USA 2016 Presidential Election Thread

[Guest MattP]

That said for the some of the World it would be very good, a hell of a lot of wealth would be up for grabs from Americans who would be leaving the country.

[MC Prussian]

Bernie Sanders and sensible being used in the same sentence? Come on.

I don't want a Team America style USA but a Sanders led USA would be just as catastrophic for the World, Putin, ISIS, Iran and North Korea would be rubbing their hands together at the thought of a Bernie Sanders led America.

Fortunately if he did somehow beat Clinton I think any Republican candidate would beat him.

 

And I suppose you consider any Republican candidate making it to that stage more sensible than Sanders?

 

The Republican choices are a assortment of ultra right-wing loonies hiding behind the fact that they're trying to "protect the States" when they're just selling out to their specific clientele.

Imagine Cruz or Rubio as Head of the State... Bible in one hand, rifle in the other.

To be fair, Obama wasn't much better with the way he handled Guantanamo or the use of drones in the Far East, for instance.

[Guest MattP]

And I suppose you consider any Republican candidate making it to that stage more sensible than Sanders?

 

The Republican choices are a assortment of ultra right-wing loonies hiding behind the fact that they're trying to "protect the States" when they're just selling out to their specific clientele.

Imagine Cruz or Rubio as Head of the State... Bible in one hand, rifle in the other.

To be fair, Obama wasn't much better with the way he handled Guantanamo or the use of drones in the Far East, for instance.

 

And I remember you fawning over Obama as well like every other leftie on here back then, it was going to be huge change, a new World, it was pure fantasy just like all this coming from Bernie is. Republican candidate more sensible? Absolutely. I'd even vote Trump in a H2H V Bernie.

 

Anyone who is prepared to steal from the future as much as Sanders is should be considered a danger, it might be ok for him as he'll be dead soon but the financial mess he'll create would be a disaster, he's just another socialist fraud who is pretending he stands for the young but he will provide the crushing debt that will destroy their future, adding to that he supports a high immigration low wage economy that is dressed up as some weird sort of tolerance.

 

You are right on one thing though, at least Bernie doesn't pretend in any way he'll be 'protecting the States".

[MC Prussian]

And I remember you fawning over Obama as well like every other leftie on here back then, it was going to be huge change, a new World, it was pure fantasy just like all this coming from Bernie is. Republican candidate more sensible? Absolutely. I'd even vote Trump in a H2H V Bernie.

 

Anyone who is prepared to steal from the future as much as Sanders is should be considered a danger, it might be ok for him as he'll be dead soon but the financial mess he'll create would be a disaster, he's just another socialist fraud who is pretending he stands for the young but he will provide the crushing debt that will destroy their future, adding to that he supports a high immigration low wage economy that is dressed up as some weird sort of tolerance.

 

You are right on one thing though, at least Bernie doesn't pretend in any way he'll be 'protecting the States".

 

You don't have to be a "leftie" to appreciate the appointment of Obama back in the day.

 

(Short excursion: I have sympathies for the Left, but don't consider myself in any way Socialist, let alone Communist. I vote in a pragmatic way. Sometimes the left side appeals to me, sometimes the right - depending on how reasonable the argumentation is.)

 

The hope of Obama's first term has made way for some resignation, and considering the joke of a president Bush was and the internal and external mess he had to deal with, that shouldn't come as a big surprise. Not seven years later, looking back. But I also remember Obama's second term being a lot harder due to Republican resistance in both chambers and it has worn him out, both physically and mentally. The freshness evaporated quickly. You sense that he's glad he can leave the office soon.

 

Socialism doesn't exist in the States and probably never will. Saunders isn't a "socialist", just as much as Hillary Clinton isn't. "Socialism" is a shallow term used by people on the right to either discredit Democrats or label anything or any measure that the American media or Republican voters don't understand or fear. Heck, even Democrats shy away from it. They follow the money just as much as the Republicans do.

 

No matter whom you support, you've got to look past the promises made by either side. My issue with Sanders is that at age 75, I can't imagine him lasting two full terms, let alone one.

I appreciate his strategy, but will he make it past Clinton? We've only got two states done in the primaries, there's 48 more to go. It's a long road to Washington.

[Guest MattP]

You don't have to be a "leftie" to appreciate the appointment of Obama back in the day.

 

(Short excursion: I have sympathies for the Left, but don't consider myself in any way Socialist, let alone Communist. I vote in a pragmatic way. Sometimes the left side appeals to me, sometimes the right - depending on how reasonable the argumentation is.)

 

The hope of Obama's first term has made way for some resignation, and considering the joke of a president Bush was and the internal and external mess he had to deal with, that shouldn't come as a big surprise. Not seven years later, looking back. But I also remember Obama's second term being a lot harder due to Republican resistance in both chambers and it has worn him out, both physically and mentally. The freshness evaporated quickly. You sense that he's glad he can leave the office soon.

 

Socialism doesn't exist in the States and probably never will. Saunders isn't a "socialist", just as much as Hillary Clinton isn't. "Socialism" is a shallow term used by people on the right to either discredit Democrats or label anything or any measure that the American media or Republican voters don't understand or fear. Heck, even Democrats shy away from it. They follow the money just as much as the Republicans do.

 

No matter whom you support, you've got to look past the promises made by either side. My issue with Sanders is that at age 75, I can't imagine him lasting two full terms, let alone one.

I appreciate his strategy, but will he make it past Clinton? We've only got two states done in the primaries, there's 48 more to go. It's a long road to Washington.

 

I think you had to be a leftie to get so carried away with Obama you were out in the streets chanting about change and singing Yes we can, I still shake my head thinking back to it, it was so strange, he kept shouting change and no one seemed to ask what the change was, he had 80,000 people on the streets in Germany to greet him and hear him shout change, it was peculiar, I still chuckle to myself, he did have a lot of mess to clean up from GWB but he's been a disaster really for foreign policy, a weak America is just as bad for the World as a belligerent America, we now see the North Koreans developing nukes, ISIS engaging in mass genocide with no real retaliation from the civilised World, Russia realigning the World's borders by force and countries like Iran somehow managing to agree a framework for a nuclear deal, I don't think these things happen with a strong West/America.

 

Sanders has openly called himself a socialist and when I hear him speak he thinks he's a socialist, I don't believe for a minute he'll do what he says simply because the money won't be there to do it but I'm certain he'll beg, steal and borrow as much as he can to try and implement as much as possible.

 

Long long way to go, I still can't work out a way how Sanders can beat Clinton, soon as we get towards the Southern states she'll absolutely clean up, the Sanders support is basically all based around young white liberals, not enough to get you the nomination in the US.

 

One thing Sanders does have going for him is he actually does believe what he says, whereas Clinton appears to be trying to get elected on the fact she has a uterus. The latter could also have some PR disaster at any point.

[Finnaldo]

I think you had to be a leftie to get so carried away with Obama you were out in the streets chanting about change and singing Yes we can, I still shake my head thinking back to it, it was so strange, he kept shouting change and no one seemed to ask what the change was, he had 80,000 people on the streets in Germany to greet him and hear him shout change, it was peculiar, I still chuckle to myself, he did have a lot of mess to clean up from GWB but he's been a disaster really for foreign policy, a weak America is just as bad for the World as a belligerent America, we now see the North Koreans developing nukes, ISIS engaging in mass genocide with no real retaliation from the civilised World, Russia realigning the World's borders by force and countries like Iran somehow managing to agree a framework for a nuclear deal, I don't think these things happen with a strong West/America.

 

Sanders has openly called himself a socialist and when I hear him speak he thinks he's a socialist, I don't believe for a minute he'll do what he says simply because the money won't be there to do it but I'm certain he'll beg, steal and borrow as much as he can to try and implement as much as possible.

 

Long long way to go, I still can't work out a way how Sanders can beat Clinton, soon as we get towards the Southern states she'll absolutely clean up, the Sanders support is basically all based around young white liberals, not enough to get you the nomination in the US.

 

One thing Sanders does have going for him is he actually does believe what he says, whereas Clinton appears to be trying to get elected on the fact she has a uterus. The latter could also have some PR disaster at any point.

 

To be fair Matt I find it peculiar that you'd rather vote for Benito Trump screaming "LETS MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" whilst building the Great Iron Curtain of Mexico or the Republicans upholding some strange theocratic policies over some guy who wants to make the terrible American minimum wage livable.

 

I can understand your affinity with British right-wing but the American right-wing just set out like a bunch of psychopaths for me. I'd imagine Billionaire Business Man Donald Trump wouldn't mind bending politics to favour big business even more over government to make a few extra $$$ give his track record of being a bell.

[Guest MattP]

To be fair Matt I find it peculiar that you'd rather vote for Benito Trump screaming "LETS MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" whilst building the Great Iron Curtain of Mexico or the Republicans upholding some strange theocratic policies over some guy who wants to make the terrible American minimum wage livable.

 

I can understand your affinity with British right-wing but the American right-wing just set out like a bunch of psychopaths for me. I'd imagine Billionaire Business Man Donald Trump wouldn't mind bending politics to favour big business even more over government to make a few extra $$$ give his track record of being a bell.

 

Ironically one of the reasons why a lot of people are voting for Trump is because they believe he has so much money he can't be bought, they have a very different attitude to wealth in America than they do here, it isn't dirty to have lots of money in the USA.

 

Trump is just playing to the audience with regards to building walls etc - we all know these things aren't going to happen in reality.

[leicsmac]

Ironically one of the reasons why a lot of people are voting for Trump is because they believe he has so much money he can't be bought, they have a very different attitude to wealth in America than they do here, it isn't dirty to have lots of money in the USA.

 

Trump is just playing to the audience with regards to building walls etc - we all know these things aren't going to happen in reality.

 

I don't get how you think Sanders will try to do everything he says and yet Trump won't. They both seem to share the same level of belief and would try to force their ideas through in the face of opposition if either of them became President IMO.

 

If anything Trump would have a freer reign with a likely Republican-controlled House and Senate and his pick of Supreme Court judges coming up.

 

I've seen it before with the attitude towards radical newspaper columnists of both wings - radical rightwingers are always just taking the piss and don't actually believe what they say, whereas radlefties are always deadly serious and should be taken at face value.

[Finnaldo]

Ironically one of the reasons why a lot of people are voting for Trump is because they believe he has so much money he can't be bought, they have a very different attitude to wealth in America than they do here, it isn't dirty to have lots of money in the USA.

 

Trump is just playing to the audience with regards to building walls etc - we all know these things aren't going to happen in reality.

 

Understand your point but it just rubs me up the wrong way, even some of their more 'moderate' social policies seem a bit regressive to me.

 

Need to look more into Sanders' policies first tbh, but the Democrats seem slightly more engaging to me and Hillary hasn't impressed me much thus far.

[Guest MattP]

I don't get how you think Sanders will try to do everything he says and yet Trump won't. They both seem to share the same level of belief and would try to force their ideas through in the face of opposition if either of them became President IMO.

 

If anything Trump would have a freer reign with a likely Republican-controlled House and Senate and his pick of Supreme Court judges coming up.

 

I've seen it before with the attitude towards radical newspaper columnists of both wings - radical rightwingers are always just taking the piss and don't actually believe what they say, whereas radlefties are always deadly serious and should be taken at face value.

 

I don't, read the bold bit in the post I wrote just a short while ago.

 

Trump's idea of building a wall across the Mexican border is as ridiculous as Sanders idea that college will be free for anyone who wants to go.

 

I think you had to be a leftie to get so carried away with Obama you were out in the streets chanting about change and singing Yes we can, I still shake my head thinking back to it, it was so strange, he kept shouting change and no one seemed to ask what the change was, he had 80,000 people on the streets in Germany to greet him and hear him shout change, it was peculiar, I still chuckle to myself, he did have a lot of mess to clean up from GWB but he's been a disaster really for foreign policy, a weak America is just as bad for the World as a belligerent America, we now see the North Koreans developing nukes, ISIS engaging in mass genocide with no real retaliation from the civilised World, Russia realigning the World's borders by force and countries like Iran somehow managing to agree a framework for a nuclear deal, I don't think these things happen with a strong West/America.

 

Sanders has openly called himself a socialist and when I hear him speak he thinks he's a socialist, I don't believe for a minute he'll do what he says simply because the money won't be there to do it but I'm certain he'll beg, steal and borrow as much as he can to try and implement as much as possible.

 

Long long way to go, I still can't work out a way how Sanders can beat Clinton, soon as we get towards the Southern states she'll absolutely clean up, the Sanders support is basically all based around young white liberals, not enough to get you the nomination in the US.

 

One thing Sanders does have going for him is he actually does believe what he says, whereas Clinton appears to be trying to get elected on the fact she has a uterus. The latter could also have some PR disaster at any point.

[Finnaldo]

I've seen it before with the attitude towards radical newspaper columnists of both wings - radical rightwingers are always just taking the piss and don't actually believe what they say, whereas radlefties are always deadly serious and should be taken at face value.

 

I guess that's the eternal struggle of the 'conservative' right and 'progressive' left, especially in America in which the Constitution is regarded extremely highly in the Republican camp; the Left will look to find a new radical way of dealing with any set issue why the right will attempt to disprove that method and find a way to comprehend the issue within the set establishment, or at a push build on it.

[leicsmac]

I don't, read the bold bit in the post I wrote just a short while ago.

 

Trump's idea of building a wall across the Mexican border is as ridiculous as Sanders idea that college will be free for anyone who wants to go.

 

But later on in that post you did mention that he'll try to do as much as he can. I think so too, and so will Trump. Exactly how much that comes out too...well, I guess we might find out - though I doubt it, still think Hillary beats Rubio or possibly Kasich in the big show in November.

[Guest MattP]

But later on in that post you did mention that he'll try to do as much as he can. I think so too, and so will Trump. Exactly how much that comes out too...well, I guess we might find out - though I doubt it, still think Hillary beats Rubio or possibly Kasich in the big show in November.

 

Clinton beats Trump for me now in the big show, Marco Rubio really did balls everything up the last debate, he was terrible.

 

It's a terrible list of candidates from both sides, Trump has won every debate so easily it's been embarrassing on the right and having to choose between Clinton and Sanders on the left much be seriously depressing for anyone who wants to pick a decent moderate candidate.

[leicsmac]

Clinton beats Trump for me now in the big show, Marco Rubio really did balls everything up the last debate, he was terrible.

 

It's a terrible list of candidates from both sides, Trump has won every debate so easily it's been embarrassing on the right and having to choose between Clinton and Sanders on the left much be seriously depressing for anyone who wants to pick a decent moderate candidate.

 

Can't disagree with much of that.

 

As I've said before, I'd go Dem purely on the basis that they'll leave Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court gay marriage decision alone: beyond that, the options are pretty bloody terrible as far as a centre ground candidate goes.

[Guest MattP]

Chris Christie drops out Republican race.

Bizarre he was even in it, no one is going to vote for a man who would need a fork lift truck to get in Air Force One.

[MC Prussian]

Chris Christie drops out Republican race.

Bizarre he was even in it, no one is going to vote for a man who would need a fork lift truck to get in Air Force One.

 

Good!

 

That's the same guy with some shady ties to the underworld through his family, a man who once intentionally re-routed and blocked traffic for the George Washington bridge as an act of retaliation against a Democrat who didn't want to endorse Christie for governor of New Jersey in 2013, a guy who opposed a pig-welfare bill in his home state (as a measure to appeal to pig farmers in Iowa), who spent $360,000 of his taxpayer-subsidized expense account in between 2010 and 2015 for personal use, used Hurricane Sandy relief money for his own purposes, misused billions in Port Authority funds for unrelated projects in NJ, privatized the state's public pension system and thus aiding the interest of a special wealthy clientele and the same guy who blocked efforts to clean up New Jersey legislation.

[Detroit Blues]

In all fairness, he was never going to win, but he did completely embarrass Rubio in the last debate.. That made his whole campaign worthwhile. 

[MPH]

Good!

 

That's the same guy with some shady ties to the underworld through his family, a man who once intentionally re-routed and blocked traffic for the George Washington bridge as an act of retaliation against a Democrat who didn't want to endorse Christie for governor of New Jersey in 2013, a guy who opposed a pig-welfare bill in his home state (as a measure to appeal to pig farmers in Iowa), who spent $360,000 of his taxpayer-subsidized expense account in between 2010 and 2015 for personal use, used Hurricane Sandy relief money for his own purposes, misused billions in Port Authority funds for unrelated projects in NJ, privatized the state's public pension system and thus aiding the interest of a special wealthy clientele and the same guy who blocked efforts to clean up New Jersey legislation.

 

 

Allegedly. 

[MPH]

In all fairness, he was never going to win, but he did completely embarrass Rubio in the last debate.. That made his whole campaign worthwhile. 

 

 

 

To be honest, it probably worked against him too. Rubio is very likable and some people i have spoken to saw him as being a bit of a Bully to Marco. Which would line up with a few of the other things you have mentioned and would also explain why he is friends with the other rude obnoxious person in the race...

[Detroit Blues]

To be honest, it probably worked against him too. Rubio is very likable and some people i have spoken to saw him as being a bit of a Bully to Marco. Which would line up with a few of the other things you have mentioned and would also explain why he is friends with the other rude obnoxious person in the race...

 

Trump / Christie 2016. 

[Guest MattP]

Good read from John McTernan about the dangers of a Sanders or a Trump Presidency and what it would mean for Britain.

 

The New Hampshire primary has just created the mother of all special projects in the Foreign Office: the incoming briefs for Presidents Trump or Sanders. It may once have been an outside chance, indeed it is still unlikely – but it is time to prepare the folders.

 

Foreign policy

Both candidates are isolationist in posture, extrapolating opposition to the Iraq War into a principle of non-intervention across the board. While we can anticipate the Iran nuclear deal will stick this should make concerted international action against North Korea almost impossible.

 

On the Middle East, there are important differences in tone between the two over Isil. Here is Trump:

"Isil is making a tremendous amount of money because they have certain oil camps, right, certain areas of oil that they took away, some in Syria, some in Iraq. I would bomb the S––– out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. And, that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes, blow up the refineries, I’s blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."

In contrast, Sanders believes that Isil should be fought by "Muslim boots on the ground" arguing that Iran and Saudi Arabia could join forces to provide this army.

In actuality, they are both fantasists with no practical proposals for fighting Isil just rhetoric aimed at their base.

On immigration they do differ. Sanders would allow refugees from Isil territory into the country subject to security screening. Trump would bar all Muslims from entry. Neither policy is likely to pass Congress. Though the Trump proposal, if enacted, would require retaliatory sanctions from the European Union against US citizens.

Defence/security

Though both are isolationists there is a stark contrast in their positions on defence spendin

 

Trump has said:

“We’re going to make our military so big, so strong and so great, so powerful that we’re never going to have to use it. We’re going to have a president who is respected by Putin, respected by Iran.”

And he has previously praised the levels of defence spending under Presidents Carter and Reagan – 4.9 per cent and 6.5 per cent of GDP respectively.

 

Sanders favours a smaller army, a minimum nuclear deterrent and much lower defence spending – his spend in other areas requires substantial transfers. The threat to the "special relationship" with the United Kingdom has been explicitly acknowledged by his chief strategist Tad Devine: “Bernie has been very outspoken about his priorities in terms of the collective defence of the United States and our allies", he said '[it will be] very different than the current military industrial policy of the United States'."

Different spending profiles belie a common position on international involvement – isolationism. Trump wants to be so strong that the US need not act – deterrence writ large. Sanders wants the world to look after itself. The scale of his cuts to nuclear and conventional defence would hand the title of greatest military power straight to China so would struggle to get through Congress.

However, the biggest contrast is with President Obama who wants to quadruple military spending in Europe next year to stand up to Russia. Since the Russian threat is real and destabilising, there is no option but for European members of Nato to commit to increased defence spending. This will be a hard sell in a time of "austerity" but pacifism in the face of an aggressive Russia is a harder sell, as Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn is finding.

Economics/trade

On economics and trade populism unites Trump and Sanders again. Both are, at base, antiglobalisation and seek to tap into "white rage" against it. Trump channels the unskilled and semi-skilled blue collar workers who believe that "free trade" has transported their jobs abroad – down south to Mexico, or east to China. Sanders speaks for the young, educated middle classes who see capitalism as the source of all the woes in the world – whatever they are – rather than the solution to almost all global problems.

Trump and Sanders ("Tranders"?) express this world view in a shared opposition to free trade agreements. Both are against TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) – the free trade agreement between the US and eleven other Pacific Rim economies. And both oppose TTIP (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) – the proposed agreement between the US and the European Union. Both men, in effect, oppose billions of dollars of world economic growth. Trump because he explicitly believes, in a schoolboy error, that trade is a zero-sum game and that for the US to prosper others countries must lose. Sanders because he implicitly believes that business is a zero-sum game and that for business to profit consumers must be robbed.

*** *** ***

Now, the chances of either of these populists getting to the White House remain slim. Sanders will soon run out of white voters – he struggles with any states with substantial diversity. Essentially, black and Hispanic voters back Hillary Clinton because a Democrat president materially matters to them. They cannot afford the self-indulgence of a socialist candidate who would hand the keys of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the Republicans – no matter who their candidate is.

Hillary Clinton as Democrat nominee beats Trump – who now looks likely to go away. A country in which one in six are Hispanics is not going to elect a President who wants to build a wall between the US and Mexico and then send a bill to the Mexican President.

 

But it is clear that either a Sanders or a Trump triumph is no laughing matter for the UK.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Although Clinton will ultimately win because of whats between her legs Dave would still go to any president with his tongue sticking out and tail wagging like Blair did with both Bill and Bush.

[Guest MattP]

Although Clinton will ultimately win because of whats between her legs Dave would still go to any president with his tongue sticking out and tail wagging like Blair did with both Bill and Bush.

 

That's seriously harsh, not remember when he put the Syria vote to parliament re Assad? Obama had the Jets ready and because of our parliament he didn't go in.

 

Although Obama is probably the weakest president in US history, even Ed Miliband might have stood up to him.

[leicsmac]

That's seriously harsh, not remember when he put the Syria vote to parliament re Assad? Obama had the Jets ready and because of our parliament he didn't go in.

 

Although Obama is probably the weakest president in US history, even Ed Miliband might have stood up to him.

 

Buchanan? Harding? Hoover?

 

Less of the hyperbolic rubbish for me to shoot down, Matt. Where's the nuance?

 

Interesting slant in the Torygraph article mind you, decent piece.

[Guest MattP]

Apologies, recent history.