Do you really think all these 'liberal' stars coming and and bashing Trump really helps?? In some ways Americans are like us, they don't like people talking down to them and telling them what to do.
It was the same when the bloke from the office was telling people to vote labour, i reckon more people voted against labour because of people like him in that ad or didn't vote at all because it was so patronising and self indulgant it made me want to break my TV
Do you really think all these 'liberal' stars coming and and bashing Trump really helps?? In some ways Americans are like us, they don't like people talking down to them and telling them what to do.
It was the same when the bloke from the office was telling people to vote labour, i reckon more people voted against labour because of people like him in that ad or didn't vote at all because it was so patronising and self indulgant it made me want to break my TV
Yeah that exactly it, I dont believe it helps any of the causes, especially when they say the will leave the country.
Do you really think all these 'liberal' stars coming and and bashing Trump really helps?? In some ways Americans are like us, they don't like people talking down to them and telling them what to do.
It was the same when the bloke from the office was telling people to vote labour, i reckon more people voted against labour because of people like him in that ad or didn't vote at all because it was so patronising and self indulgant it made me want to break my TV
Yeah that exactly it, I dont believe it helps any of the causes, especially when they say the will leave the country.
Same with all this post Brexit, "thousands trying for a Irish passport" shit...
Mine and I suspect quite a few peoples knee jerk reaction was... "Go on then, fuck off you twats!"
Same, with Benedict Cawliflowerpatch and his possie of luvvies on the Calais asylum seeker situation...
Just got this feeling Clinton won't beat Trump... She's been installed by the DNC this time around after managing to lose the race to Obama eight years ago. Where again, she was lined up for the job and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The American public don't trust her and I think Democrats have shot themselves in the foot with her nomination.
A quick question for @limeygent, @SDAddick and any other Americans on here; what's the general response and sentiment to the #DNCLeaks scandal out in the US? I'm trying to gauge it via Twitter, but fear that's a bit of an echo-chamber for both ends of the spectrum with very little in between.
I'm currently hearing a lot about the Russian involvement, including some forensic analyses done by info-sec/net-sec bods on-line. The evidence looks fairly strong - but from what I can see the right are claiming "sour grapes - who cares where it came from?" and are really preventing any form of discussion as to whether there was foreign intervention to acquire the documents? Meanwhile, the actual contents don't seem to be very exciting - perhaps unfair advantages for Clinton over Bernie, and some off-colour remarks in emails?
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
Do you really think all these 'liberal' stars coming and and bashing Trump really helps?? In some ways Americans are like us, they don't like people talking down to them and telling them what to do.
Ironically, I think it's probably one of the most powerful tools available to people like Trump. He seems to be running a campaign on emotion rather than policy at the moment, and nothing drums up emotion better than being shouted down and denied a voice.. It completely fits in to his narrative of being the only candidate who will speak his mind regardless of what people say or do.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
I think the face to face presidential debates will be key. If Trump can come across fairly level headed and not lose his temper he could pick up a lot of votes.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
I think the face to face presidential debates will be key. If Trump can come across fairly level headed and not lose his temper he could pick up a lot of votes.
That, I'm sure, is something Clinton will focus on, rile him up a bit and he's liable to become shouty and sexist (still not sure how he got away with his repeated comments and tweets about the female Fox news presenter).
Personally I think Trump will win. Western democracies have all had declining wages and conditions for at least a decade. People want to bash the establishment and Hilary Clinton is part of the establishment. I find it odd that the anti-establishment guy is a billionaire reality TV star who inherited most of his wealth, but then the English equivalent would be a public school-educated stockbroker who went on to become a professional politician.
My understanding of the US from the many years ago when I studied politics was that the elections function in an opposite way to ours. A higher proportion of people vote in local and state elections and it gets lower the further up the pyramid you go, so that turnout for President is actually lower than it is for a General Election here. If that is still true (and I look to be enlightened by our American posters here) it makes a lot of sense to vote for whoever is going to do you the most good locally in your city or state, and deliver a kicking to the elite by voting for someone who is attacked by the rest of the elite.
Of course on an international stage, he'll look like a joke, although we have Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary so, glass houses and all that. But I would imagine that's not high on most Americans' priorities. And he may end up invading fewer countries than Clinton would.
A quick question for @limeygent, @SDAddick and any other Americans on here; what's the general response and sentiment to the #DNCLeaks scandal out in the US? I'm trying to gauge it via Twitter, but fear that's a bit of an echo-chamber for both ends of the spectrum with very little in between.
I'm currently hearing a lot about the Russian involvement, including some forensic analyses done by info-sec/net-sec bods on-line. The evidence looks fairly strong - but from what I can see the right are claiming "sour grapes - who cares where it came from?" and are really preventing any form of discussion as to whether there was foreign intervention to acquire the documents? Meanwhile, the actual contents don't seem to be very exciting - perhaps unfair advantages for Clinton over Bernie, and some off-colour remarks in emails?
I think all of that is pretty accurate. I've been traveling so haven't had a chance to talk to people I trust on cybersecurity, but it's clear it passed through Russian language computers. Whether it's part of some grand master tactical plan, or just throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks, who knows. I suspect the timing was intentional, but beyond that who knows. If Putin wants to fuck with our election, he can just say shit. I know he's ex-KGB and loves doing things properly dark arts-like, but he really doesn't need to go through all that work.
Regarding the contents of the emails, they should surprise no one. There are some pretty petty things in there, but shock surprise people who work in politics are petty. The now former DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz is clearly pro-Hillary. The comment about "Bernie talks about being Jewish but I read he's an Atheist" is a pretty shitty remark. You can't be an Atheist and run for major office in America, but you can be both Jewish and Atheist (which I identify as, so perhaps this one hits a bit close to home). Bernie supporters will have every right to point and say "see, see we're not crazy" but to be honest, some of the dodgy voting practices in Arizona and Nevada are far worse. It's all too late now anyway and for many will be water under the bridge.
It will be interesting to see if Sanders' form of "Socialism" (read Keynesianism) can be rekindled in mid-term elections in two years and presidential elections in four years. Basically, is this a cult of a personality, or is this a genuine revival of a leftist movement in America? I hope it's the latter. I think this country would be genuinely better of with a consistently Keynesian/Democratic Socialist party, just as we would be better off with a consistently Libertarian party. That said, given all the crying over spilled milk that's gone on from Bernie supporters, I'm not convinced.
It is worth pointing out that this is one of the many reasons why I am not a Democrat. That political party in particular is very loyal to its own. All are to some degree, but Hillary has wanted this for at least 25 years, and it was all but handed to her on a platter. From the party perspective, she and Bill have raised a ridiculous amount of money and have carried a very high profile for the party for the last 25 years, and this is them paying her back. And that makes sense if you are simply an organization of people who are politicians. But something that I think may well be challenged in the next few years is that for the last 2-3 decades, arguably more, the Democrats have been made up largely of personalities, not ideologies, and Hillary is an excellent representation of that.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
I think the face to face presidential debates will be key. If Trump can come across fairly level headed and not lose his temper he could pick up a lot of votes.
That, I'm sure, is something Clinton will focus on, rile him up a bit and he's liable to become shouty and sexist (still not sure how he got away with his repeated comments and tweets about the female Fox news presenter).
Completely agree.
Michael Moore has a very good take on this though. Trump's is a candidacy built entirely on emotion and brass statements. It's the knee jerk reaction to middle aged white males realizing they may no longer get to run EVERTYHING anymore. But Trump is SO thin skinned, and he has such an inflated ego, that attacking that with humor, with little jibes, must be a way to go at him in a debate.
It didnt help that the DNC did everything to fix it for Clinton to be the candidate. I think this will come back and haunt them in the long term.
This is total nonsense. She simply won many many more votes than Sanders. Even if you ignore the superdelegates. I am surprised at how even handed the DNC were considering Sanders is not even a Democrat. Of course the DNC wanted the Democrat to win the nomination. Just as the Republicans wanted Jeb Bush to win their nomination.
seriously, has anybody got a non-insane defence of a prospective trump presidency?
People have had enough of being told what to think by PC liberals. But I am insane so..
You're absolutely right. Except for the fact that running on a bigoted against Muslims, Mexicans, Women, Jews, Blacks ticket makes him...like many political candidates before him.
Watched the first two days of the DNC. Apart from the first part of the first day when the deluded and clueless Sanders supporters tried to make trouble it has been a superb presentation of the candidate and what this election is about. The speeches by Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton were spine tingling. And we still have Joe Biden and the President to come. It is making the RNC look like the amateurish hatefilled car crash it really was.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
I think the face to face presidential debates will be key. If Trump can come across fairly level headed and not lose his temper he could pick up a lot of votes.
That, I'm sure, is something Clinton will focus on, rile him up a bit and he's liable to become shouty and sexist (still not sure how he got away with his repeated comments and tweets about the female Fox news presenter).
But Trump is SO thin skinned, and he has such an inflated ego, that attacking that with humor, with little jibes, must be a way to go at him in a debate.
Surely that's the worst way to attack someone like Trump, that will just add fuel to the us v the system mentality.
Surely the way to defeat him, is like an adult, with facts, highlighting how ridiculous 90%+ of his policies are.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
I think the face to face presidential debates will be key. If Trump can come across fairly level headed and not lose his temper he could pick up a lot of votes.
That, I'm sure, is something Clinton will focus on, rile him up a bit and he's liable to become shouty and sexist (still not sure how he got away with his repeated comments and tweets about the female Fox news presenter).
But Trump is SO thin skinned, and he has such an inflated ego, that attacking that with humor, with little jibes, must be a way to go at him in a debate.
Surely that's the worst way to attack someone like Trump, that will just add fuel to the us v the system mentality.
Surely the way to defeat him, is like an adult, with facts, highlighting how ridiculous 90%+ of his policies are.
Nope, completely the opposite. Facts do not matter in this. "Truthiness," a phrase coined by Stephen Colbert, rules the day. It's not what is factually true, it's what YOU FEEL is true. People FEEL that crime is going up. It's not, it's going down. People FEEL George W. Bush "kept us safe." He did, except for that one time.
Left is right, down is up. I absolutely get what you're saying but the level of political rhetoric is so low that sometimes you have to drop down a couple levels. That does not mean sinking to the lowest common denominator, but it does mean that facts, policies, and plans of actions just don't matter that much. As soon as Obama realized this he became a much better president, it's a shame it took him 5-6 years.
Will there be a debate between Trump and Hillary on TV before the voting starts in November? Like the debates we have here between Tory, Labour etc.
Yes. Three I believe and 1 between the VP nominees.
He is going to be shown up big time as the clueless, temperamental man-child he really is. She will completely crush him.
But before then we are going to hear a lot more about his tax returns, his evasion of service in Vietnam because of a heel spur (but he can't remember which heel) and the fact that despite this he feels able to judge whether or not a Vietnam prisoner of war should be considered a war hero or not, and his blatant discrimination against black tenants in his apartment buildings in New York.
Plus, the ads so far showing Trump mocking a disabled reporter are proving to be truly shocking to people who have been tested for their response. I expect ads showing that clip will be shown non stop over the next 3 months.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
Increasingly elections seem more won and lost on personality, rhetoric and emotion. If I was Trump's strategist I'd say as little as possible about policy. Note how Leave held all the cards on immigration despite having no coherent policy.
Will there be a debate between Trump and Hillary on TV before the voting starts in November? Like the debates we have here between Tory, Labour etc.
Yes. Three I believe and 1 between the VP nominees.
He is going to be shown up big time as the clueless, temperamental man-child he really is. She will completely crush him.
But before then we are going to hear a lot more about his tax returns, his evasion of service in Vietnam because of a heel spur (but he can't remember which heel) and the fact that despite this he feels able to judge whether or not a Vietnam prisoner of war should be considered a war hero or not, and his blatant discrimination against black tenants in his apartment buildings in New York.
Plus, the ads so far showing Trump mocking a disabled reporter are proving to be truly shocking to people who have been tested for their response. I expect ads showing that clip will be shown non stop over the next 3 months.
Red I fear there is too much wishful thinking in your analysis. Cool logic isn't going to win it, and there will be plenty attracted by the "strong leader" and "America first" rhetoric. He'll brush off media attacks on the points you raise as 'bias'.
Clinton needs to counter that. I'd get Michelle to talk as much as possible. ..
Will there be a debate between Trump and Hillary on TV before the voting starts in November? Like the debates we have here between Tory, Labour etc.
You mean a 'debate' where the candidates don't actually engage with one another and just field questions from different audiences in seperate studios one after another. I hope the Americans choose a different method of debating to the one we've got used to.
BTW the best odds you can get on Trump winning just shrunk to 2/1. So in 1 out of every 3 elections President Trump wins and becomes the most powerful man in the world. Interesting times.
Comments
Saunders supporters booed when he endorsed Hillary.
It was the same when the bloke from the office was telling people to vote labour, i reckon more people voted against labour because of people like him in that ad or didn't vote at all because it was so patronising and self indulgant it made me want to break my TV
Mine and I suspect quite a few peoples knee jerk reaction was... "Go on then, fuck off you twats!"
Same, with Benedict Cawliflowerpatch and his possie of luvvies on the Calais asylum seeker situation...
"FUCK RIGHT OFF!!!!!!"
Ahem, that's better
Sorry
The American public don't trust her and I think Democrats have shot themselves in the foot with her nomination.
I'm currently hearing a lot about the Russian involvement, including some forensic analyses done by info-sec/net-sec bods on-line. The evidence looks fairly strong - but from what I can see the right are claiming "sour grapes - who cares where it came from?" and are really preventing any form of discussion as to whether there was foreign intervention to acquire the documents? Meanwhile, the actual contents don't seem to be very exciting - perhaps unfair advantages for Clinton over Bernie, and some off-colour remarks in emails?
My understanding of the US from the many years ago when I studied politics was that the elections function in an opposite way to ours. A higher proportion of people vote in local and state elections and it gets lower the further up the pyramid you go, so that turnout for President is actually lower than it is for a General Election here. If that is still true (and I look to be enlightened by our American posters here) it makes a lot of sense to vote for whoever is going to do you the most good locally in your city or state, and deliver a kicking to the elite by voting for someone who is attacked by the rest of the elite.
Of course on an international stage, he'll look like a joke, although we have Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary so, glass houses and all that. But I would imagine that's not high on most Americans' priorities. And he may end up invading fewer countries than Clinton would.
Regarding the contents of the emails, they should surprise no one. There are some pretty petty things in there, but shock surprise people who work in politics are petty. The now former DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz is clearly pro-Hillary. The comment about "Bernie talks about being Jewish but I read he's an Atheist" is a pretty shitty remark. You can't be an Atheist and run for major office in America, but you can be both Jewish and Atheist (which I identify as, so perhaps this one hits a bit close to home). Bernie supporters will have every right to point and say "see, see we're not crazy" but to be honest, some of the dodgy voting practices in Arizona and Nevada are far worse. It's all too late now anyway and for many will be water under the bridge.
It will be interesting to see if Sanders' form of "Socialism" (read Keynesianism) can be rekindled in mid-term elections in two years and presidential elections in four years. Basically, is this a cult of a personality, or is this a genuine revival of a leftist movement in America? I hope it's the latter. I think this country would be genuinely better of with a consistently Keynesian/Democratic Socialist party, just as we would be better off with a consistently Libertarian party. That said, given all the crying over spilled milk that's gone on from Bernie supporters, I'm not convinced.
It is worth pointing out that this is one of the many reasons why I am not a Democrat. That political party in particular is very loyal to its own. All are to some degree, but Hillary has wanted this for at least 25 years, and it was all but handed to her on a platter. From the party perspective, she and Bill have raised a ridiculous amount of money and have carried a very high profile for the party for the last 25 years, and this is them paying her back. And that makes sense if you are simply an organization of people who are politicians. But something that I think may well be challenged in the next few years is that for the last 2-3 decades, arguably more, the Democrats have been made up largely of personalities, not ideologies, and Hillary is an excellent representation of that.
Michael Moore has a very good take on this though. Trump's is a candidacy built entirely on emotion and brass statements. It's the knee jerk reaction to middle aged white males realizing they may no longer get to run EVERTYHING anymore. But Trump is SO thin skinned, and he has such an inflated ego, that attacking that with humor, with little jibes, must be a way to go at him in a debate.
Surely the way to defeat him, is like an adult, with facts, highlighting how ridiculous 90%+ of his policies are.
Left is right, down is up. I absolutely get what you're saying but the level of political rhetoric is so low that sometimes you have to drop down a couple levels. That does not mean sinking to the lowest common denominator, but it does mean that facts, policies, and plans of actions just don't matter that much. As soon as Obama realized this he became a much better president, it's a shame it took him 5-6 years.
He is going to be shown up big time as the clueless, temperamental man-child he really is. She will completely crush him.
But before then we are going to hear a lot more about his tax returns, his evasion of service in Vietnam because of a heel spur (but he can't remember which heel) and the fact that despite this he feels able to judge whether or not a Vietnam prisoner of war should be considered a war hero or not, and his blatant discrimination against black tenants in his apartment buildings in New York.
Plus, the ads so far showing Trump mocking a disabled reporter are proving to be truly shocking to people who have been tested for their response. I expect ads showing that clip will be shown non stop over the next 3 months.
Clinton needs to counter that. I'd get Michelle to talk as much as possible. ..
BTW the best odds you can get on Trump winning just shrunk to 2/1. So in 1 out of every 3 elections President Trump wins and becomes the most powerful man in the world. Interesting times.