Donald Trump

[SasaS]

But party candidate primaries are not just a process to select a presidential candidate most likely to bring the party a win in presidential elections, they also serve to define or determine the overall political orientation or identity of the party.

[Trumo]

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But party candidate primaries are not just a process to select a presidential candidate most likely to bring the party a win in presidential elections, they also serve to define or determine the overall political orientation or identity of the party.

 

What they're supposed to be, and what they've become, are two different things.

[Pureblood]

10 minutes ago, Trumo said:

 

What they're supposed to be, and what they've become, are two different things.

A bit like some of the efforts on the fry-up thread. 

[SasaS]

The problem as I see it is that this two-party system looks increasingly antiquated in many aspects, it's just too narrow, which can also be said for the UK.

 

I don't fully agree with Howie that Republicans just fall behind who ever is elected, it that's what he meant, the emergence of Trump as a bona fide right wing populist caused a lot of divisions, same as the emergence of Sanders as a socialist or a "socialist" (depending how you chose to define socialism) was met with an understandable push back from the establishment of the party which has traditionally been a centrist or a progressive centre right party for decades.

[Jose Jones]

The problem for the Democrats is that Bernie and Biden are both too old, sub-Trumpy candidates.

Biden is handsy, Bernie is shouty, with little policy clarity.  They are both old, full of skeletons and Trump will batter them into submission.

 

A sound youngish centre left good orator type candidate would easily win, I think, but the two old fellas will hoover up too much attention to let them have a decent run at it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't fully agree with Howie that Republicans just fall behind who ever is elected, it that's what he meant, the emergence of Trump as a bona fide right wing populist caused a lot of divisions, same as the emergence of Sanders as a socialist or a "socialist" (depending how you chose to define socialism) was met with an understandable push back from the establishment of the party which has traditionally been a centrist or a progressive centre right party for decades.

I think the Trump Presidency proves the ability of the Republicans to fall in line. During the primaries, other senior Republicans literally  (and correctly) said he was unfit to serve as President: not just that he wasn't their preferred candidate, but that he must not become President.  As soon as he won the nominations, the cunts fell in line.

 

I don't think any senior Democrats went as far as calling Sanders unfit for office; and we'll probably never know the degree to which his opponents in the Democratic Party would fall in line if he were to win the nomination.

[SasaS]

Well, even if his own supporters often didn't, Sanders himself "fell in line" behind Clinton once he lost the primaries. Must admit I don't follow American politics extensively on a daily basis, so it's difficult for me to say how much of Trump's policies would have been implemented under any other Republican president and how much of this was already agreed once he was nominated.

 

With Trump there is a constant wag-the-dog effect with his twitter shenanigans, there is seemingly huge turnover of various appointees and general lowering of standards in public appearances, so it would be difficult for me to say is he actually running things, or is there some "regular" Republican administration working in the background.

[Gooch]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

The problem for the Democrats is that Bernie and Biden are both too old, sub-Trumpy candidates.

Biden is handsy, Bernie is shouty, with little policy clarity.  They are both old, full of skeletons and Trump will batter them into submission.

 

A sound youngish centre left good orator type candidate would easily win, I think, but the two old fellas will hoover up too much attention to let them have a decent run at it.

Andrew Yang is that guy based on what I've seen. Once he gets a platform in a debate, I have a feeling he will gain some serious traction. He is the only one out of the existing candidates with any chance of beating Trump.

[TheHowieLama]

3 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't fully agree with Howie that Republicans just fall behind who ever is elected

The party that built itself on being holier than thou, family morals etc got behind and elected a self confessed paedo/rapist.

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, Gooch said:

Andrew Yang is that guy based on what I've seen. 

The Dividend is going to be a tough sell.

[SasaS]

14 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The party that built itself on being holier than thou, family morals etc got behind and elected a self confessed paedo/rapist.

 

 

I don't remember that as part of his platform.

[TheHowieLama]

Which part?

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

a self confessed paedo/rapist

 

[TheHowieLama]

 

I may have read between the lines of him admitting to attending certain parties and "grabbing them by the pussy."

Certainly we can agree that at best he has acknowledged and settled extra marital affairs his entire life. We can also conclude that at least a few of those instances have been with girls under the age of 18. The facts seem pretty straightforward there.

Pretty sure he and Tiger visited the Waffle House after rounds of golf for quite a few years - know what I mean, nudge, nudge.

 

All - and even any - of these things should be very hard for the majority of Republicans, based on the core platforms of the party - to come to terms with. Seems to not pose a problem.

[SasaS]

Maybe it's the new "strong man" thing with the Right, leader's virility trumps family values?

 

I'd say the main difference is that with Democrats, since Sanders and now with the new post-Sanders candidates even further to the left, you have for the first time candidates not after reforming Capitalism, but standing opposed to it, whilst with Republicans, ideological difference was not so big between Trump and other leading candidates. "Democratic church" may now be just too broad, this is why it's harder to fall behind a candidate you fundamentally oppose.  

[TheHowieLama]

I agree there -- both parties have allowed themselves to be re-defined away from center. Makes it easier to identify the other team. My point was the Republican side has sacrificed their core values to do so (other than guns). Dems maybe not so much. 

Hence my statement about a fella like Bloomberg being the best option. The caveat is if he has to run as an Independent because he knows the Dems won't fall behind him that precludes any chance of a Democratic nominee getting elected. 

[moof]

Bloomberg? Kinell mate

[TheHowieLama]

23 minutes ago, moof said:

Bloomberg? Kinell mate

As an electable alternative to Trump -- yea, no question.

[Captain Turdseye]

BringBackBiscan is an electable alternative to Trump. The question is, is he enough of a cunt to win the support of your average American voter?

[Ne Moe Imya]

18 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

I agree there -- both parties have allowed themselves to be re-defined away from center. Makes it easier to identify the other team. My point was the Republican side has sacrificed their core values to do so (other than guns). Dems maybe not so much. 

Hence my statement about a fella like Bloomberg being the best option. The caveat is if he has to run as an Independent because he knows the Dems won't fall behind him that precludes any chance of a Democratic nominee getting elected. 

What you say so far is true, but I also think we've gotten to a point that it won't be the case going forward.

 

Picture this: it's 2024, after Trump wins reelection in 2020. It's now Pence going up against a Democratic nominee who is an anti-vaxxer nutjob who thinks Bush did 9/11. Or a Democratic nominee with a couple of very serious allegations of sexual assault. I guarantee in that situation the Dems sacrifice their core values just to get a Dem, ANY Dem, into the White House at that point.

 

The problem is that between social media and the incredible polarisation of society that's happened, no one even has any core values any more. It's just "my team" vs "the bad guys." That's why every single thing that happens immediately has a good guy and a bad guy, long before we know the facts.

 

Remember the Zimmerman guy that shot a kid in Florida? The instant the story was in the news everyone picked a side, didn't matter at all that there was no way of knowing what had actually happened there because no one saw it. If you were on the left it was Zimmerman the racist wacko and if you were on the right it was a thug black kid who beat him into the ground until he had no choice but to defend himself.

 

That's just one example, but you could pick hundreds of them. It's getting to the point where civil dialogue isn't even possible any more because everyone is told by the people on their side of the culture divide what to think as soon as anything controversial happens.

[moof]

Umm...

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

3 hours ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

What you say so far is true, but I also think we've gotten to a point that it won't be the case going forward.

 

Picture this: it's 2024, after Trump wins reelection in 2020. It's now Pence going up against a Democratic nominee who is an anti-vaxxer nutjob who thinks Bush did 9/11. Or a Democratic nominee with a couple of very serious allegations of sexual assault. I guarantee in that situation the Dems sacrifice their core values just to get a Dem, ANY Dem, into the White House at that point.

 

The problem is that between social media and the incredible polarisation of society that's happened, no one even has any core values any more. It's just "my team" vs "the bad guys." That's why every single thing that happens immediately has a good guy and a bad guy, long before we know the facts.

 

Remember the Zimmerman guy that shot a kid in Florida? The instant the story was in the news everyone picked a side, didn't matter at all that there was no way of knowing what had actually happened there because no one saw it. If you were on the left it was Zimmerman the racist wacko and if you were on the right it was a thug black kid who beat him into the ground until he had no choice but to defend himself.

 

That's just one example, but you could pick hundreds of them. It's getting to the point where civil dialogue isn't even possible any more because everyone is told by the people on their side of the culture divide what to think as soon as anything controversial happens.

Picture this: it's 2024, after Trump wins reelection in 2020..... *ju don't got no future, ju don't got no past - cos the world is fuckkng gohhhn" 

*these are not anti-Semitic slurs, but central american affectations a la al pacino on carlito's way. jur gonna fucking die big time, here come the pain

[Scooby Dudek]

Bloomberg has already ruled himself out. He believes that a billionaire fiscal conservative, pro business candidate would struggle to get the democratic nomination. I believe he has also said he wouldn't run as an independent, so as not to split the vote. 

IMO He will throw his full support behind Biden. 

 

The Republican party/donors will basically ignore everything as long as you are anti abortion which Trump became during the last campaign. They don't care about affairs and rape as long as you don't abort the child. 

[TheHowieLama]

Bloomer is a smart fella -- he could win but he could also get hung out to dry.

Not alot of reason other than ego for him to have a go.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

He's reportedly in the process of issuing pardons for US military personnel who have been convicted of war crimes. Also including the people who worked for Blackwater, the private contractor responsible for the Nisour Square massacre in Iraq, when several unarmed Iraqis were killed. 

 

Total disregard for Arab/Middle Eastern lives. No wonder he gets on so well with Netanyahu.