This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
| nickgusset |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think if Trump starts to get 'carried away with power' the party will slap him into line. They'll take advantage of having the senate and house, and probably put a republican on the supreme court - but the degree of individual power the president has is limited. The first lesson most leaders learn is that whilst they're 'the head of state' they're hobbled by their own party, and a lot of republicans are not frothing at the mouth wanna be dictators. Plus, its kind of debatable how 'right wing' Trump actually is. Certainly he's got a lot more in common with the more moderate Republicans in terms of policy outside of walls and muslims. Whilst the President is capable of launching a nuclear strike, the likely reality of one just being able to 'do so because the want to' is negligible. More likely their advisors will simply 'restrain them' and issue medical approved removal of command. The military follow orders, but not slavishly and without question - especially from a president with no military experience. Apart from the muslims, mexico and trade, there's not a lot to seperate Trump from Sanders
|
|
|
Originally posted by ex hibitionist
Sorry old bean, only just noticed you are American - we hear loads of Americans hate her - and sure the Dems have lost their core support, but why this hatred towards her? I'm not criticising here but you write like someone who is observing from the outside - she looks like a normal bog standard politician from over here, not particularly dislikable like a George Osborne, Mandelson or Mellor - could you enlighten us as to the visceral hate aimed at her - then we can dispense with our silly tit for tat - I enjoy winding up conservatives just as much as some people like winding up liberals - but I will respect your views and would be more than interested if you could shine a bit of light on the Hilary haters. I am an ex-pat in the US. I grew up in the UK, and emigrated as an adult. Hillary is not charismatic, and that is a big part of her lack of national appeal. Scandal after scandal has degraded her standing over thirty years in the public eye. She has offered no vision, instead listing policies and plans without really connecting to the average voter. Furthermore, the Democratic party has allowed itself to become dominated by wealthy elites who have little connection to the party's core support. Surprisingly, perhaps, far more Republicans seem at home with poor people than do many top Democrats, and the latter tend to talk down to the working classes: telling what they should and should not want and need. Re. Hillary's "basket of deplorable" comment. That was taken worse than Romney's "40% don't pay tax and won't ever vote Republican" comment. Throw in the fact that she will switch support for issues and ideas at the first sign of unpopularity, and people don't think she can be trusted. The more recent leaking of emails has not helped, as they have shown many of the assumptions about the Democratic Primaries being rigged against Sanders to be true. The suspicions about her email server look more worrying when emails showing she knew perfectly well why she wanted a private server, came to light. She wanted to hide stuff. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that large numbers of Bernie's supporters simply did not vote for her. They wanted change, transparency, honesty, and the best she could offer was more of the same, without the charisma. The electorate across the political spectrum has been crying out for an outsider for the last dozen years. Witness the Tea Party which started out as a narrow single issue party and grew from there. It was composed of mostly disaffected voters who felt they had been marginalized by the political system. In many ways they were right. When they were spoken to, particularly by the left, they were ridiculed, maligned, and discounted. This last year or two has seen two outsiders do really well in the primaries and election: Sanders and Trump. Much of what they were saying is quite similar: i.e. you've been screwed by the man, DC and the old guard look after their own, I can be your champion. So, when the election came up, many of my Republican friends decided not to vote, or to vote for a third party candidate as a protest. From the analysis of the election, 5-10m Democrats did not show up to vote. The weather was good, there were no real problems of access to voting, yet they did not show up and support her. Republican numbers were down, but third party candidates got the largest share of the vote in ages. She still failed to win. Not only that, but Republicans now control both houses too. That's a damning indictment of the Democratic party's last eight years. Economically, the economy is growing very slowly and many of the new jobs are at the lower end of the food chain. Medical costs have gone up massively, and quite a lot of people lost their healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. That has driven up costs for ordinary working people, without solving the problem of lack of health insurance. Thus, there are still many people who are unemployed or underemployed. The problem of immigration has not gone away, and that has had an effect on wages at the bottom of the scale. Democrats seem to have focused on ethnic minorities and not on blue collar whites. Whether that perception is wholly true, is immaterial. It certainly looks like that. Add in a focus on things such as transgender rights for kids, etc., and you have a large part of the population wondering what on earth the Democratic party is thinking. It spends a huge amount of time on a few hot button emotive topics whilst not paying attention to Syria, problems with China, Russia, the economy, jobs, immigration, etc. It's no wonder ordinary blue collar voters have stopped voting for them, or for voting for anyone calling for changes in the status quo. As Nickgusset mentioned, Trump and Sanders are similar in many ways.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Not very rigged then. The point of a rigged election is that you cannot win it - and you'd expect the rigging candidate to do far better in the essential swing states. Rigged in the sense that it favours one candidate but not in the coconut nailed to the shy sense. Of course it could have been a campaign tactic just like most of Trump's other rhetoric.
|
|
|
Interesting analysis of the most comprehensive exit poll::
|
|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Scotland has its own parliament vested to look after its peoples best interests and is a country. In the US what was essentially a two-horse race the one with most votes lost. Not democratic. In Scotland a simple yes/no for remain' the answer with most votes lost. Not democratic. For Scotland. You are all for democracy. Strongly so going by your posts so you should be vehemently agreeing with me about the democracy point not trying to undermine it. Unless, of course, the real inconsistency is coming from your side of the political fence. You are really just clouding the argument. The referendum was for the whole of Britain. Although advisory, Scotland entered into it in good faith following a Scottish referendum on independence. The people knew that a vote for the Union followed by a vote for Brexit would mean the whole of Britain, they just didn't expect that result. Feeble.
|
|
|
Originally posted by NickinOX
I am an ex-pat in the US. I grew up in the UK, and emigrated as an adult. Hillary is not charismatic, and that is a big part of her lack of national appeal. Scandal after scandal has degraded her standing over thirty years in the public eye. She has offered no vision, instead listing policies and plans without really connecting to the average voter. Furthermore, the Democratic party has allowed itself to become dominated by wealthy elites who have little connection to the party's core support. Surprisingly, perhaps, far more Republicans seem at home with poor people than do many top Democrats, and the latter tend to talk down to the working classes: telling what they should and should not want and need. Re. Hillary's "basket of deplorable" comment. That was taken worse than Romney's "40% don't pay tax and won't ever vote Republican" comment. Throw in the fact that she will switch support for issues and ideas at the first sign of unpopularity, and people don't think she can be trusted. The more recent leaking of emails has not helped, as they have shown many of the assumptions about the Democratic Primaries being rigged against Sanders to be true. The suspicions about her email server look more worrying when emails showing she knew perfectly well why she wanted a private server, came to light. She wanted to hide stuff. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that large numbers of Bernie's supporters simply did not vote for her. They wanted change, transparency, honesty, and the best she could offer was more of the same, without the charisma. The electorate across the political spectrum has been crying out for an outsider for the last dozen years. Witness the Tea Party which started out as a narrow single issue party and grew from there. It was composed of mostly disaffected voters who felt they had been marginalized by the political system. In many ways they were right. When they were spoken to, particularly by the left, they were ridiculed, maligned, and discounted. This last year or two has seen two outsiders do really well in the primaries and election: Sanders and Trump. Much of what they were saying is quite similar: i.e. you've been screwed by the man, DC and the old guard look after their own, I can be your champion. So, when the election came up, many of my Republican friends decided not to vote, or to vote for a third party candidate as a protest. From the analysis of the election, 5-10m Democrats did not show up to vote. The weather was good, there were no real problems of access to voting, yet they did not show up and support her. Republican numbers were down, but third party candidates got the largest share of the vote in ages. She still failed to win. Not only that, but Republicans now control both houses too. That's a damning indictment of the Democratic party's last eight years. Economically, the economy is growing very slowly and many of the new jobs are at the lower end of the food chain. Medical costs have gone up massively, and quite a lot of people lost their healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. That has driven up costs for ordinary working people, without solving the problem of lack of health insurance. Thus, there are still many people who are unemployed or underemployed. The problem of immigration has not gone away, and that has had an effect on wages at the bottom of the scale. Democrats seem to have focused on ethnic minorities and not on blue collar whites. Whether that perception is wholly true, is immaterial. It certainly looks like that. Add in a focus on things such as transgender rights for kids, etc., and you have a large part of the population wondering what on earth the Democratic party is thinking. It spends a huge amount of time on a few hot button emotive topics whilst not paying attention to Syria, problems with China, Russia, the economy, jobs, immigration, etc. It's no wonder ordinary blue collar voters have stopped voting for them, or for voting for anyone calling for changes in the status quo. As Nickgusset mentioned, Trump and Sanders are similar in many ways. I get the Sanders and Trump comparison but I can't buy it. You can make a cold policy analysis and I'm sure some of Trump's more outrageous comments were vote-grabbing rhetoric but he radiates irresponsibility and flippancy - his mentality is the worry as much as anything else. But your post is an eye opener esp re Obamacare and the relative success of the independents - isn't it time for a bit of electoral reform here and there? Democracy gets subverted and circumvented and needs a bit of refreshing so the system doesn't get played so much - 51% of votes will have NO voice, no independent representation in congress - if your system gave independents more chance of being represented I would wager they would get significantly more votes. On the downside if we had PR wets like me would have to put up loads of Ukip MPs - God this is tough! And I wonder which independent George W did vote for? Oh and if you fancy Marine Le Pen to become president of France next year the best odds you can get are 2/1 - now that would be a victory for terrorism. And if that happened I would be similarly undemocratic - probably more so.
|
|
|
Originally posted by coulsdoneagle
A lot of the same scary things he said were echoed by Ted Cruz and Rubio, the difference being they were not saying it just to get the presidency as a vanity project, they probably actually believed some of that sh*t. Trump is highly unlikely to follow through with half the things he said, the Muslim ban has already been taken off his website. Plus the house can hamstring him and his own party won't let him get too crazy. I'm just annoyed that for the rest of his life that absolute melt can say he was the most powerful man in the world. Pence is more bats*** crazy with his religious beliefs than either of them and he's very near to the presidency.
|
|
|
Originally posted by blackpalacefan
Pence is more bats*** crazy with his religious beliefs than either of them and he's very near to the presidency. There have been quite a few US Presidents who've openly believed in the Christian God, you know. Probably most of them, in fact.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
There have been quite a few US Presidents who've openly believed in the Christian God, you know. Probably most of them, in fact. I'm not bothered if a person has religious beliefs, most Americans do. I said he's bats*** crazy with his religious reliefs'. He believes that HIV funding should be cut off because it "encourage the types of behaviours that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus" and should be transfered to 'gay cure therapy'. Such zero science, ill conceived ideas are not the stuff of reasoned thought. There is no angle by which you can add respectability to it. His position on womens role in society is equally awful.
|
|
|
Originally posted by NickinOX
I am an ex-pat in the US. I grew up in the UK, and emigrated as an adult. Hillary is not charismatic, and that is a big part of her lack of national appeal. Scandal after scandal has degraded her standing over thirty years in the public eye. She has offered no vision, instead listing policies and plans without really connecting to the average voter. Furthermore, the Democratic party has allowed itself to become dominated by wealthy elites who have little connection to the party's core support. Surprisingly, perhaps, far more Republicans seem at home with poor people than do many top Democrats, and the latter tend to talk down to the working classes: telling what they should and should not want and need. Re. Hillary's "basket of deplorable" comment. That was taken worse than Romney's "40% don't pay tax and won't ever vote Republican" comment. Throw in the fact that she will switch support for issues and ideas at the first sign of unpopularity, and people don't think she can be trusted. The more recent leaking of emails has not helped, as they have shown many of the assumptions about the Democratic Primaries being rigged against Sanders to be true. The suspicions about her email server look more worrying when emails showing she knew perfectly well why she wanted a private server, came to light. She wanted to hide stuff. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that large numbers of Bernie's supporters simply did not vote for her. They wanted change, transparency, honesty, and the best she could offer was more of the same, without the charisma. The electorate across the political spectrum has been crying out for an outsider for the last dozen years. Witness the Tea Party which started out as a narrow single issue party and grew from there. It was composed of mostly disaffected voters who felt they had been marginalized by the political system. In many ways they were right. When they were spoken to, particularly by the left, they were ridiculed, maligned, and discounted. This last year or two has seen two outsiders do really well in the primaries and election: Sanders and Trump. Much of what they were saying is quite similar: i.e. you've been screwed by the man, DC and the old guard look after their own, I can be your champion. So, when the election came up, many of my Republican friends decided not to vote, or to vote for a third party candidate as a protest. From the analysis of the election, 5-10m Democrats did not show up to vote. The weather was good, there were no real problems of access to voting, yet they did not show up and support her. Republican numbers were down, but third party candidates got the largest share of the vote in ages. She still failed to win. Not only that, but Republicans now control both houses too. That's a damning indictment of the Democratic party's last eight years. Economically, the economy is growing very slowly and many of the new jobs are at the lower end of the food chain. Medical costs have gone up massively, and quite a lot of people lost their healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. That has driven up costs for ordinary working people, without solving the problem of lack of health insurance. Thus, there are still many people who are unemployed or underemployed. The problem of immigration has not gone away, and that has had an effect on wages at the bottom of the scale. Democrats seem to have focused on ethnic minorities and not on blue collar whites. Whether that perception is wholly true, is immaterial. It certainly looks like that. Add in a focus on things such as transgender rights for kids, etc., and you have a large part of the population wondering what on earth the Democratic party is thinking. It spends a huge amount of time on a few hot button emotive topics whilst not paying attention to Syria, problems with China, Russia, the economy, jobs, immigration, etc. It's no wonder ordinary blue collar voters have stopped voting for them, or for voting for anyone calling for changes in the status quo. As Nickgusset mentioned, Trump and Sanders are similar in many ways. Good post Nick, has defo helped me understand the situation
|
|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
There have been quite a few US Presidents who've openly believed in the Christian God, you know. Probably most of them, in fact. Claim to.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Superfly
I have a violent temper, am mostly incomprehensible, as tight as a ducks chuff, deep fry my heroin and have early symptoms of liver failure. Any good? I hate to break it to you, but you might be a Millwall fan.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Claim to. You miss my point. It was seen as normal and utterly unremarkable.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
You miss my point. It was seen as normal and utterly unremarkable. It still is utterly unremarkable to be a Christian President or VP, in fact it is more of a prerequisite. I wasn't criticising someone being religious, I was saying that he's at the extreme end of the spectrum, with many religious conservates backing away from some of his more 'choice' views about abortion and the like. It's kind of irrelevant anyway as he wasn't Trump's first choice, he wanted Christie, it was more of a strategic choice to win over voters. As long as Trump remains healthy I doubt he'll have much influence. Edited by blackpalacefan (10 Nov 2016 9.58pm)
|
|
|
Originally posted by blackpalacefan
It still is utterly unremarkable to be a Christian President or VP, in fact it is more of a prerequisite. I wasn't criticising someone being religious, I was saying that even in modern America he's at the extreme end of the spectrum, with many religious conservates even backing away from some of his more 'choice' views about abortion and the like. What, like being opposed to it? Hardly a niche viewpoint.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
What, like being opposed to it? Hardly a niche viewpoint. If you ask your own question then answer it, you might not require my answer but I'll give it anyway. There are many different views in the US religious community regarding abortion. It's not a check box system. Some believe that rape victims should be forced to go through with their pregnancies, and that if the feutus has extreme abnormalities or will die shortly after birth that it should still be illegal to have an abortion. Others do not believe that. Edited by blackpalacefan (10 Nov 2016 10.21pm)
|
|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You are really just clouding the argument. The referendum was for the whole of Britain. Although advisory, Scotland entered into it in good faith following a Scottish referendum on independence. The people knew that a vote for the Union followed by a vote for Brexit would mean the whole of Britain, they just didn't expect that result. Feeble. Ok you need some help here. The SNP voted against the Parliamentary Act for the Referendum in the House of Commons. They did not enter Scotland 'in good faith'. They had to legally. They now, possibly, have the legal right to put Brexit proposals before the Scottish Parliament. They are exploring if they can very soon. And If successful they can they can block things that the Scottish people don't agree with. It's going to be all above board if it happens. But no doubt there will whining and bitching from those who go on about the importance of democracy even though that's exactly what will be happening in its purest form in Holyrood. Imagine, for example, for a country to leave the EU the whole of the EU could vote on it. The Country votes 62% to Leave but when all the votes are tallied from other countries Remain wins overall. Wouldn't be fair would it? It would be democratic - the people who have a right to vote have voted - but it wouldn't be fair. Then, the country discovers it can take the decision back to its own Parliament to enforce the will of its own people. Hoorah - victory! That's the very similar scenario for Scotland being played out now. They didn't want the referendum in the first place. I, for one, hope they - the people- succeed. Edited by Kermit8 (10 Nov 2016 11.07pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
|
Originally posted by ex hibitionist
patronising my *rse ... you don't have to be a pseudo intellectual bleeding heart liberal to be depressed at having a psycho pussy grabber as president. Either introduce an IQ test to disbar brainless freaks from voting or have some jury service element brought into democracy ... old fashioned REPRESENTATIVE democracy is failing, it's being subverted by a conspiracy of evil jokers and morons. I like and respect thoughtful open-minded people from whatever class thy choose to be identified with, but sod democracy - Trumpers should all definitely be shot - not all Brexiteers mind, just most of them But then how would you cast your vote ?
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Ok you need some help here. The SNP voted against the Parliamentary Act for the Referendum in the House of Commons. They did not enter Scotland 'in good faith'. They had to legally. They now, possibly, have the legal right to put Brexit proposals before the Scottish Parliament. They are exploring if they can very soon. And If successful they can they can block things that the Scottish people don't agree with. It's going to be all above board if it happens. But no doubt there will whining and bitching from those who go on about the importance of democracy even though that's exactly what will be happening in its purest form in Holyrood. Imagine, for example, for a country to leave the EU the whole of the EU could vote on it. The Country votes 62% to Leave but when all the votes are tallied from other countries Remain wins overall. Wouldn't be fair would it? It would be democratic - the people who have a right to vote have voted - but it wouldn't be fair. Then, the country discovers it can take the decision back to its own Parliament to enforce the will of its own people. Hoorah - victory! That's the very similar scenario for Scotland being played out now. They didn't want the referendum in the first place. I, for one, hope they - the people- succeed. Edited by Kermit8 (10 Nov 2016 11.07pm)
The EU referendum was to decide if the UK, not Scotland, remained part of the European Union. It really is that simple.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.