Undercover Elephant suggested I start a thread about the US elections so here it is. !!
I don't want to rehash what has gone on on other boards you may also take in on a regular basis but instead would look at the issue from how it affects the UK.
Right now it appears most likely that Donald Trump will end up apposed to Hillary Clinton. Both of which make me cringe at the thought of them being in power and having leadership in NATO.
If the UK leaves the EU will you feel comfortable with Trump in charge on the west side of the pond?
USA presidential elections 2016
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
-
johnhemming2
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: 30 Jun 2015, 22:01
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
Here is a post I put up at "peakoil.com" just to save retyping it.
As I watched last night I contemplated this math. IF (big if I Know) all three trailing candidates Bush ,Carson and Kasich withdraw before Super Tuesday and throw {(If their voters would follow direction,)} their combined 22.6 percent of the vote to Rubio to add to his 22.5 you would have 45.1 to beat Trump Super Tuesday.
More probable they will ,when the three do drop out, have their voters split more or less evenly between Cruz and Rubio and more then a few jumping on the Trump band wagon because it is human nature to go with the winner.
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
This system evolved after stunning losses for the Democrats in 1972 and again in 1980. The goal is to keep experienced leaders in control and to avoid the nomination of a fringe or extreme candidate that could not win the general election to come. Both parties have them but choose them under different rules.clv101 wrote:How does that work?vtsnowedin wrote:...especially on the Democratic side where Hillary has enough "Super delegates" bought off to make her a shoe in.
Here is a more complete description from wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperdelegateAmbox scales.svg
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (February 2012)
In United States politics, a "superdelegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically and chooses who they want to vote for. DNC superdelegates include distinguished party leaders and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.
Although "superdelegate" was originally coined and created to describe this type of Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties,[1] even though it is not an official term used by either party.
For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories:
delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[2] (unpledged PLEO delegates); and
additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[2]
For Republicans, there are generally three unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. However, according to the RNC communications director Sean Spicer, convention rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their states. [3]
A common criticism is that unpledged delegates could potentially swing the results to nominate a candidate that did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Whilst Trump is not my ideal candidate, if it is a toss up between Trump and Clinton, I will be backing Trump.
Trump is a pragmatist who is to a certain extent playing to the crowd, however, I support his core policies which are in America's national interest;
1) heavily restricting Islamic immigration into the States (which is what will get passed by Congress if he gets in) - the shutdown ploy is a classic Trumpist negotiating tactic.
2) introducing tariffs on Chinese goods and prioritizing American manufacturing - in a era when industrial civilization is in decline, it is in America's self-interest to get strategically self-sufficient again.
3) end illegal immigration into the States by building a wall on the southern border. This will raise wages of blue-collar Americans who deserve a break after decades of flat lining wage growth. if you aren't legally allowed in the States, don't try and enter!
4) America must get the hell out of these Third World Muslim wars. Trump will prioritize core American interests, start a strategic relationship with Russia and stop pussy footing around Saudi Arabia and Turkey over their covert support of ISIS.
5) Even better, Trump hopefully will back a restoration of Assad to rule, who is the best guarantee of a multi-religious, secular and stable Syria where religious minorities like the Christians won't be slaughtered by Islamic nutters.
Trump is a pragmatist who is to a certain extent playing to the crowd, however, I support his core policies which are in America's national interest;
1) heavily restricting Islamic immigration into the States (which is what will get passed by Congress if he gets in) - the shutdown ploy is a classic Trumpist negotiating tactic.
2) introducing tariffs on Chinese goods and prioritizing American manufacturing - in a era when industrial civilization is in decline, it is in America's self-interest to get strategically self-sufficient again.
3) end illegal immigration into the States by building a wall on the southern border. This will raise wages of blue-collar Americans who deserve a break after decades of flat lining wage growth. if you aren't legally allowed in the States, don't try and enter!
4) America must get the hell out of these Third World Muslim wars. Trump will prioritize core American interests, start a strategic relationship with Russia and stop pussy footing around Saudi Arabia and Turkey over their covert support of ISIS.
5) Even better, Trump hopefully will back a restoration of Assad to rule, who is the best guarantee of a multi-religious, secular and stable Syria where religious minorities like the Christians won't be slaughtered by Islamic nutters.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
The fact that you think Trump can or will achieve any of that speaks poorly of your ability to asses a situation.Lord Beria3 wrote:Whilst Trump is not my ideal candidate, if it is a toss up between Trump and Clinton, I will be backing Trump.
Trump is a pragmatist who is to a certain extent playing to the crowd, however, I support his core policies which are in America's national interest;
1) heavily restricting Islamic immigration into the States (which is what will get passed by Congress if he gets in) - the shutdown ploy is a classic Trumpist negotiating tactic.
2) introducing tariffs on Chinese goods and prioritizing American manufacturing - in a era when industrial civilization is in decline, it is in America's self-interest to get strategically self-sufficient again.
3) end illegal immigration into the States by building a wall on the southern border. This will raise wages of blue-collar Americans who deserve a break after decades of flat lining wage growth. if you aren't legally allowed in the States, don't try and enter!
4) America must get the hell out of these Third World Muslim wars. Trump will prioritize core American interests, start a strategic relationship with Russia and stop pussy footing around Saudi Arabia and Turkey over their covert support of ISIS.
5) Even better, Trump hopefully will back a restoration of Assad to rule, who is the best guarantee of a multi-religious, secular and stable Syria where religious minorities like the Christians won't be slaughtered by Islamic nutters.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
What makes you think he can't at least achieve some of those things?
Trump will not play by the usual constitutional rules of the game, he will be unpredictable and will, I suspect, appeal to the American public.
As he has already noted a few years ago, he called for a Mussolinian march on Washington and if he was ever elected president, would play that card again. It would be high-risk but raising the spectre of violent revolution from the populist right against the economic and political establishment could work, although, I am sure that he would only play that 'nuclear' option if a Wall Street dominated Congress was vetoing a presidential policy which enjoyed overwhelming support from the public.
I subscribe to John Greer view that a Trump presidency is very real and it would be a game-changer (unlike Obama's election in 2008).
Trump will not play by the usual constitutional rules of the game, he will be unpredictable and will, I suspect, appeal to the American public.
As he has already noted a few years ago, he called for a Mussolinian march on Washington and if he was ever elected president, would play that card again. It would be high-risk but raising the spectre of violent revolution from the populist right against the economic and political establishment could work, although, I am sure that he would only play that 'nuclear' option if a Wall Street dominated Congress was vetoing a presidential policy which enjoyed overwhelming support from the public.
I subscribe to John Greer view that a Trump presidency is very real and it would be a game-changer (unlike Obama's election in 2008).
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Agreed that the president isn't all powerful and Trump will need to adapt and make deals on key policy positions if he became a resident of the White House. I was arguing against the notion that nothing he has outlined is achievable.
The underlying message I think was being said, is that the current political system is so controlled by corporate special interest lobby's (especially Wall Street interests) that no president elected on a reformist/populist mandate has a chance in hell of getting anything through.
I actually agree with that... assuming that such a president operates through the usual rules of the political game.
The only way to break the grip of the 1% on our political system is to raise the very real threat of a popular uprising from below. It could come from the Left, but Sanders isn't the man to deliver such a thing, as you need a leader with a almost Leninist steel to confront such powerful forces.
Trump to me, is a rogue patrician elitist, who has embraced an angry faction of the proletariat so that he can gain power. It was not un-common in ancient Rome for rogue elements within the class elite to become 'class traitors' out of their desire for power.
Trump, if he actually tried to deliver the policies outlined by him to date, would be challenging some of the most powerful forces within American establishment. He must be aware of that, so either he will surrender to these forces if he ever got to power (making him a lame-duck president) or he has a strategy to mobilize his supporters to force through these populist policies.
The underlying message I think was being said, is that the current political system is so controlled by corporate special interest lobby's (especially Wall Street interests) that no president elected on a reformist/populist mandate has a chance in hell of getting anything through.
I actually agree with that... assuming that such a president operates through the usual rules of the political game.
The only way to break the grip of the 1% on our political system is to raise the very real threat of a popular uprising from below. It could come from the Left, but Sanders isn't the man to deliver such a thing, as you need a leader with a almost Leninist steel to confront such powerful forces.
Trump to me, is a rogue patrician elitist, who has embraced an angry faction of the proletariat so that he can gain power. It was not un-common in ancient Rome for rogue elements within the class elite to become 'class traitors' out of their desire for power.
Trump, if he actually tried to deliver the policies outlined by him to date, would be challenging some of the most powerful forces within American establishment. He must be aware of that, so either he will surrender to these forces if he ever got to power (making him a lame-duck president) or he has a strategy to mobilize his supporters to force through these populist policies.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Not only would he be "challenging some of the most powerful forces within American establishment" but he also doesn't have, and shows no sign of gaining the required broad popular support he'd need to have a chance.
If anyone is going to have a chance challenging the US establishment - they'd better hope to be able to rally at least two thirds of the population behind them. Trump will never, ever, manage to rally much more than a third.
If he does win, and I certainly don't think he will, then his will be a hopelessly ineffective single term presidency.
If anyone is going to have a chance challenging the US establishment - they'd better hope to be able to rally at least two thirds of the population behind them. Trump will never, ever, manage to rally much more than a third.
If he does win, and I certainly don't think he will, then his will be a hopelessly ineffective single term presidency.
-
Snail
I wonder if Trump could be a stepping stone to something else; if only to another stepping stone.
For example:
I'm left-leaning (or close-enough) but I might still vote Trump if the alternative is Hillary. We know Hillary won't do anything new. Trump might. If he does, he might create a reaction on the the left. If not, he might pave the way for a more radical set of presidential hopefuls next time.
So a strategy for me from now on might be to vote for the most-radical (of whatever persuasion). Even if it's only an appearance of something different. Playing the game but in a semi-disinterested way, without too much hope. As someone who is dissatisfied with current times.
For example:
I'm left-leaning (or close-enough) but I might still vote Trump if the alternative is Hillary. We know Hillary won't do anything new. Trump might. If he does, he might create a reaction on the the left. If not, he might pave the way for a more radical set of presidential hopefuls next time.
So a strategy for me from now on might be to vote for the most-radical (of whatever persuasion). Even if it's only an appearance of something different. Playing the game but in a semi-disinterested way, without too much hope. As someone who is dissatisfied with current times.