Jump to content

The 2016 US Presidential Election


Adamski

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
26 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

From my understanding, Trump's vote is similar to that of Romney's - what has happened is that the vote for the Democrats fell compared to Obama.

Quite a number who voted last time but didn't vote this time.

One thing that has not been discussed is who the Democrats should have selected instead of Clinton (or Sanders).

I suspect that someone like Joe Biden would have done better.

Sanders would have won easily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

The US president threatening to roll back on NATO commitments is a bit more of a fundamental problem trumps bruised ego over a golf course. 

NATO is o.k. as long as the US is providing the muscle, but God forbid that the rest of us have to contribute, right?

Are the people that are posting they are worried about the USA rolling back on NATO commitments the same ones that complain about the UK's military expenditure and operations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jacksgranda said:

Are the people that are posting they are worried about the USA rolling back on NATO commitments the same ones that complain about the UK's military expenditure and operations?

When have I complained about UK defence spending?

The UK meets its NATO commitment. Trump's NATO stance is at least ambiguous. Collective security of the liberal democracies is a 70 year old foundation stone of western foreign policy. When everyone knows where the lines in the sand are its  much easier for everyone to navigate around them. When they become blurred people may be tempted to give a push and see what peoples true commitments are, that is a rather more dangerous world than the current one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

When have I complained about UK defence spending?

The UK meets its NATO commitment. Trump's NATO stance is at least ambiguous. Collective security of the liberal democracies is a 70 year old foundation stone of western foreign policy. When everyone knows where the lines in the sand are its  much easier for everyone to navigate around them. When they become blurred people may be tempted to give a push and see what peoples true commitments are, that is a rather more dangerous world than the current one. 

I wasn't referring to you. Other poster(s) have made the same point (about US NATO's commitments). If the UK were to up its defence spending tomorrow to help out NATO, the same ones yapping about the US cutting back would be whining about "militaristic imperialist sabre rattling trying to compensate for no longer having an Empire" or similar clichéd clap trap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military industrial complex anyone?

So is trump willing to roll the dice with this (both in an economic and military stance)?

I can see why that's v appealing to the American people but it's helluva risky. The world's policeman has finished his shift.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

Sanders would have won easily

I doubt it. He would have got more millennials out, but would not have got any of Trumps anti immigrant vote, and very few middle class whites would have voted for a self declared Socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it. He would have got more millennials out, but would not have got any of Trumps anti immigrant vote, and very few middle class whites would have voted for a self declared Socialist.



I think he'd have energized the base in a way that Clinton never did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I wasn't referring to you. Other poster(s) have made the same point (about US NATO's commitments). If the UK were to up it's defence spending tomorrow to help out NATO, the same ones yapping about the US cutting back would be whining about "militaristic imperialist sabre rattling trying to compensate for no longer having an Empire" or similar clichéd clap trap.

There was a military chap on Andrew Marr this morning saying that UK was one of four Nato members who contribute the agreed % of GDP to Nato.

Other than USA I don't know who the other two are. France, possibly Denmark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, WILLIEA said:

There was a military chap on Andrew Marr this morning saying that UK was one of four Nato members who contribute the agreed % of GDP to Nato.

Other than USA I don't know who the other two are. France, possibly Denmark?

The 4 is not including USA; Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:
From my understanding, Trump's vote is similar to that of Romney's - what has happened is that the vote for the Democrats fell compared to Obama.
 


You're not altogether wrong on a national scale, but of course that isn't where the election is decided.

Many Barack Obama voters in states like Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida voted for Donald Trump. It truly is that simple. The overwhelming majority of his voters are not racist, sexist, misogynistic, fascist, dictatorial or insane, the way they are portrayed in the press. I said this a couple of months ago and was vilified, there are still people on this forum who cannot see past that fact. It makes things easier to comprehend in their own mind if they pretend everyone else is 'deplorable'.

The fact that people have voted for Trump in spite of his statements and personality shows how truly desperate for change they are. Imagine how much he'd have won by if it wasn't for that tape? There'd have been no rape allegations and all that went along with it. In spite of that very close to half of female voters in the US still felt that he's a better option than Clinton, who would've been the historic first female President. That'd be like 45% of Blacks voting against Obama, when about 2% did. Just let that sink in.

People really need to face upto the truth. Whether Trump will change a great deal or fulfil his commitments isn't really the story from this election. The 'greatest democracy in the world' and the world's main superpower has elected a man who is quite clearly unfit to be the President. They did this because the 'system' constantly shits on them, and no major politician is likely to change it. Is Trump likely to change it? No, probably not. The exit polls show a large chunk of his voters know that, they find him unlikeable but voted for him anyway. Maybe, just maybe though, he'll pull it off? From their perspective it's better to have a shot at it than elect four years of further misery for middle America.

But for the media, the career politicians, the special interest groups, the banks, the lobbyists? Probably better to just call them racist, f**k off to the Winchester and hope this all blows over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will he Get Apple,Starbucks etc. to pay their taxes.

Use the money to build hospitals making health-care affordable to all !

Hope so ..    

 

   & don't forget full UFO disclosure  -  that should confuse the Radical Islamists .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Paco said:

  The 'greatest democracy in the world' and the world's main superpower has elected a man who is quite clearly unfit to be the President. They did this because the 'system' constantly shits on them, and no major politician is likely to change it. 

Time will tell.  What's worse-  someone who speaks their mind ,  or someone who says one thing ,& thinks another.

My worry is that he will be turned into the latter.

He may be the medicine that is needed just at this time.

Most people didn't vote for Clinton. Until we change to proportional representation ( the simple,not the ridiculously complicated version) we will never get what we (all) deserve..

 

I'm optimistic it is the beginning of something good , just like Brexit   IMO

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Paco said:

People really need to face upto the truth. Whether Trump will change a great deal or fulfil his commitments isn't really the story from this election.

Less people voted Trump than Romney. He does not represent some complete rewritting of the rules of US elections. The failure was Clintons inability to mount a decent campaign. But people were prepared to vote for a man who boasted that he would ban Muslims from entering the US, who was accused of being a sexual predator and even caught on tape pretty much boasting about it.

Most of the people who voted for him are not "desperate". Trying to normalise their willingness to vote for him under the cover that this was a "working class" revolt is interesting in how people seek to sanitise his electoral platform. Key swing states like Michigan

Romney 2912 2,115,256

Trump 2016 2,277,914

Trump gained about 160 000 Clinton lost over 300 000 votes from Obama. People did not come streaming out for some magical change, they more than anything could not be arsed or were not engaged by Clinton. 

 

McCain 59,948,323

Romney 60,933,500

Trump 60,265,858

There was not "rising up" just a staying at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I doubt it. He would have got more millennials out, but would not have got any of Trumps anti immigrant vote, and very few middle class whites would have voted for a self declared Socialist.

People were showing up in droves to see Sanders campaign, Clinton could barely fill a high school gym. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah so its the Trump supporters who were the racist ones




I did see it put nicely though, but I can't remember who posted it.

The electorate took Trump's bid seriously but didn't take his 'policies' literally; the experts took his 'policies' literally but didn't take his bid seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...