Jump to content

The Politics Thread 2019


David

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Angry Ram said:

Democrat.. They are too far left to get any real traction outside NY & LA. 

That's the Republican mantra alright and probably true for a section of the US.

But taken on a issue by issue basis even the most left wing of the Democrat candidates' policies (lets say Sanders) have widespread support among the US population.  The US population is in general further to the left on most issues than their elected representatives.  It's just unfortunate that, in US politics, the word 'socialist' is still such an effective slur against any candidate who is not primarily concerned with further enriching the wealthiest 1%..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That's the Republican mantra alright and probably true for a section of the US.

But taken on a issue by issue basis even the most left wing of the Democrat candidates' policies (lets say Sanders) have widespread support among the US population.  The US population is in general further to the left on most issues than their elected representatives.  It's just unfortunate that, in US politics, the word 'socialist' is still such an effective slur against any candidate who is not primarily concerned with further enriching the wealthiest 1%..

Yet, unless he is removed from office or self implodes, he will win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Yet, unless he is removed from office or self implodes, he will win. 

That's a possibility alright, after all thanks to the electoral college system he doesn't even have to be the most popular candidate to win the election, as he has already proven.

Genuinely, I don't think he'll win in 2020. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That's a possibility alright, after all thanks to the electoral college system he doesn't even have to be the most popular candidate to win the election, as he has already proven.

Genuinely, I don't think he'll win in 2020. 

I've just come back from the New York and it's almost a taboo subject. Never mention any sort of support for Trump. Even those who I know who support him, will never state that in public. A bit like climate change, sceptics in the most part, don't speak up. Leavers in the Brexit debate, normally keep their opinions as low key as possible. Maybe that is just a London thing but I would never go to an event down here and nail my colours to the mast. Just not worth the hassle. Don't underestimate Trumps support even by those who may appear to say otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I think a lot depends on who wins the democrat nomination - and how much dirt Trump can dig up on them when the time comes...

Elizabeth Warren.. She's the front runner now (maybe). He would love it to be that native american lady. He will eat her alive.

 

Warren, Biden, Saunders or Harris? Nah.. Won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

I've just come back from the New York and it's almost a taboo subject. Never mention any sort of support for Trump. Even those who I know who support him, will never state that in public. A bit like climate change, sceptics in the most part, don't speak up. Leavers in the Brexit debate, normally keep their opinions as low key as possible. Maybe that is just a London thing but I would never go to an event down here and nail my colours to the mast. Just not worth the hassle. Don't underestimate Trumps support even by those who may appear to say otherwise.

A silent section of the electorate that doesn't show up in polls?  Interesting point and certainly plausible, and it would help explain why polling has been so unreliable of late. But as you say yourself, outside of the big cities, in rural US, isn't the situation precisely the opposite?  Maybe liberals are the silent ones in those areas.

Climate change skeptics just need to learn a bit of basic physics, that would sort them out pretty quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I think a lot depends on who wins the democrat nomination - and how much dirt Trump can dig up on them when the time comes...

Certainly that's what he'll do.  But isn't it ironic that the amount of dirt he will dig up on his opponent actually matters? Given the mountain of dirt that is already common knowledge regarding Trump. 

I happen to think Warren would be a very strong candidate and would beat Trump in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

A silent section of the electorate that doesn't show up in polls?  Interesting point and certainly plausible, and it would help explain why polling has been so unreliable of late. But as you say yourself, outside of the big cities, in rural US, isn't the situation precisely the opposite?  Maybe liberals are the silent ones in those areas.

Climate change skeptics just need to learn a bit of basic physics, that would sort them out pretty quickly. 

Highly possible. Population spread might not mean that is too many in number as opposed to high concentrations in major cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

An alternative Republican nominee? Or the lack of a decent Democrat opponent in the election itself?

The democratic race reminds me of a rule I had when I used to bet on the horses.

If Willie Mullins had one or two entries in the Cheltenham bumper, back them both regardless of odds, he obviously fancied one, but when he had multiple entries give them a swerve, as he had no stand out candidate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

The democratic race reminds me of a rule I had when I used to bet on the horses.

If Willie Mullins had one or two entries in the Cheltenham bumper, back them both regardless of odds, he obviously fancied one, but when he had multiple entries give them a swerve, as he had no stand out candidate.

Did it work?  Are you fabulously wealthy as a result? ?

I don't bet on horses, maybe twice a year at most. I did get Elizabeth Warren for president at 14-1 more than a year ago now, she's 5-2 now so I'm quite happy with that. Her or Sanders are who I'd like to see as next president, regardless of the bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Did it work?  Are you fabulously wealthy as a result? ?

I don't bet on horses, maybe twice a year at most. I did get Elizabeth Warren for president at 14-1 more than a year ago now, she's 5-2 now so I'm quite happy with that. Her or Sanders are who I'd like to see as next president, regardless of the bet.

cash out!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Did it work?  Are you fabulously wealthy as a result? ?

I don't bet on horses, maybe twice a year at most. I did get Elizabeth Warren for president at 14-1 more than a year ago now, she's 5-2 now so I'm quite happy with that. Her or Sanders are who I'd like to see as next president, regardless of the bet.

Like most of my schemes it never really got me anywhere.

I would still say the principle is sound mind, lots of runners and riders can show there's not an outstanding candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I'm waiting for the USA to declare a war - doesn't matter who with. The Trump core would love a war, and that would guarantee his victory.

He avoided one with North Korea. Kim JY was probably the closest someone has come to "pushing the button".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Like most of my schemes it never really got me anywhere.

I would still say the principle is sound mind, lots of runners and riders can show there's not an outstanding candidate.

Except they are not all from the same stable, they all enter themselves in the race.  If, when the primaries are under way, no clear favourites emerges from the long list of candidates, then I might take that as an indication that there are no outstanding candidates.  At the moment, the large field only suggests to me that practically every second Democrat thinks they can win the nomination and defeat Trump.

You could argue, of course, they would be less likely to fancy their chances from the start if there were an outstanding Democrat in the field.  But then nobody has really had the chance to prove themselves yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...