Politics of the Free - It’s because Democrats, stupid.
-
Yossarian wrote:The issue for Obama was that the Republicans controlled both legislative houses and were against him. Trump would have people from his party controlling both houses for at least two years (I believe it is for the election cycle, I could be wrong). He could do a lot of damage in that time.
He may well have his party controlling congress but at present that's immaterial. The party system doesn't work like it does here. The whip system is much diluted and congressman are often more interested in pleasing their constituents than the party. Rubio currently has twelve times as many Representatives backing him and fifteen times the senators of Trump. Loads of key Republican politicians have come out opposing him and that will continue even if he wins the presidency, which he won't. Basically, he'll be up against it even if the Reps control both houses.
The key state so far has been Virginia. Swing state and going to be essential in the presidential election. Trump didn't do as well there as he did in most other states, Rubio was only just behind him too. Florida will be the key primary - winner takes all in terms of delegates. Cruz has no chance and the likelihood of Rubio winning it are getting weaker by the day. -
tin gets it. The closest thing I can think of to Trump is Berlusconi. It doesn't matter that he had mafia ties, questionable property deals and fucked a 17 year old because that didn't clash with his image. Finding out that Trump has lied and cheated for money won't make a dent as long as people believe he will do the same for America.
"..the pseudo-Left new style.." -
JonB wrote:I must admit there is this small part of me that wants to see what would actually happen in a Trump presidency, out of morbid curiosity, and perhaps slightly more so if Clinton is the alternative.
It might be of course that all the mad shit he tried to do just wouldn't get anywhere, and things would carry on as normal (i.e. still shit), just with an especially large twat at the helm.
This is me too.
He won't become president, though. Clinton will fuck shit up she will not hesitate to sacrifice any number of america's sons and daughters in the furtheration of america's peacifying democratifying of the infidel non- third way world.
-
I've just had a thought. What happens if Trump wins the nomination, and all these Republicans that can't stand him get together, to launch an 'independent' campaign for somebody else. Possible?
-
IanHamlett wrote:It doesn't matter that he had mafia ties, questionable property deals and fucked a 17 year old because that didn't clash with his image.
They matter in so much as they limit the scope of the attack ads the Trump camp can hit Clinton with. Bring up Juanita Broaddrick rape allegations and then the Ivana allegations are re-aired. Bring up Whitewater and her expensive speeches and Trump University rears its ugly head.
Clinton is really weak when attacked and this could be where Trump makes a lot of headway during the presidential debates. Sanders is mild mannered, principled and yet he's managed to pick away at some of the scandals she's been involved with. She has got shitloads of issues to be defensive of - Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation etc - yet these can be diluted somewhat if she can drag up Trump's dirt. -
Diluted Dante wrote:I've just had a thought. What happens if Trump wins the nomination, and all these Republicans that can't stand him get together, to launch an 'independent' campaign for somebody else. Possible?
This is the most likely strategy Dante. -
May 9th deadline in Texas and the Republican Convention is July, so no.Diluted Dante wrote:I've just had a thought. What happens if Trump wins the nomination, and all these Republicans that can't stand him get together, to launch an 'independent' campaign for somebody else. Possible? -
This seems to work as a way of stopping Trump, but would enrage his supporters to an extent that they definitely lose the presidential election and risk losing congress and governor elections. Could be amazing.Stopharage wrote:
This is the most likely strategy Dante.Diluted Dante wrote:I've just had a thought. What happens if Trump wins the nomination, and all these Republicans that can't stand him get together, to launch an 'independent' campaign for somebody else. Possible? -
Stopharage wrote:Diluted Dante wrote:I've just had a thought. What happens if Trump wins the nomination, and all these Republicans that can't stand him get together, to launch an 'independent' campaign for somebody else. Possible?
This is the most likely strategy Dante.
Yeah, I'd considered a brokered convention. That could mean Carson is being encouraged by the party to fight on. Kasich could see extra funding appear too, wouldn't be surprised if some got behind him in a big way soon. I've read that he's a likely candidate to win a brokered convention. -
Never underestimate spite-voting. This is what genuinely unnerves me about the current US race. -
AgfhgrwerlhgegxI’m a liberal-left college professor in the social sciences. I’m going to vote for Trump but I won’t tell hardly anybody.
My main reason is anger at the two-party system and the horrible presidencies of Obama and Bush. But I’m also furious at political correctness on campus and in the media.
I’m angry at forced diversity and constant, frequently unjustified complaints about racism/sexism/homophobia/lack of trans rights. I’m particularly angry at social justice warriors and my main reason to vote Trump is to see the looks on your faces when he wins.
It’s not that I like Trump. It’s that I hate those who can’t stand him. I want them to suffer the shock of knowing all their torrents of blog posts and Tumblr bitch-fests and “I just can’t ...” and accusations of mansplaining didn’t actually matter. That they’re still losing. And that things are not getting better for them. They’re getting worse.
I love the smell of abject nihilism in the morning -
lol, the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
-
Half the people in that article it seems would rather vote for Sanders, and don't think much of Trump at all, but would rather see everything burn than support the more of the same of Clinton. Which, again, I can sort of understand, although not to that extent.
They are all Guardian readers though, so hardly representative. -
Yeah, it's voting out of spite, which will always end well, especially when there is an option for them in Sanders, which they sometimes even acknowledge!
I mean these Tory cunts have been in charge for six years, and there isn't rioting in the streets, I'm not sure what they expect off Trump. -
Not the best of nights for Sanders. He's won 2 states by the looks of it, which sounds good, but getting smashed in Lousiana means he's still won slightly less delegates than Clinton.
Good news though, Drumpf had a bad night too, with Cruz closing the gap on him. -
Don't think Cruz is any less of a mentalist.
-
If anything, he's more, but the point is that the gap is closing on Trump, and he's not the anointed one.
None of the Republican candidates are ones you would stomach to be honest. -
My nagging fear about Trump winning the presidency goes out the window if he slogs it out with Cruz (and the rest) all the way to the convention. Any sort of brokered convention or shenanigans will hopefully fracture the Republicans for a generation.
-
My Gen X Hillary problem: I know why we don’t “like” Clinton
And in that moment, as the young Iowan’s voice rattled around in my head, I knew I would support Hillary. Not just because we both have a uterus (thank you, Killer Mike). Not because I’m afraid of going to a special place in hell (thank you, Madeleine Albright). I’m supporting her because as a member of Generation X, I’ve lived through enough to understand that if Hillary were a man she’d be the front-runner hands-down. I haven’t suffered the overt sexism of earlier generations, but in its place has come a more oblique, more insidious variant. It’s the kind that makes you question whether the fault might lie with you and your abilities. It gives rise to questions about why people aren’t enthusiastic about you, why they didn’t like it when you took a strident tone with them and then, when you adjusted course, complained that you weren’t aggressive enough, or why there’s something about you that just feels wrong. In politics people call this likability. And the female politicians we “like” are few and far between, because they remind us of our mothers or wives or that girl you hated in gymnastics class. We don’t have a frame of reference for what it looks like for women to be running the show, so if she’s not a man, she comes across as all wrong. In the tech world people don’t talk about “likability.” Instead they say, “Mike is going to present to the client because he’s got a great style. But don’t worry, you’ll still have a few slides that you can really own.”
I suspect that the millennial women who are supporting Bernie may simply not have gotten to a place in life where they’ve experienced this kind of chronic, internalized, institutional sexism. In order for someone to ignore you at a senior level, you need be old enough to have reached that level, and most millenials aren’t quite there yet. They’re still where I was in my early 30s, hopeful that we’ve come through the other side to a post-sexist world. Because nothing says “sexism is dead” like a woman voting for Bernie.
I hate this argument. It's basically, "ah, you don't understand, because you're too young", which is as patronising as "ah, you don't understand because you are a woman".
I don't believe for a second that Clinton would be any further ahead were she a man, because Clinton is the establishment candidate. She represents the status quo. Her policy pitch is "more of the same, but perhaps in some area's we'll make things ever so slightly better!". Indeed the biggest reason her supporters give is that she is the most likely person to get elected. How uninspiring is that? It's the same pitch the three Labour 'moderates' made for the Labour leadership. I promise to get elected, and enact the same policies you currently grumble about!
Then there is Sanders, who comes in shouting "Rip the whole fucking thing up! This is bullshit, lets do it this way instead!". It's not difficult to see why that's more appealing. Even if you don't believe that they will be able to get some, or even much of their policy through, you've admitted to yourself that the chance some of it will is better than the certainty none of it will.
Sanders is charasmatic sure, but he's not carrying his campaign on that. He's carrying it on anti-establisment feeling, backed up by actual policy people can see is different. -
There's something a bit off about these pieces where the author just ignores any qualms people on the left would have about Clinton and proceeds to criticise them as sexists.
-
JonB wrote:Don't think Cruz is any less of a mentalist.
Which one is more mental? There's only one way to find out. And I suspect it may actually happen at a future republican debate / bout of democracy shaming -
It's worth remembering if we leave the European and Trump wins we could very well be in a situation where we rely on him.
A man that so many people wanted to ban from our country that there was a debate in the commons over it. -
-
Funkstain wrote:I am almost 100% convinced that Cruz would be worse.
If Cruz gets the Republican nod then the odds of a Democratic victory will shorten considerably. Cruz vs Clinton is a scary thought.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836