US Politics

Drumstick wrote:Literally any Democrat that didn't have the crazy amount of baggage attached to them that HRC did would have beat Trump. A good proportion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.

I think this is right. We don't get an idea of the scale over here of just how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:A few of the more left wing Dem supporters I followed warned this could happen, and this likely won't be Trump's last pick either as there is potentially another 1 or 2 that could come up. Sadly the establishment Dems have really strawberry floated themselves by not fielding a decent enough candidate to beat Trump.

Clinton was a far better option than Trump, but it’s hard to beat a populist demagogue. What other Dem would have won? The only one I can think of is Obama and he wasn’t allowed to run again.

Well this is going over old ground I know but we needed someone better than 'anyone but Trump'. And putting the Clinton baggage aside, she ran a really lousy and uninspiring campaign. The Dems ran an establishment campaign in an anti-establishment election.

We'll never know if Sanders would have done better, but he certainly seemed more inspiring, and maybe that message would have carried on a national scale. Yes he would have been called "socialist" but he would have owned that label. Being Republican Lite was a bad tactic. That's how I see it.

We do know if Sanders would have done better. The answer was no, he couldn’t beat Clinton, why would anyone believe he could have beaten Trump?

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:A few of the more left wing Dem supporters I followed warned this could happen, and this likely won't be Trump's last pick either as there is potentially another 1 or 2 that could come up. Sadly the establishment Dems have really strawberry floated themselves by not fielding a decent enough candidate to beat Trump.

Clinton was a far better option than Trump, but it’s hard to beat a populist demagogue. What other Dem would have won? The only one I can think of is Obama and he wasn’t allowed to run again.

Well this is going over old ground I know but we needed someone better than 'anyone but Trump'. And putting the Clinton baggage aside, she ran a really lousy and uninspiring campaign. The Dems ran an establishment campaign in an anti-establishment election.

We'll never know if Sanders would have done better, but he certainly seemed more inspiring, and maybe that message would have carried on a national scale. Yes he would have been called "socialist" but he would have owned that label. Being Republican Lite was a bad tactic. That's how I see it.

We do know if Sanders would have done better. The answer was no, he couldn’t beat Clinton, why would anyone believe he could have beaten Trump?

Well he didn't get a fair crack against Clinton for one thing, which turned off a lot of Dem voters.

Drumstick wrote:Literally any Democrat that didn't have the crazy amount of baggage attached to them that HRC did would have beat Trump. A good proportion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.

Any Democrat who ran as disastrous and as complacent campaign as Clinton, not taking the time to visit "safe" Democrat leaning swing states in favour of fantasy pickups in the likes of Georgia, would have lost to Trump.

Clinton won the popular vote by over 2,800,000 and would be president if not for 78,000 votes spread across three states (about 0.06% of the votes between Clinton and Trump), with Jill Stein picking up more votes than the winning margin in all three. Trump didn't win in some kind of landslide, and it's unlikely Sanders would have been a more sure thing than Clinton when he couldn't convince Democrats, let alone the rest of the country.

Dual wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Literally any Democrat that didn't have the crazy amount of baggage attached to them that HRC did would have beat Trump. A good proportion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.

I think this is right. We don't get an idea of the scale over here of just how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton

Nobody here believed me when I posted about how hated Hillary was. I tried to warn you!

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Dual wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Literally any Democrat that didn't have the crazy amount of baggage attached to them that HRC did would have beat Trump. A good proportion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.

I think this is right. We don't get an idea of the scale over here of just how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton

Nobody here believed me when I posted about how hated Hillary was. I tried to warn you!

She got more votes than anybody else in US history, other than Obama.

Oh you can prove anything with factual analysis.


The police have taken that newspaper shooter alive. So we know he isn’t black.

Moggy wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Dual wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Literally any Democrat that didn't have the crazy amount of baggage attached to them that HRC did would have beat Trump. A good proportion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.

I think this is right. We don't get an idea of the scale over here of just how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton

Nobody here believed me when I posted about how hated Hillary was. I tried to warn you!

She got more votes than anybody else in US history, other than Obama.

So the states where she was going to win anyway, she really really won. But couldn't convert the votes that mattered because they properly hate her guts. I know someone who backed Sanders but when he dropped out moved to Trump just so he wouldn't have to vote for Clinton.

Dual wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Dual wrote:

Drumstick wrote:Literally any Democrat that didn't have the crazy amount of baggage attached to them that HRC did would have beat Trump. A good proportion of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.

I think this is right. We don't get an idea of the scale over here of just how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton

Nobody here believed me when I posted about how hated Hillary was. I tried to warn you!

She got more votes than anybody else in US history, other than Obama.

So the states where she was going to win anyway, she really really won. But couldn't convert the votes that mattered because they properly hate her guts. I know someone who backed Sanders but when he dropped out moved to Trump just so he wouldn't have to vote for Clinton.

More votes than anybody other than Obama.

2.8million (million!!) more than Trump.

Lost because of 78,000 votes over three states out of 52.

But, yeah, sure it was because “they” all hated her and anybody else would have done better?

The American system is shite and produces crazy results like this. Trump won fairly, under the rules of the system, but there’s zero evidence that anybody else would have done better than Clinton.

I think part of the problem is politics in the US is at a point where no matter how gooseberry fool a candidate is if he's the candidate to your team their going to vote for them.
Republicans won because they got the vote out and even if some voters thought Trump was a strawberry floating moron they voted for him because he's not a filthy Democrat.

It's got to the point where policies don't matter as long as you can fling enough gooseberry fool at the other side and truth is entirely optional and most likely won't be believed anyway as lies are so easy to spread. I have zero faith that the US will ever have a political system from now on that isn't a total joke and that people will defend it as the best politics on earth as they honestly have this idea that everything America does is the best.

It's depressing and I'm glad I don't live in such a batshit insane country.

The electoral college is also strawberry floating stupid but convincing us conservatives of that is about as futile as as convincing people British cheese isn't the best thing ever which it so obviously is. I mean Brie is nice but compared to Stilton or Red Leicester?

Peter Crisp wrote:Republicans won because they got the vote out and even if some voters thought Trump was a strawberry floating moron they voted for him because he's not a filthy Democrat.

While that’s true about the Republicans, it’s also true of the Democrats - Clinton got 2.8million more votes.

Trump wants the US to leave the World Trade Organization:

Trump's private threat to upend global trade

President Trump has repeatedly told top White House officials he wants to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization, a move that would throw global trade into wild disarray, people involved in the talks tell Axios.

What we're hearing: “He’s [threatened to withdraw] 100 times. It would totally [screw] us as a country,” said a source who’s discussed the subject with Trump. The source added that Trump has frequently told advisers, "We always get strawberry floated by them [the WTO]. I don’t know why we’re in it. The WTO is designed by the rest of the world to screw the United States."

https://www.axios.com/trump-threat-with ... 7d715.html

He thinks every international organisation was designed to screw the United States.

I will laugh if he literally wipes the US economy off the map.

In other fiscal news...

twitter.com/politico/status/1012672042515263488

I'd imagine he doesn't care. As long as at the end of his presidency he's got some kind of monument (whether that's a wall or what have you) and laxer tax laws on the rich, then he'll be happy.

It's just a matter of time before he tells everyone that the higher the deficit the better.

"We have the highest numbers, tremendous numbers, higher than Obama, crooked Hillary wouldn't have been able to get the numbers this high"

I'm no economist (cue calls of "of course you are Preezy, stop being so hard on yourself and put some trousers on"), but it does make you wonder how big the debt bubble can get before America implodes. They're *almost* too big to fail.

No (sane, non-Trump) person wants the US economy to collapse, it'd be disastrous for the whole planet, so other countries will continue to buy US treasury bonds and keep the zombie shuffling along. All this debt just compounds on itself and will likely never be repaid, America will never climb out of its deficit and it'll always be this goliath leverage state that just keeps on spending on its military to ward off any countries that think of hurting it economically.

I'm sure it'll all be a relatively-interesting history lesson for our descendants 200 years from now.

Preezy wrote:I'm no economist (cue calls of "of course you are Preezy, stop being so hard on yourself and put some trousers on"), but it does make you wonder how big the debt bubble can get before America implodes. They're *almost* too big to fail.

No (sane, non-Trump) person wants the US economy to collapse, it'd be disastrous for the whole planet, so other countries will continue to buy US treasury bonds and keep the zombie shuffling along. All this debt just compounds on itself and will likely never be repaid, America will never climb out of its deficit and it'll always be this goliath leverage state that just keeps on spending on its military to ward off any countries that think of hurting it economically.

I'm sure it'll all be a relatively-interesting history lesson for our descendants 200 years from now.

I can imagine a Roman in 180AD saying "The Pax Romana is too important to fail, it'll last forever! This Commodus chap will be fine!"

Moggy wrote:

Preezy wrote:I'm no economist (cue calls of "of course you are Preezy, stop being so hard on yourself and put some trousers on"), but it does make you wonder how big the debt bubble can get before America implodes. They're *almost* too big to fail.

No (sane, non-Trump) person wants the US economy to collapse, it'd be disastrous for the whole planet, so other countries will continue to buy US treasury bonds and keep the zombie shuffling along. All this debt just compounds on itself and will likely never be repaid, America will never climb out of its deficit and it'll always be this goliath leverage state that just keeps on spending on its military to ward off any countries that think of hurting it economically.

I'm sure it'll all be a relatively-interesting history lesson for our descendants 200 years from now.

I can imagine a Roman in 180AD saying "The Pax Romana is too important to fail, it'll last forever! This Commodus chap will be fine!"

MRGA!

I'm going to build a wall, and I'm going to make the Picts pay for it!

Preezy wrote:I'm going to build a wall, and I'm going to make the Picts pay for it!