USA President - time for a new poll

[BigFoxForYou]

Soon

[The Railway Man]

On 10/29/2016 at 17:34, The Doctor said:

Didn't say it was going to be a bed of roses with her, but cynical and hawkish as she is, she's not an unstable toddler who doesn't understand why we don't use nuclear weapons to solve conflicts.  Given the choice between a shit sandwich and a lunatic who seems bent on destroying foreign relations and supports attacks on his own country by another nation, only the most bitter of misanthropes would take the latter.

Again, who would he nuke?

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

Again, who would he nuke?

He wouldn't. It's an unfounded straw man. You'd at least hope that leaders in charge of nuclear weapons are rational enough to not use them (even fat boy over in NK plays by those rules right now).

 

What he and his party could do domestically at a social level however, is a real and well founded fear.

[The Railway Man]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

He wouldn't. It's an unfounded straw man. You'd at least hope that leaders in charge of nuclear weapons are rational enough to not use them (even fat boy over in NK plays by those rules right now).

 

What he and his party could do domestically at a social level however, is a real and well founded fear.

Exactly, yet it's the most trotted out line by people who want you to vote for crooked Hillary.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

Exactly, yet it's the most trotted out line by people who want you to vote for crooked Hillary.

Yeah, which is a damn shame because it distracts from the real possible damage that could be done to women and minority rights with Trump in the White House, a new conservative judge in the Supreme Court giving them a decent majority there, and a Republican controlled Congress to rubber stamp it all.

[The Railway Man]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, which is a damn shame because it distracts from the real possible damage that could be done to women and minority rights with Trump in the White House, a new conservative judge in the Supreme Court giving them a decent majority there, and a Republican controlled Congress to rubber stamp it all.

I think you are getting a bit paranoid.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

I think you are getting a bit paranoid.

As I said to Webbo above, if Trump wins I sincerely hope that you're right and I am overstating things. But given the polarisation and the opportunity I honestly think this is the moment the hardcore conservative (often religious, but not always ) wing of the Republicans - both at party and street level - have been waiting for to wind back the clock on all the changes and equalities they think to be "unnatural" or whatever.

 

But again, here's hoping I'm mistaken, or he doesn't win.

[Footballwipe]

Anyone who uses "crooked Hillary" with a straight face needs to get in the bin.

 

How childish

[The Railway Man]

1 minute ago, Footballwipe said:

Anyone who uses "crooked Hillary" with a straight face needs to get in the bin.

 

How childish

Yeah she's straight as an arrow.

[GazzinderFox]

1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

Anyone who uses "crooked Hillary" with a straight face needs to get in the bin.

 

How childish

Do you not watch the news? A good chunk of democrats think she's bent never mind the other side.

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, The Railway Man said:

Again, who would he nuke?

I didn't say he would nuke anyone, I said he is reckless and a massive threat to international security since he's asked repeatedly as to why they can't just use nukes (and let's not forget has promoted cyber attacks by foreign powers on members of government) - a president that is that laissez faire about WMDs, and happy to encourage attacks on their nation is going to be a real danger.

[sm1]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I didn't say he would nuke anyone, I said he is reckless and a massive threat to international security since he's asked repeatedly as to why they can't just use nukes (and let's not forget has promoted cyber attacks by foreign powers on members of government) - a president that is that laissez faire about WMDs, and happy to encourage attacks on their nation is going to be a real danger.

A few things need to be corrected about your above statement. Apparently an unnamed person told a MSNBC reporter, a rabid anti Trump news channel, that Trump said this. No proof of this was ever given but that didn't stop the story being published as fact. Now you've taken it further and said he repeatedly asked this question.

To top that the US authorities can offer no proof that the hacks are related to the Russian government, infact they know full well the hacker was from Romania, a key NATO ally, but yet there was little coverage of this as blaming Putin is the Democratic meme. You can't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

When it comes to laissez faire attitude ask Libyans, Clintons failed war policy resulting in 100s of thousand of dead and displaced libyans. Not content with that, now she's advocating taking Russia on in Syria. I hope that's just falsh bravado for the cameras, as in her private emails she admits that would be catostrophic for Syria

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, sm1 said:

A few things need to be corrected about your above statement. Apparently an unnamed person told a MSNBC reporter, a rabid anti Trump news channel, that Trump said this. No proof of this was ever given but that didn't stop the story being published as fact. Now you've taken it further and said he repeatedly asked this question.

 

I've not taken it further at all - you clearly know of the report of this, so you should know that it was reported he asked three times.

 

As for the email hacker being from Romania -  he may have taken credit originally, but an fbi director presented a confession in custody that he wasn't responsible at a congressional hearing about hilarys use of a private server, not to mention Trump asking Russia to find the missing emails: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=2

[RedSoxUK]

7 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

Anyone who uses "crooked Hillary" with a straight face needs to get in the bin.

 

How childish

 

Is this supposed to be irony?

[Finnegan]

Trump creeping back up, Jesus Christ. Hilary will be hoping her campaign has one last ace up the sleeve to put the spotlight back on how much of an unabashed cvnt he is before the vote.

 

It really is crazy how much the Democrats wildly misjudged what they thought was the popularity and credibility of Hilary Clinton as a candidate.

 

The fact Donald ****ing Trump is polling only three points behind a serious politician in a major national election is just absurd.

 

They couldn't have picked a better candidate to run against if they tried and they come up with Clinton. Shameful.

 

I mean Trump is basically a hail Mary from the republicans. 

[sm1]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

I've not taken it further at all - you clearly know of the report of this, so you should know that it was reported he asked three times.

 

As for the email hacker being from Romania -  he may have taken credit originally, but an fbi director presented a confession in custody that he wasn't responsible at a congressional hearing about hilarys use of a private server, not to mention Trump asking Russia to find the missing emails: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=2

Where's the proof he said it once let alone three times. An unknown person told a reporter without any evidence and that somehow proves Trump is going to use nukes. 

Unfortunately the hacker committed "suicide" in prison so the truth will never be known. Although one of the justifications for the gulf war was that Saddam was helping AlQuada based on the testimony of a prisoner. Later we learnt the prisoner was tortured to say this and then mysteriously died. Before Russia it was North Korea accused of hacking, before which it was China, all without evidence. 

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, sm1 said:

Where's the proof he said it once let alone three times. An unknown person told a reporter without any evidence and that somehow proves Trump is going to use nukes. 

Unfortunately the hacker committed "suicide" in prison so the truth will never be known. Although one of the justifications for the gulf war was that Saddam was helping AlQuada based on the testimony of a prisoner. Later we learnt the prisoner was tortured to say this and then mysteriously died. Before Russia it was North Korea accused of hacking, before which it was China, all without evidence. 

I didn't say trump was going to use nukes - I said he was reckless and dangerous because of his laissez faire attitude towards WMDs. 

 

We won't know, but that doesn't change the fact that donald trump encouraged Russia to commit cyberwarfare on a former secretary of state. Even if Trump was under misapprehensions as to who carried out the attack, he still encouraged it.

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Trump creeping back up, Jesus Christ. Hilary will be hoping her campaign has one last ace up the sleeve to put the spotlight back on how much of an unabashed cvnt he is before the vote.

 

It really is crazy how much the Democrats wildly misjudged what they thought was the popularity and credibility of Hilary Clinton as a candidate.

Yep, the fact this is a race still going is a credit to how bad Hillary is. Did you watch Newsnight on Friday? They spoke to some of the "Hispanic for Trump" crowd in Florida, one of them said the only thing that concerned him was a potential deportation.

 

How bad a candidate do you have to be not only to be unable to get the votes of those worried about being deported by your opponent, but for some of them to actually think he's still a better option than you overall and to case their vote for him.

 

11 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I didn't say trump was going to use nukes - I said he was reckless and dangerous because of his laissez faire attitude towards WMDs. 

 

We won't know, but that doesn't change the fact that donald trump encouraged Russia to commit cyberwarfare on a former secretary of state. Even if Trump was under misapprehensions as to who carried out the attack, he still encouraged it.

Can you blame him?

 

I'm going to come across a bit Corbynista here but Clinton has everything, Wall Street, every part of the mainstream media going in the most one sided report of an election going, a social network bias, every celebrity queuing up to back her and smear the opponent, the backing of the current President and his wife even to the unprecedented step of seeing the first lady turn up at rallies, Trump has to try and get every single bit of help he can.

 

If it wasn't for wikileaks this would have been completely covered up to the public, that tells you a lot in itself.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Yep, the fact this is a race still going is a credit to how bad Hillary is. Did you watch Newsnight on Friday? They spoke to some of the "Hispanic for Trump" crowd in Florida, one of them said the only thing that concerned him was a potential deportation.

 

How bad a candidate do you have to be not only to be unable to get the votes of those worried about being deported by your opponent, but for some of them to actually think he's still a better option than you overall and to case their vote for him.

 

Can you blame him?

 

I'm going to come across a bit Corbynista here but Clinton has everything, Wall Street, every part of the mainstream media going in the most one sided report of an election going, a social network bias, every celebrity queuing up to back her and smear the opponent, the backing of the current President and his wife even to the unprecedented step of seeing the first lady turn up at rallies, Trump has to try and get every single bit of help he can.

 

If it wasn't for wikileaks this would have been completely covered up to the public, that tells you a lot in itself.

I'm no nationalist but the last time I checked encouraging action from a potentially hostile other country that might be damaging to the infrastructure of your own country, purely for the reason of self interest, is practically treasonous behaviour, right? Can't see how that sits well with the "my country right or wrong" crowd over there. Seems a little bit dissonant.

 

Regarding the media, if Trump was as disadvantaged as you say he is on that front he would have been sunk in the same way Hillary sunk Sanders in the primary, by getting them to not really cover his policies at all rather than directly attacking him. There's no such thing as bad publicity, especially when you can turn around and say it's all part of the same system you say you want to break down and the message gets out enough outside the mainstream media for it to keep working.

 

Sorry, Trump yelling "help, I'm being oppressed" doesn't stack up as a reason for him being disadvantaged here. If that were the case, Hillary would be heading for a landslide.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Regarding the media, if Trump was as disadvantaged as you say he is on that front he would have been sunk in the same way Hillary sunk Sanders in the primary, by getting them to not really cover his policies at all rather than directly attacking him. There's no such thing as bad publicity, especially when you can turn around and say it's all part of the same system you say you want to break down and the message gets out enough outside the mainstream media for it to keep working.

 

Sorry, Trump yelling "help, I'm being oppressed" doesn't stack up as a reason for him being disadvantaged here. If that were the case, Hillary would be heading for a landslide.

He only hasn't been sunk because vast amounts of the population have a distrust in the media, the whole any publicity is good publicity argument is a total nonsense, tell that to Cliff Richard or Paul Gadd, I'm not saying Trump is oppressed, that's a big word, but there is no doubt the media bias in the campaign has been like one of no other election in history.

 

What shocks me is some people seem to think that when Trump leaves this will go away, it isn't going anywhere.

 

I'm 99% Hillary is going to win, but it might be the last time for a while anyone like her wins an election in America again.

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

He only hasn't been sunk because vast amounts of the population have a distrust in the media, the whole any publicity is good publicity argument is a total nonsense, tell that to Cliff Richard or Paul Gadd, I'm not saying Trump is oppressed, that's a big word, but there is no doubt the media bias in the campaign has been like one of no other election in history.

 

What shocks me is some people seem to think that when Trump leaves this will go away, it isn't going anywhere.

 

I'm 99% Hillary is going to win, but it might be the last time for a while anyone like her wins an election in America again.

Perhaps that bias is in place because of the perceived competence of the candidate, rather than purely conspiracy? Though as how much effect it's having is totally subjective and up for debate, I guess it's much of a muchness.

 

I see what you mean regarding anti establishment sentiment, but unless that sentiment is really really strong key demographics aren't going to vote for an anti establishment candidate when the party behind him or her is much more likely to legislate away the rights they've won. If a Trump like figure wants to really win and take down the system as a Republican candidate, they have to lose the fundy influence. Corbyn has the same problem over here, but from the other side of the spectrum.

[Guest MattP]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps that bias is in place because of the perceived competence of the candidate, rather than purely conspiracy? Though as how much effect it's having is totally subjective and up for debate, I guess it's much of a muchness.

 

I see what you mean regarding anti establishment sentiment, but unless that sentiment is really really strong key demographics aren't going to vote for an anti establishment candidate when the party behind him or her is much more likely to legislate away the rights they've won. If a Trump like figure wants to really win and take down the system as a Republican candidate, they have to lose the fundy influence. Corbyn has the same problem over here, but from the other side of the spectrum.

Over the next few years I think candidates will start to distance themselves rather than court the media, you want support from the press but you need it in a way where it doesn't look like they are in the pocket, this campaign they may as well admit to being in the pocket of Clinton, whatever the reasoning.

 

We are getting far more cynical of the media as a whole and that's only going to increase with the effect of social media on the populace.

 

One thing I have noticed in British politics is the Conservatives seem to be the first party to have realised (probably helped by having less of it) that having wealthy celebrities supporting and shouting for you is actually deleterious to your campaign rather than advantageous, I'd expect the others to catch up on that very soon.

[Jimothy]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

 

One thing I have noticed in British politics is the Conservatives seem to be the first party to have realised (probably helped by having less of it) that having wealthy celebrities supporting and shouting for you is actually deleterious to your campaign rather than advantageous, I'd expect the others to catch up on that very soon.

Same could have been said for the EU Referendum. Nobody famous (outside the business world) really came out in support of Leave, whilst people like Izzard did more harm than good to the Remain argument. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Over the next few years I think candidates will start to distance themselves rather than court the media, you want support from the press but you need it in a way where it doesn't look like they are in the pocket, this campaign they may as well admit to being in the pocket of Clinton, whatever the reasoning.

 

We are getting far more cynical of the media as a whole and that's only going to increase with the effect of social media on the populace.

 

One thing I have noticed in British politics is the Conservatives seem to be the first party to have realised (probably helped by having less of it) that having wealthy celebrities supporting and shouting for you is actually deleterious to your campaign rather than advantageous, I'd expect the others to catch up on that very soon.

Is it that they realised it or that nobody wanted to come out in favour of their policies and direction? Either way i suppose the result was the same but i suspect it's the latter rather than a conscious decision 

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Same could have been said for the EU Referendum. Nobody famous (outside the business world) really came out in support of Leave, whilst people like Izzard did more harm than good to the Remain argument. 

Very good point, I somehow forgot that. It could have really hurt leave had they stuck somebody like Jim Davidson on Question Time for 4 million people to watch.

 

15 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Is it that they realised it or that nobody wanted to come out in favour of their policies and direction? Either way i suppose the result was the same but i suspect it's the latter rather than a conscious decision 

Yeah, I alluded to that in the post where I said probably because they have less of it.

 

Even if someone like Julian Clary came out and wanted to play an active role, I doubt they'd take him up on the offer and politely explain why, as Facecloth has mentioned earlier, "remain" saw Eddie Izzard and appear to have their heads that far up there own arse they actually think he'll resonate with your average voter, they simply don't.