USA 2016 Presidential Election Thread

[Guest MattP]

Trump campaign manager charged

[Carl the Llama]

Disclaimer: The following post partly contains reasoned opinions that are contradictory to the sentiment espoused by MattP's equally well-reasoned flippancy towards a negative story concerning a right-wing politician.  If you think this may offend you or anyone like you I appreciate your concerns and believe I have taken appropriate measures to protect any individuals from an unwanted assault on their thought-processes: Please stop reading at the spoiler box.

 

 

Trump campaign manager charged

Before making any judgement on the case I think the first thing that any sensible person who wants to express an opinion but is not clued up on US law should do is check what the definition of simple battery - the crime he's being accused of - is so that they can hopefully come to an informed, coherent conclusion:

 

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/simple-battery.html

Simple battery is a basic form of battery that results in criminal charges against the defendant. When the courts use the word “battery”, they are usually referring to simple battery. It is generally defined as:

• The unauthorized or unlawful use of force
• 
  
• To the body of another person
• 
  
• Which results in physical injury or offensive touching
• 
  

Simple battery is usually set in contrast to “aggravated battery”. Aggravated battery has the same elements of proof listed here, but also involves either: the use of a deadly weapon; serious bodily injury to the victim; or injury to a child, woman, police officer, and (in some cases) elderly victims.

Also, criminal battery is distinguished from civil battery, in that criminal battery usually requires that the defended also intended to cause the bodily harm to the victim.

- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/simple-battery.html#sthash.LKpNq5Bv.dpuf

 

 

Video footage of the alleged incident:

 

Photo of the bruising that allegedly arose from the above incident:

 

I'll let you all make your own minds up on whether or not you think the charge should stand under the US legal system.

 

My take:

Personally I would conclude that the available evidence, if reliable, corroborates the accusation of simple battery as defined above.  He is not lawfully defending Mr Drumpf from physical harm and this Michelle Fields lady clearly doesn't consent to being handled so it would appear safe to conclude that the use of force here is unauthorised.  Looking at that picture it also appears that he did cause physical injury albeit in no way severe, most people don't bruise up at simply having their arm tugged so it would seem he employed an excessively powerful grip regardless of his intention. 

 

Therefore I believe that this Lewandowski chap should be subject to whatever the appropriate punishment for an offence like this is under US law.  Developed nations (well, nations in general) shouldn't flippantly allow people to physically aggress others with impunity however severe the charge.  I'm interested to see what the outcome of this will be. I suspect he'll get fined pocket change and we'll all move on and forget about the whole thing within hours (unless any of the candidates try to over-politicise the affair) which would be about the right result imo.

 

Do I think the affair was somewhat blown up yesterday by a media up with political and personal motivations in mind?  Absolutely.  Do I think the man in question should lose his job over this?  No; it's a minor crime and you would imagine he'll now have learned about appropriate behaviour and to be more canny about how he deals with unwanted reporters in future.

 

I potentially hold other opinions about the response of the Drumpf camp to this whole affair (and many others) but I suspect I'm dangerously close to causing controversy if I explore that particular avenue of thought so I'll just say Mr Drumpf's a stand up fellow for providing his colleague with unflinching support and move on.

 

[Darkon84]

I guess they don't have busy concerts, crammed rush hour tubes, metal gigs, mosh pits, or contact sport in America these days then. If that's what all this has been about then some people really need to grow a pair, there's nothing to that at all.

I'm almost 100% sure that I'll get some form of bruise playing football later, but I can't see myself crying about it because I have a vendetta.

[leicsmac]

I guess they don't have busy concerts, crammed rush hour tubes, metal gigs, mosh pits, or contact sport in America these days then. If that's what all this has been about then some people really need to grow a pair, there's nothing to that at all.

I'm almost 100% sure that I'll get some form of bruise playing football later, but I can't see myself crying about it because I have a vendetta.

 

I would say that the intent in this case differs in a crucial way from any of the scenarios you describe. Most of the time they would not have malicious intent as part of the injury, and if they did, it would be a matter for the justice system - exactly as the situation here is.

[Darkon84]

I would say that the intent in this case differs in a crucial way from any of the scenarios you describe. Most of the time they would not have malicious intent as part of the injury, and if they did, it would be a matter for the justice system - exactly as the situation here is.

 

You're correct, there is an element of expectancy in the scenarios I gave, but we have all seen a press ruck or melee before too....pushing and shoving between members of the paparazzi, cameras in the way etc. For me though, you go to any politician's rally over there at this stage of the race, not just Trump's, you expect there to be some hustle and bustle around them.

 

I'm not looking to get brought in to a huge debate about it anyway, just throwing some more logs on the fire that's already burning really. I'm not clued up enough to get deeply involved in the American political circus, but in this case, I still can't see what the huge uproar is. She gets close to Trump, gets pulled back and everyone carries on. I don't see her stopping to check her injury or seeming angry at all, she simply carries on, then gets home and decides she can make a big story out of what is, essentially, nothing.

[Carl the Llama]

GOP "town hall" debate as they like to call it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdH3Po_kqI

Just in case anyone's interested, has a few hours to spare, and is feeling particularly masochistic.

[Carl the Llama]

Have to say I'm actually liking a lot of what Kasich says, it sounds like he has a better understanding of the issues than his contenders and he actually has experience of holding political office and a decent record on the economy in his state.  It also helps that he looks and talks like a real human being.  He's clearly a bit thin skinned but that's not harmed the leading candidate and at least it's in response to false claims over his record as opposed to bristling at people calling him out on his own falsehoods.  I cringe at the way he tends to talk down to people but you can excuse it slightly when he's doing so because he understands the subject he's talking about.

 

That he's by far the minority candidate of the 3 remaining speaks volumes of this race.

[Guest MattP]

I guess they don't have busy concerts, crammed rush hour tubes, metal gigs, mosh pits, or contact sport in America these days then. If that's what all this has been about then some people really need to grow a pair, there's nothing to that at all.

I'm almost 100% sure that I'll get some form of bruise playing football later, but I can't see myself crying about it because I have a vendetta.

 

If American's are losing their balls they are fcuked, they are the most brash, arrogant aggresive people out there in my experience and dragging people to court over that video really does show a segment of society that appears to be very weak. That story (and picture of the bruise! Imagine actually taking that knowing you are consider it any sort of battey? ) will probably make a lot of people vote for Trump on principle just to piss off the sort of people who do this.

[Guest MattP]

Some of the press comments over Trump from the last couple of days have made our lot look honest when they misrepresent stories about Farage or Corbyn through headline.

"TRUMP DEMANDS WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS ARE PUNISHED"

 

What he actually says is he's pro choice but if something is made illegal by law then of course it has to be a punishable offence, otherwise it's pointless making it illegal. Nice twisting of his words though.

[Carl the Llama]

Some of the press comments over Trump from the last couple of days have made our lot look honest when they misrepresent stories about Farage or Corbyn through headline.

"TRUMP DEMANDS WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS ARE PUNISHED"

 

What he actually says is he's pro choice but if something is made illegal by law then of course it has to be a punishable offence, otherwise it's pointless making it illegal. Nice twisting of his words though.

You're confused which is understandable because there is old footage of him talking about being pro-choice and being incredibly clear about it:

but in the interview in question he clarifies that he's pro-life then after the fallout he decided that actually the woman shouldn't get punished but the doctors who carry the abortions out should so clearly he 'agrees' somewhat with the public outcry.

 

More worrying than that display of inconsistency though is when he was asked what he considers the top 3 functions of the US federal government and responded with security, healthcare and education before immediately talking about how the latter two should be private sector industries.  Man clearly has no idea what he's talking about half the time and just makes it up as he goes along.

[Carl the Llama]

Btw Matt please read up on it a little bit before you jump to his defence next time or at least start paying me for my fact-checking services.

[leicsmac]

To be honest, when it comes to social issues Cruz scares me far far more than Trump does.

 

Regarding abortion itself, I am pro-choice for a reason based on simple logical equilibria that I went into earlier in the thread, and don't need to repeat here. As far as I'm concerned, the anti-abortion argument lacks almost any kind of rationality for that one reason alone.

[Carl the Llama]

To be honest, when it comes to social issues Cruz scares me far far more than Trump does.

 

Regarding abortion itself, I am pro-choice for a reason based on simple logical equilibria that I went into earlier in the thread, and don't need to repeat here. As far as I'm concerned, the anti-abortion argument lacks almost any kind of rationality for that one reason alone.

Tbf I can get that - Trump's scary because of his general ignorance and brash demeanour but there is small room for comfort that if he does indeed become POTUS he's pretty much a blank slate in many areas so when he gets these teachers so he can learn lots of great things as he likes to tell us is going to happen when he's got no answers for interviewers, there may be room for them to slide a bit of sensibility into proceedings whereas Cruz already has well-defined hardline 'Christian' values for pretty much everything.

[Detroit Blues]

I think the thing you guys are missing is this: 

 

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/24/jeb-bush/bush-says-trump-was-democrat-longer-republican-las/

 

Party affiliation

July 1987 - Republican

October 1999 - Independence Party

August 2001 - Democrat

September 2009 - Republican

December 2011 - No party affiliation (independent)

April 2012 - Republican

 

It seems like he changes political stances and parties to whatever is more suitable at the time. Live in Manhattan? Switch to a democrat. See an opportunity to run for the republican nomination? Switch to a republican.

 

That's what is so scary/intriguing about him. Once he is elected president, nobody really knows where he will stand. Is he repeating the party lines just to get nominated or does he truly believe in social conservatism? If you're an independent american voter, that could be how he appeals to you. Since you probably do not care one way or another on some of the divisive issues that would make one a republican/democrat, then maybe you want a candidate that will focus his energy on other issues than abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

[Webbo]

There was a programme on Channel 4 about him last night. Apparently he used to be big friends with the Clintons,he even funded Hilarys Senate campaign. I find it hard to believe he'll do much of what you're all getting your knickers in a twist about.

[Carl the Llama]

There was a programme on Channel 4 about him last night. Apparently he used to be big friends with the Clintons,he even funded Hilarys Senate campaign. I find it hard to believe he'll do much of what you're all getting your knickers in a twist about.

Tbf anyone who isn't already aware of his flip flopping allegiances isn't paying enough attention to the race; it's one of the key concerns regularly raised by his GOP counterparts.  I don't see how it's a defence of his abilities to function in office that the man has no consistency of stance.  Put the same quality in a UK politician and I can't imagine you arguing "yeah let that guy be Prime Minister he doesn't believe anything he says anyway".

 

Frankly the 3 most likely candidates to win the election (Trump, Cruz, Clinton) are all horrible options which makes me genuinely concerned for the American people.  The only reason I come across as particularly anti-Trump more than any other candidate is because people insist on defending the bigoted bully more than they do any other candidate.  If I see somebody write horrifically misinformed defences of Cruz's obvious hate for Muslims or Hilary's complete disdain for her fellow woman (just to give 2 obvious examples) then I'd feel obliged to correct that too, unfortunately it's only Donald getting the free pass on demagoguery.

[Guest MattP]

Clinton is the only option to win the election Carl, like any developed nation she's the central candidate that wins.

People are scared of change whether left or right.

[Carl the Llama]

Clinton is the only option to win the election Carl, like any developed nation she's the central candidate that wins.

People are scared of change whether left or right.

I'll agree she's easily the lesser evil but I need a lot of convincing that she's really running in the best interest of her people.  Not so sure about that second sentence though, I seem to remember a politician doing very well on a change platform in America not too long ago.  The difference is that at the time the popular sentiment was that a positive change was very much possible, how could it not be after the previous incumbent?  Where do you see candidates giving people that impression in this race?

[Guest MattP]

I'm too drunk to reply properly but Obama change was all bollocks anyway wasn't it? It was all "Yes we can" with no substance to anything, people seemed to ride with it as he was black.

From watching the last few years the Senate seems to rule over anyway, stops anything radical. Seems to be a Worldwide trend having a body over another making sure no one does anything silly.

[MC Prussian]

Clinton is the only option to win the election Carl, like any developed nation she's the central candidate that wins.

People are scared of change whether left or right.

 

There is no left or right in the US - just more right or less right.

[Carl the Llama]

I'm too drunk to reply properly but Obama change was all bollocks anyway wasn't it? It was all "Yes we can" with no substance to anything, people seemed to ride with it as he was black.

From watching the last few years the Senate seems to rule over anyway, stops anything radical. Seems to be a Worldwide trend having a body over another making sure no one does anything silly.

[Merging Cultures]

Just catching up on this thread.

1. Trumps aide probably legally did something wrong to the woman. But it's ridiculous. He is a former cop, part of his work is probably security. The woman got too close after the press session, she got removed, partly for security reasons. He shouldn't be in trouble for doing his job.

2. Trump and abortion. He clearly said, if it is illegal, then the woman should be punished. He then quickly tried to correct that. He does come across as quite misogynistic. He either believes the first statement, in which case he is an idiot and shouldn't be allowed near the WH. Or, he misspoke, in which case he is careless and thoughtless and would be a terrible leader, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the WH. This continues to be a decisive issue in the US, and to not be on point, clear and succinct, when talking about one of the defining topics in US politics shows how unsuitable he is.

I really don't like any of the candidates, from either sides. It's going to be a pretty poor period in American politics.

[Carl the Llama]

Trump's done another about turn on abortion.  Sort of.  Apparently the laws are set so it's not appropriate for him to discuss them even though he disagrees with them (and surely therefore would be inclined to change them as POTUS)... 

 

On that note did anyone see the cartoon in the latest Economist of Trump responding to a question at a job interview?  Can't find it online but it was uncanny

[Guest MattP]

Trump's comments on abortion seem to have hit him hard, female vote well down for him.

 

I can see Ted Cruz nicking this now, he's have more of a chance of beating Clinton as well.

[SMX11]

From what I have read this was the last major primary where it wasn't a Trump friendly state. Still think he will edge over unless he damages himself even more.