Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 18:22:30 GMT -5
My point isn't who's worse, it's just that I'd feel bad "supporting" either of them. I know that's a bad thing in the actual voting but since I'm not a US citizen I can just follow the situation as a spectator.
It's just my principles.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 22, 2018 20:03:02 GMT -5
Mitt Romney
Shoulda woulda coulda
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Mar 22, 2018 20:45:11 GMT -5
Mitt Romney Shoulda woulda coulda
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 22, 2018 21:28:52 GMT -5
My point isn't who's worse, it's just that I'd feel bad "supporting" either of them. I know that's a bad thing in the actual voting but since I'm not a US citizen I can just follow the situation as a spectator. It's just my principles. Like I said, the other option for US voters is down ballot voting. A voter can skip the presidential vote, but vote the rest of the ballot, (say if they have a local senator, governor, mayor, or representative up for reelection), and still have their vote count. It's a misconception that you have to choose between two candidates.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 22, 2018 22:08:52 GMT -5
My point isn't who's worse, it's just that I'd feel bad "supporting" either of them. I know that's a bad thing in the actual voting but since I'm not a US citizen I can just follow the situation as a spectator. It's just my principles. Like I said, the other option for US voters is down ballot voting. A voter can skip the presidential vote, but vote the rest of the ballot, (say if they have a local senator, governor, mayor, or representative up for reelection), and still have their vote count. It's a misconception that you have to choose between two candidates. But it's political fact that often after a president has held office for two consecutive terms, the electorate wants a change and shifts to the other party. (There's always exceptions, of course like George H.W. Bush following Reagan's two terms but it is most certainly not the norm). And it's also very difficult to unseat an incumbent. 2020 is still too far away in political terms to make any concrete prediction but if the economy is still doing as well as it currently is expect Donald to win re-election (although with Donald it's of course very possible that a scandal might unseat him but don't bank on it).
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 22, 2018 22:47:21 GMT -5
Like I said, the other option for US voters is down ballot voting. A voter can skip the presidential vote, but vote the rest of the ballot, (say if they have a local senator, governor, mayor, or representative up for reelection), and still have their vote count. It's a misconception that you have to choose between two candidates. But it's political fact that often after a president has held office for two consecutive terms, the electorate wants a change and shifts to the other party. (There's always exceptions, of course like George H.W. Bush following Reagan's two terms but it is most certainly not the norm). And it's also very difficult to unseat an incumbent. 2020 is still too far away in political terms to make any concrete prediction but if the economy is still doing as well as it currently is expect Donald to win re-election (although with Donald it's of course very possible that a scandal might unseat him but don't bank on it). Typically, incumbents are difficult to unseat, especially if the economy is doing well. Very true. But MOST recent incumbents were well liked. Trump is probably the least liked incumbent since Hoover, possibly LBJ, (yes, even less liked than Nixon, who won his first election at a margin that Presidents today would kill for). The fact that with a decent economy, he's still averaging around 40% in the polls...should keep him up at night. That means he wouldn't need a bad economy to lose, he'd only need a slowing economy (which futures have been steadily dropping with each mention of a trade war. We might actually be seeing one of the few moments of a president torpedoing his own economy) to lose. Like, with his economy, he should be well over 50%. REALLY well over. I think the best comparison to Trump is actually George W. Bush. Bush was already hated by the far left and the left, and even with a solid economy, was in danger of losing. Difference is that Bush was still well liked by the middle. Most people, then and now, found him to be a likable guy, even if he was a bit slow. I don't think that's the case with Trump. The people who don't like him, REALLY don't like him, not just as a President, but as a human being. That's a big issue. Especially in a country where people mostly vote against a candidate rather than for. As I said, he's around 40% right now. Assuming he got an incumbency bounce of 8 points, he'd still be below the 50% magic mark. And 8 points would be incredibly generous considering how deep the hate toward him is becoming, from the middle too. Two years is a long way away, but I'd say if he's still around 40% mark by December 2019....he's in serious trouble, no matter how well the economy is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 22, 2018 23:13:41 GMT -5
But it's political fact that often after a president has held office for two consecutive terms, the electorate wants a change and shifts to the other party. (There's always exceptions, of course like George H.W. Bush following Reagan's two terms but it is most certainly not the norm). And it's also very difficult to unseat an incumbent. 2020 is still too far away in political terms to make any concrete prediction but if the economy is still doing as well as it currently is expect Donald to win re-election (although with Donald it's of course very possible that a scandal might unseat him but don't bank on it). Typically, incumbents are difficult to unseat, especially if the economy is doing well. Very true. But MOST recent incumbents were well liked. Trump is probably the least liked incumbent since Hoover, possibly LBJ, (yes, even less liked than Nixon, who won his first election at a margin that Presidents today would kill for). The fact that with a decent economy, he's still averaging around 40% in the polls...should keep him up at night. That means he wouldn't need a bad economy to lose, he'd only need a slowing economy (which futures have been steadily dropping with each mention of a trade war. We might actually be seeing one of the few moments of a president torpedoing his own economy) to lose. Like, with his economy, he should be well over 50%. REALLY well over. I think the best comparison to Trump is actually George W. Bush. Bush was already hated by the far left and the left, and even with a solid economy, was in danger of losing. Difference is that Bush was still well liked by the middle. Most people, then and now, found him to be a likable guy, even if he was a bit slow. I don't think that's the case with Trump. The people who don't like him, REALLY don't like him, not just as a President, but as a human being. That's a big issue. Especially in a country where people mostly vote against a candidate rather than for. As I said, he's around 40% right now. Assuming he got an incumbency bounce of 8 points, he'd still be below the 50% magic mark. And 8 points would be incredibly generous considering how deep the hate toward him is becoming, from the middle too. Two years is a long way away, but I'd say if he's still around 40% mark by December 2019....he's in serious trouble, no matter how well the economy is doing. But do you trust those polls? Polls in contemporary times (post-2010) have been incredibly unreliable, with regards to both US and UK political systems. The Conservatives winning power in 2015 in the UK, and Brexit were both unforeseen at the time. While in the US, Romney was polled as the slight winner heading into the 2012 election, and of course the highly volatile and unpredictable 2016 election between Trump and Clinton. I do wonder if the " Bradley effect" is occurring with Trump's current polling numbers. It's seen as "Taboo" and not "politically correct" to admit out loud that one likes and/or supports Donald Trump - one is viewed (incorrectly, mind) as a bigot, and as a racist. With that in mind, I wonder how diluted those numbers are.....Recall Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority". Let's look at the immediate breakdown: Donald Trump got 46% of the vote in 2016. His internal cabinet and ever-changing personale struggles aside, there's little to suggest he would have lost more than 6% of those voters. Trump isn't a likeable person, and I presume the polling reflect that. However, I don't think his current numbers are correct in terms of presidential approval. Again, there is practically no evidence as of yet to why he would have lost in excess of 6% of his voters from 2016. If I had to guess, I'd think Trump is probably holding steady with a 46% job approval*. Sure, weaker than it should be with this economy but I highly doubt the low(er) numbers that are currently being reported. *Rasmussen looks the most realistic: www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 22, 2018 23:31:15 GMT -5
Also, one of the over-riding themes I learnt as an undergraduate in political science is that every US president enters believing he'll be focused on domestic issues, but actually does become a foreign-policy president.
Not my most eloquent sentence, but you get the point.
Donald Trump will eventually be properly tested with foreign affairs - and how he responds will be how we judge his presidency. I personally like Bolton (I'm a neo-con, after all!), but I have zero confidence in Trump himself.
Going back to an earlier debate in this thread: Donald Trump actually did campaign on being more of a dove. Trump's belief, at least at the time, was not of interventionism but rather making America stronger (or, in his words, "Great") at home. As I mentioned above, contemporary presidents are drawn into foreign affairs, and I presume that is what is now happening with Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 23, 2018 0:15:03 GMT -5
I absolutely despise Trump but since it was Trump vs. Clinton I would've probably skipped the whole voting because I would've felt bad voting either of them. But luckily I'm not from USA. Yes, Clinton might've been the lesser bad but there are a few things in her which I don't like at all. The biggest is probably her warmongering, which is something I'm personally strongly against. That point has never made sense to me. Clinton is a complete and utter hawk, but I said this about 2 years ago, I don't know where people got that Trump wasn't as much of a hawk. Like, he's gone out there to say that he wants to expand our nuclear arsenal and has openly threatened to use it. That's the very definition of warmongering, and he did it on the campaign trail. Yet, it was a criticism openly levied at Clinton but not Trump (when both's foreign policy beliefs are nearly identical). I knew people who wanted to vote for Trump because they thought he'd be less likely to start a war, which I find to be completely irrational and not in line with anything he has said. Donald Trump did indeed campaign as more of a dove compared to Hillary, see this New York Times article from April 2016: www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html?_r=0But as we both have discussed, Trump is now indeed showing more of a hawk side - although it is still yet to be seen what how far he goes with it, but see this article from WashPo dated January 2018: www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/01/18/tell-me-again-how-donald-trump-is-a-dove/
|
|
|
Post by crisppacket on Mar 23, 2018 6:15:57 GMT -5
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 26, 2018 15:59:27 GMT -5
Never did I think there would be a worse president in my lifetime than George W. Bush. But here we are.
How this buffoon still has any supporters is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on May 17, 2018 2:44:20 GMT -5
So now he's apparently referred to undocumented immigrants as "animals". The definition of fascist rhetoric, and yet another low has been reached. Just piss off and die already.
|
|
|
Post by globe on May 17, 2018 3:32:58 GMT -5
See the whole Stormy Daniels thing - just think of all the er, well endowed guys she's been with then imagine what it must have been like for her being with Trump and his no-doubt tiny knob. He wouldn't have touched the sides
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on May 17, 2018 4:39:05 GMT -5
Doing sterling work in Israel at the moment the fucking melt.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 21, 2018 23:19:43 GMT -5
Pretty damning. Massive story. The Hill: Stopping Robert Mueller to protect us all The special counsel has failed to bring down Donald Trump after a year of trying. Where does it end? The “deep state” is in a deep state of desperation. With little time left before the Justice Department inspector general’s report becomes public, and with special counsel Robert Mueller having failed to bring down Donald Trump after a year of trying, they know a reckoning is coming..... Full Story: thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/388549-stopping-robert-mueller-to-protect-us-all?mobile_switch=standard
|
|
|
Post by eva on May 23, 2018 5:36:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 24, 2018 12:04:35 GMT -5
North Korea meeting cancelled. Hardly a surprise, in all honesty.
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on May 24, 2018 12:33:04 GMT -5
North Korea meeting cancelled. Hardly a surprise, in all honesty. Nuclear war 2018 is back on! Happy days.
|
|
|
Post by globe on May 25, 2018 2:48:27 GMT -5
Don has shat it!
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on May 25, 2018 3:19:14 GMT -5
It was a clusterfuck from the start. NK were and are never going to give up their nuclear weapons, they see it as an insurance policy to regime change. Trump was thinking for some bizzare reason they were. Bolton the war hawk then tries to scuttle any deal or meeting by comparing NK to Gaddafi and things soured from there. The sad thing is there could be some sort of peace deal put in place if Trump narrowed the USs expectations and actually worked on an achievable deal not an unrealistic one. Now what do we have? Back on a dangerous path to nuclear war?
|
|
|
Post by globe on May 25, 2018 3:27:43 GMT -5
It was a clusterfuck from the start. NK were and are never going to give up their nuclear weapons, they see it as an insurance policy to regime change. Trump was thinking for some bizzare reason they were. Bolton the war hawk then tries to scuttle any deal or meeting by comparing NK to Gaddafi and things soured from there. The sad thing is there could be some sort of peace deal put in place if Trump narrowed the USs expectations and actually worked on an achievable deal not an unrealistic one. Now what do we have? Back on a dangerous path to nuclear war? Yet another example of Trump and his administration's complete incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by Tongueless Ghost Of Sin on May 25, 2018 3:53:23 GMT -5
Trump, Clinton, Putin, Rocket Man etc Basically every leader/would be leader or oligarch(and their subordinates) of every country is just a slightly different variation of the same kind of repulsive, reprehensible scumfuck.
Who you vote for in elections will make very little difference or in the future. These type of fuckers have caused untold misery and suffering throughout history and in the end they'll destroy us all. Unfortunately there's also sod all we can do to stop them, short of some kind of worldwide coup but even then, the worst sort of people would seize power and we'd be just as screwed as before. That humans allow themselves to be ruled and feel like they need leaders or higher advice really does depress me tbh.
My advice is stop concerning yourself with these fuckers, none of them gives the slightest fuck about you, your problems or those where you happen to live unless it directly affects them and their peer group. I try to avoid the news now, especially around election time. What did Andy Bell say? Something about a circus of vaginas, I can't remember, he's dead right though.
TL;DR we're doomed!!! DOOMED!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 25, 2018 19:46:38 GMT -5
North Korea summit potentially back on....
Why should Trump be the one who decides whether its off or on or on or off or on? Don’t mug yerself.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on May 25, 2018 20:06:51 GMT -5
This will be looked back at, and studied, as the lowest (hopefully) point of American history....
You might not like Obama or "crooked" Hillary, but their policies weren't offending people as human beings.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 25, 2018 20:36:10 GMT -5
This will be looked back at, and studied, as the lowest (hopefully) point of American history.... You might not like Obama or "crooked" Hillary, but their policies weren't offending people as human beings. Thanks. Or George W. Bush. I miss Dubya. 😔
|
|