Stadt Posted 24 January 2016 Posted 24 January 2016 I'm probably not the best qualified to say it but I genuinely think the UK is the better country, which I realise is a grandiose, patriotic Murican style of a statement.
Jon the Hat Posted 25 January 2016 Posted 25 January 2016 I'm probably not the best qualified to say it but I genuinely think the UK is the better country, which I realise is a grandiose, patriotic Murican style of a statement. Better in what respect? It is certainly a lot safer here, which is hugely important to me. I don't think patriotism comes into it really.
Stadt Posted 25 January 2016 Posted 25 January 2016 Better in what respect? It is certainly a lot safer here, which is hugely important to me. I don't think patriotism comes into it really. In general really, we don't seem to have as many or severe problems that Americans have.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 25 January 2016 Posted 25 January 2016 Pretty easy to gauge the negatives in a country by current events but until you're there for an extended period of time it's difficult to gauge the positives. Guess the best poster to ask would be @@Merging Cultures
Merging Cultures Posted 25 January 2016 Posted 25 January 2016 Pretty easy to gauge the negatives in a country by current events but until you're there for an extended period of time it's difficult to gauge the positives. Guess the best poster to ask would be @@Merging CulturesThis ended up being a ramble.My wife and I are not planning to move back to the US for quite a few years. But we will at some stage. We probably will never move back to the UK. The cost of living is too high, and the salaries are too low in the sector my wife and I work in. I don't like the safety (or lack of) in the US. Too many guns. I actually feel safer in Africa, but here we are top 0.1%. In the states, we have friends who've been harassed by the police. Will my wife, or my kids when older, be harassed too? Baltimore, and many American cities, seem really rubbish to me. The poor infrastructure, the roads are generally terrible, they drive battered old cars, they don't have MOTs like the UK, buses and trains are shite, overhead traffic lights and cables everywhere. Because they do not have an extended history like ours, they try and hold on to things. So the richest country (it isn't the most advanced) in the world has some really old fashioned stuff that makes no sense. Some company logos are so old fashioned and rubbish, the company probably only just started, but they do it to pretend they have a history. Government services are shockingly bad. Some places I've seen still use the black and green screen monitors to input your info. In Baltimore, they are generally staffed by barely educated, urban black women. It takes forever to get anything done. They do have good beer now though. Why would we go back, apart from just the money issue. It's a huge country, you can do whatever you want there (except buy a kinder egg), and the standard of living when you have healthcare insurance is generally better. Bigger house, cheaper (same quality food), better healthcare, will send my kids to a private school (city ones are shite, county ones good, charter good), and we will still be able to save.
MPH Posted 27 January 2016 Posted 27 January 2016 Pretty easy to gauge the negatives in a country by current events but until you're there for an extended period of time it's difficult to gauge the positives. Guess the best poster to ask would be @@Merging Cultures America is big enough that you can pretty much live any of the lifestyles you choose. If you want to embrace gay marriage and a very liberal lifestyle - there's a state for that! If you want a more conservative surrounding place- there's a state for that! a City with strict gun laws? there's a city for that! A place where you can carry a gun on your hip? there a place for that! A city? yup! small house with 25 acres? yup! Want to buy a large ranch with a million acres and several already established businesses? Yup! Pretty much any lifestyle you choose. Really.
Guest Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 Will the world go into meltdown if Trump becomes president?
leicsmac Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 Will the world go into meltdown if Trump becomes president? If you're thinking of the nuclear holocaust kind, then quite possibly. He only needs to convince one other guy in his cabinet, after all.
SMX11 Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 I think the world is on the brink anyway. Not sure Trump will make it any worse, if anything he is just an effect of the failed USA foreign policy and economic hegemony. I just hope it goes tits up while Obama is still in office, a global recession seems quite likely by the autumn of this year.
Webbo Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 I remember all these apocalyptic predictions when Reagan came to office, it's just the left of centre media getting their knickers in a twist as usual. Despite reports to the contrary America isn't run by morons. He isn't going to be allowed to do anything catastrophically stupid..
Robin JD Popley Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 I want the GOP (Republicans) to win; my first choice of nominee is Marco Rubio as I think he'd beat Clinton in the General Election. I also feel his story of a New American Century would inspire many independents to vote for him - rebuilding the American dream.
Guest Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 If you're thinking of the nuclear holocaust kind, then quite possibly. He only needs to convince one other guy in his cabinet, after all. Better hope that Jezza gets in then to bring balance back to the world. I want the GOP (Republicans) to win; my first choice of nominee is Marco Rubio as I think he'd beat Clinton in the General Election. I also like Jeb Bush though. Very measured and I think he'd be a great ally to us here in the UK. Clinton has it in the bag doesn't she?
Robin JD Popley Posted 31 January 2016 Posted 31 January 2016 Better hope that Jezza gets in then to bring balance back to the world. Clinton has it in the bag doesn't she? As for the Dem nominee, I'd say so mate. Sanders has a lot of support amongst younger voters who feel disenfranchised with the Clinton PAC but, Hilary knows she can rely on Bill to rally up the grassroots support again, so I imagine she will win their nomination. However, as I've said above, I think Rubio would beat her in November - especially if he picks someone like Kasich as his VP. I've no doubting that Trump is a good businessman but unlike President Reagan, I don't see him uniting all Americans under one banner. Rubio on the other hand, like Bush, would definitely win the Hispanic vote - I've no doubts about that at all and in turn, unite Americans under one idea. It's a simple concept that anyone can be something: no matter where you come from.
Merging Cultures Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Cruz is as scary, if not scarier, than Trump. I am a Christian, but Cruz is way too extreme Christian for me.
Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Did not see that result coming, Rubio looks back on to be the candidate for the GOP again. Sanders on the heels of Clinton, are the left just refusing to pick serious candidates for election anymore?
Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Further research and this was actually Sanders 3rd strongest state, if he can't win this he's got no chance.
Finnegan Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Did not see that result coming, Rubio looks back on to be the candidate for the GOP again. Sanders on the heels of Clinton, are the left just refusing to pick serious candidates for election anymore? Because Cruz and Trump aren't complete caricatures?
Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Touche. Although the Republicans have buffoons who can win if they go up against a self proclaimed socialist.
Finnegan Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Touche. Although the Republicans have buffoons who can win if they go up against a self proclaimed socialist. But that just says more about the American psyche when politics is concerned then any specific Republican candidate.Socialism is a synonym for communism in the states, which is still a swearword now and being a slightly conservative Christian is a prerequisite for getting elected. Even Obama with his fabled, presidency-winning, mythical "Black Vote" would have been unelectable if he didn't mention God a shitload of times. (Actually, probably especially Obama given he's got "one of them Muslim names.")
Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I struggle to understand the complexities of US politics, but this seems a decent article about where things go from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/new-hampshire-primary.html?_r=0 Sounds as if polls in New Hampshire show Trump and Sanders ahead there, but might be changeable. These campaigns are always a long game, though, what with the wide divergences in the social/political make-up of different states, access to funding, organisation on the ground etc. Any informed Americans/US residents care to make any predictions? Apparently Cruz organised intensively on the ground in Iowa - can he sustain that elsewhere or will Trump's populist appeal outdo him? Does Rubio's unexpectedly good result inevitably make him the flagbearer for moderate Republicans? Is Jeb Bush almost down and out now? Am I right in thinking that Sanders' campaign might flounder against Clinton once they move on from New Hampshire to the southern states? Could the Republican contest become a 3-way race (Trump/Cruz/Rubio) all the way now? How would Cruz v. Clinton (or Trump/Rubio v. Clinton) be viewed by swing voters?
Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 The result for Rubio is huge, as you say he's now the anti buffoon candidate with a chance of winning. Trump now has a rival. Sanders will struggle deeply in the South, his support is pretty much exclusively young white people; Clinton has great ratings among old, hispanic and black voters. That said Iowa should always be taken with a pinch of salt, Santorum and Huckabee have won here.
Finnaldo Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Being fairly uneducated on the US election and generally being fairly neutral in politics, on the face of it Sanders is probably my favourite, and by favourite I mean best of a bad bunch. Although the American brand of Socialism is nowhere near it's European counterpart in the way it's Socialist as it doesn't benefit the gun industry or the dissolution of any kind of social cohesion for the growth of big business. What does trouble me is how much Conservative Christianity plays a part in the campaign, I mean it's nowhere near as bad as some Islamic countries or the Orthodox Church in Russia but the fact being some proud Christian is a power play in the elections hits me funny. All for freedom of religion but I would of hoped the 'Secular' Superpower would of moved on socially to make scientific evidence more encouraging in a candidate than blind faith in entity which possible existence has been virtually destroyed over the last one hundred years or so.
Guest MattP Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 But that just says more about the American psyche when politics is concerned then any specific Republican candidate. Socialism is a synonym for communism in the states, which is still a swearword now and being a slightly conservative Christian is a prerequisite for getting elected. Even Obama with his fabled, presidency-winning, mythical "Black Vote" would have been unelectable if he didn't mention God a shitload of times. (Actually, probably especially Obama given he's got "one of them Muslim names.") I think the "have to be a Christian" card is just as overplayed as anything else in American politics, I can't see one state on the list of those he won that Obama wouldn't have had he even declared himself as an athiest. US elections are won on who takes the swing states - Florida, Las Vegas, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont - I don't think religion plays a massive part in any of those.
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I'm reasonably sure an atheist presidential candidate would have trouble getting the nomination for either major party, let alone get near the Presidency. In fact, I think getting the nomination would be harder for them. As for the Iowa result itself, Cruz and Trump in the lead is a good result - Hillary would make mincemeat of both of them as neither of them have broad enough appeal to win the swing states. Bernie is chasing Hillary hard which is good, it'll keep her from getting complacent.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.