Donald Trump

[Dougie Do'ins]

Trump's continued success is both confusing and terrifying.  It means there are at least 20% or so of the American voting public who have completely disengaged with the political process enough that they would support a borderline fascist lunatic if it meant real change.  And a Trump presidency (which is totally impossible and will never happen) would mean real change.  Just change in the wrong direction.

Or maybe they just agree with what Tump is saying.

 

Anyway.

 

US election 2016: Donald Trump sweeps to victory in Nevada

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35647126

[Trumo]

I just don't see it, I think he gets wiped out and the GOP knows this. Rubio will be seen as a moderate compared to Trump.

 

Mind you, one more attack on home soil and all bets off.

 

Only Sanders is offering anything resembling change and some of the things that are being said at Trumo rallies are right out of the 1930s.

 

one guy in a reflecrive safety vest had a sign that said , I will work on building the Wall.

 

Really? Like what?

[Trumo]

Scary - but I still like the "nil satis" puns.

 

Nevada Satis Nisi Toupee.

[setreal]

Really? Like what?

 

"Bring back tags!"

 

"Down with Dictator Dave!"

 

etc

[diamondjoe]

This Christmas we could have Trump, Boris and Putin in power. What could possibly go wrong?

[rubble-rouser]

Fuck me. This cunt could actually win an election. I wonder what 'mainstream' republicans (i.e. old money, gun lovers, fiscally conservative but socially liberal) will do assuming Trump gets the nomination? 

[magicrat]

Fairy Trump 

 

Check this out . Pissed myself

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y96iyHBhIe0&feature=youtu.be

[setreal]

[Bobby Hundreds]

Fairy Trump 

 

Check this out . Pissed myself

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y96iyHBhIe0&feature=youtu.be

 

 

Good voice artist peter serafinowicz, scouser to boot.

[Biscao]

Good one explaining why Hillary will lose against Trump. She's the ideal opponent to him.

 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

[Biscao]

This Christmas we could have Trump, Boris and Putin in power. What could possibly go wrong?

 

On the bright side Boris is dead with a "Remain" vote.

 

However, it will be an absolute disaster should Trump win. He's the archetypical high school bully, with less maturity than a 16 year old. Add to that his ridiculous ignorance on most issues not concerning his own well being it could seriously mean the end of the Western hegmony.

[What_What]

Trump is going to piss this whole thing, he'll swat Hilary aside just like he done to Bush, there's a mountain of ammo to use against her and he'll make full use of it to make her look like the dishonest, deceitful criminal that she is in a way that no other person can do.

[setreal]

"She is a politician, she can be bought. I know, because I did it."

[Biscao]

"She is politician, she can be bought. I know, because I did it."

 

It'll be that easy for him.

[Stu Monty]

Sorry guys but this theme that Trump is a political whirlwhind that will just blow Clinton away doesn't really stand up to scrutiny for me. For there even to be this match-up she will have to have beaten Sanders and we're then in the realm of Sanders supporters deciding he's a better choice than Clinton and at the same time the Republicans that actively dislike him deciding to get behind him.

 

That article that Biscao posted was interesting but seemed rather set on convincing people that Sanders is the man to back. To do that it has to make out that Trump is some ultra-sharp politician that will eviscerate an establishment candidate that will probably have more support from some republican demographics than he would himself. He's not that impressive, hence why half of his own party don't like him.

 

He cannot even win over enough moderate Republicans. The idea that he's going to win over enough moderates, independents and minorities to get to the White House just doesn't stack up for me. 

[SasaS]

This Christmas we could have Trump, Boris and Putin in power. What could possibly go wrong?

 

In a couple of years we may be hoping Trump and Putin weigh in with some moderate views in a debate between Chancellor Petry, President Le Pen and Prime Minister Farage. Or maybe even Jayda.

[setreal]

I agree (with Stu) , his eventual unelectabilty (when you take the whole electorate into account, not just the crazies) will have a lot of people seek refuge in Billarys mainstreamness. 

[magicrat]

I agree (with Stu) , his eventual unelectabilty (when you take the whole electorate into account, not just the crazies) will have a lot of people seek refuge in Billarys mainstreamness. 

I agree too the article Biscao posted was interesting but very agenda driven and assumes Trump is bullet proof . Primaries are not the same as an election where he would be subject to much more scrutiny . That said what seemed ludicrous a few weeks back now seem depressingly possible. 

[Jairzinho]

Sorry guys but this theme that Trump is a political whirlwhind that will just blow Clinton away doesn't really stand up to scrutiny for me. For there even to be this match-up she will have to have beaten Sanders and we're then in the realm of Sanders supporters deciding he's a better choice than Clinton and at the same time the Republicans that actively dislike him deciding to get behind him.

 

That article that Biscao posted was interesting but seemed rather set on convincing people that Sanders is the man to back. To do that it has to make out that Trump is some ultra-sharp politician that will eviscerate an establishment candidate that will probably have more support from some republican demographics than he would himself. He's not that impressive, hence why half of his own party don't like him.

 

He cannot even win over enough moderate Republicans. The idea that he's going to win over enough moderates, independents and minorities to get to the White House just doesn't stack up for me. 

 

Or voting for Stein. Or voting for an independent. Or not voting. Don't Democrats usually do best when there is a big turnout? I can't see many people under 30 bothering to vote if it's Clinton.

 

What do the stats/predictions say about Clinton v Trump by age group? 

 

I should stress I do also think she'll win comfortably, just interested in the break down of votes.

[Biscao]

Sorry guys but this theme that Trump is a political whirlwhind that will just blow Clinton away doesn't really stand up to scrutiny for me. For there even to be this match-up she will have to have beaten Sanders and we're then in the realm of Sanders supporters deciding he's a better choice than Clinton and at the same time the Republicans that actively dislike him deciding to get behind him.

 

That article that Biscao posted was interesting but seemed rather set on convincing people that Sanders is the man to back. To do that it has to make out that Trump is some ultra-sharp politician that will eviscerate an establishment candidate that will probably have more support from some republican demographics than he would himself. He's not that impressive, hence why half of his own party don't like him.

 

He cannot even win over enough moderate Republicans. The idea that he's going to win over enough moderates, independents and minorities to get to the White House just doesn't stack up for me. 

 

I agree to some extent, mate. It's clearly written from someone with a pro-Sanders agenda. However, I think you underestimate his appeal to minorities. I Nevada he got 44% of the hispanic vote, while Rubio/Cruz (both with hispanic origins) only managed 48% combined.

 

Where I do think the article makes a great point is stating that Hillary will be a gift made in heaven for Trump, should he win the primary. During the primaries he's bullied his way to the top while, more or less, inventing issues in the other candidates (Weak JEB, dishonest Cruz, ugly Fiorina). Against Hillary he doesn't have to resort to such tactics. If she plays the vagina-card (Special place in hell, etc) he can just say "Are you going to hell for not supporting Lewinsky/Young/Flowers against your serial molesting husband?"

 

Then you have Whitewater, Benghazi, the FBI probe - and more. All cases designed for a campaigner like Trump. I'm not saying he'll definately win, hell it's not even certain he'll win the primary. But should he go against Clinton I'd be tempted to put a lot of money on him winning.

[SasaS]

Or voting for Stein. Or voting for an independent. Or not voting. Don't Democrats usually do best when there is a big turnout? I can't see many people under 30 bothering to vote if it's Clinton.

 

What do the stats/predictions say about Clinton v Trump by age group? 

 

I should stress I do also think she'll win comfortably, just interested in the break down of votes.

 

When you vote, you not only vote for, you also vote against, and I think many people would bother to turn up just to prevent a Trump victory. This can also energize the electorate to a degree. I think there is still a lot of people who would say there is a big difference between the two of them.

 

[Section_31]

He's gonna shake up washington 

[Stu Monty]

When you vote, you not only vote for, you also vote against, and I think many people would bother to turn up just to prevent a Trump victory. This can also energize the electorate to a degree. I think there is still a lot of people who would say there is a big difference between the two of them.

 

Yup. Don't think you can overplay just how much the actively disliking of Trump is an issue for him. Then there's the fact that many establishment figures and organisations that would naturally support Republicans may actually see Clinton as a much safer bet and throw their weight against him. Nuking your problems, calling the Chinese motherfuckers, calling latinos rapists and banning muslims from coming into the US might all be an entertaining sideshow in the nominations but it when you have too look like a commander in chief...that shit is going to go down like a fart in a lift.

 

Again. He cannot command the respect of "moderate" Republicans. He is to the right of the votes. Too far to the right.

[magicrat]

Good voice artist peter serafinowicz, scouser to boot.

Didn't know that. He's brilliant on that Trump clip

[Jairzinho]

When you vote, you not only vote for, you also vote against, and I think many people would bother to turn up just to prevent a Trump victory. This can also energize the electorate to a degree. I think there is still a lot of people who would say there is a big difference between the two of them.

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a big difference, it's more about drawing a line in the sand. It's not as extreme, as whoever the next Tory leader is they won't be as mental as Trump, but if Corbyn wasn't elected leader of the Labour party I wouldn't be voting Labour at the next election. I won't vote for a neo liberal. Just wondering how many people this applies to in the states with Sanders/Clinton.

 

The short term effect of voting for Clinton over Trump is that you have a bought off, banking stooge, war hawk as leader rather than an out and out fascist. The long term effect is that you allow the political spectrum to keep moving further and further to the right. The next Democrat establishment leader can be even further to the right than Clinton if someone even more mental and racist than Trump stands for the Republicans.