in jail before becoming President.

Hero wrote:Bill tried to cheer Hillary up earlier by telling her even Nelson Mandela had to spend 27 years in jail before becoming President.

good one.

I do think the second half of this article is worth a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals

GSC wrote:Penny for Obama's thoughts. This is as much a rejection of his presidency as Hillary.

But that's another thing that European commentators (TV, papers) evaded. Ask Americans and they'll say Obama was almost obsolete as President. He made nice speeches and frowned a little for emphasis but he was a lame duck for most of his eight years. It seems he allowed himself to be dragged around by his advisors who kept him in wars he wanted to supposedly end, kept American troops on the ground in areas he said were going to be left to their own devices, killed off a superstar terrorist that could have been killed off years before had the CIA really wanted it to happen.....
His Presidency was rejected long before last night. And I suppose in a way it led to Hillary's own downfall. She was also a token Presidential candidate - a First Woman, just as Obama was First Black man. Hillary found out that Americans have fallen out with tokenism voting. It didn't matter whether she was a woman or a man, they wanted political change not gender change.

Hero wrote:Bill tried to cheer Hillary up earlier by telling her even Nelson Mandela had to spend 27 years in jail before becoming President.

ShahenshahG wrote:More concerned with the sh*t the judiciary is taking at the moment navy. Bad times ahead if the press can attack them unimpeded by anything resembling decency or honesty.  

My 2 cents' worth is that they deserve it, for effectively ruling against the wishes of the people and throwing a major spanner in the works for Brexit...possibly stopping it dead.

You do realise the challenge was brought to court by Remainers in the first place and at least one of the judges was a Remainer too?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

And there was me thinking judges are supposed to be impartial...

Hero wrote:Bill tried to cheer Hillary up earlier by telling her even Nelson Mandela had to spend 27 years in jail before becoming President.

Actually spat out reading that

There's going to be such a huge market for ladders in Mexico.

The judges job is to enforce the law, which they have done correctly in this instance. We have a system of parliamentary sovereignty. The referendum doesn't, can't and never did supersede that. Fundamental change to our constitutional laws, which leaving the EU undoubtedly represents have to be debated and discussed in parliament, that is long established. This determination, irrespective of who decided it or brought it about, simply re-affirms that point.

I am with Shah, the attacks on the judiciary and judges are shameful and completely unjustified. Also they have not ruled against the will of the people they have merely pointed out the correct way the will of the people will be enacted, the distinction is huge.

Hero wrote:Bill tried to cheer Hillary up earlier by telling her even Nelson Mandela had to spend 27 years in jail before becoming President.

ROFLMAO!

I suspect Donald Trump is going to have so much on his plate, he might just forget to have Hillary investigated (again). Or maybe not...

kingraf wrote:
There's going to be such a huge market for ladders in Mexico.

Lol! Depends on whether Trump plans on having watchtowers with armed guards, attack dogs, barbed wire and mines as part of his new border.

kingraf wrote:There's going to be such a huge market for ladders in Mexico.

And don't you know, Trump will have invested wisely in ladder manufacturing before he signs the Wall order.

Rowley wrote:The judges job is to enforce the law, which they have done correctly in this instance. We have a system of parliamentary sovereignty. The referendum doesn't, can't and never did supersede that. Fundamental change to our constitutional laws, which leaving the EU undoubtedly represents have to be debated and discussed in parliament, that is long established. This determination, irrespective of who decided it or brought it about, simply re-affirms that point.

I am with Shah, the attacks on the judiciary and judges are shameful and completely unjustified. Also they have not ruled against the will of the people they have merely pointed out the correct way the will of the people will be enacted, the distinction is huge.

I'll hold you (and Shah) to that.

I'll be ready with a big "I told you so" if we are still waiting for Article 50 to be invoked in 2 years' time, or if we end up with a "soft" Brexit with no substantial changes 5 years down the line...or however long it takes...

Say what you like, it was a calculated move by Remainers to delay, or even stop Brexit...even if it was done following due process. If the Remainers hadn't issued the challenge in the first place, no-one would even be talking about it.

dyrewolfe wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:More concerned with the sh*t the judiciary is taking at the moment navy. Bad times ahead if the press can attack them unimpeded by anything resembling decency or honesty.  

My 2 cents' worth is that they deserve it, for effectively ruling against the wishes of the people and throwing a major spanner in the works for Brexit...possibly stopping it dead.

You do realise the challenge was brought to court by Remainers in the first place and at least one of the judges was a Remainer too?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

And there was me thinking judges are supposed to be impartial...

The absolute f*cking state of your thought process!

superflyweight wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:More concerned with the sh*t the judiciary is taking at the moment navy. Bad times ahead if the press can attack them unimpeded by anything resembling decency or honesty.  

My 2 cents' worth is that they deserve it, for effectively ruling against the wishes of the people and throwing a major spanner in the works for Brexit...possibly stopping it dead.

You do realise the challenge was brought to court by Remainers in the first place and at least one of the judges was a Remainer too?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

And there was me thinking judges are supposed to be impartial...

The absolute f*cking state of your thought process!

Apparently clearer than yours...

Corbyn has already said he will move to block Brexit unless it includes continued freedom of movement, among other things.

With this challenge the Remainers have effectively prevented the Leavers from getting what they voted for.