Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 19:50:42 GMT 1
I will . He's got a picture of Farage on his bedroom wall . Read into that what you will .
Hence the reason why he refers to him as "My Nigel ".
Not a lot of people know that .
|
|
osprey
Midland League Division One
Posts: 281
|
Post by osprey on Feb 24, 2016 20:09:57 GMT 1
I will . He's got a picture of Farage on his bedroom wall . Read into that what you will . Hence the reason why he refers to him as "My Nigel ". Not a lot of people know that . Numb nuts. Please refrain from entering into any political thread, as your input is as useful as Mallet trying to discuss relativity with Einstein. Stick to your usual inane comments, the quality of the pies from the caterers is about your limit. I wish you goodnight. That is all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 20:27:52 GMT 1
Never fail to be amazed as to the sort of individuals that the American electorate are prepared to vote into high office. Funny but I had similar feelings when the electorate in this Country voted for "The Devil Incarnate " Thatcher .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 20:31:06 GMT 1
I will . He's got a picture of Farage on his bedroom wall . Read into that what you will . Hence the reason why he refers to him as "My Nigel ". Not a lot of people know that . Numb nuts. Please refrain from entering into any political thread, as your input is as useful as Mallet trying to discuss relativity with Einstein. Stick to your usual inane comments, the quality of the pies from the caterers is about your limit. I wish you goodnight. That is all. You can't go to bed yet , you haven't tried on your lovely half and half scarf from the club shop .
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 25, 2016 9:59:15 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 10:10:58 GMT 1
Being angry is fine, but why channel that into supporting someone like Trump or Sanders?
Ultimately it's self defeating.
Like supporting Corbyn really, all we have now is an ineffective opposition and a travesty of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Feb 25, 2016 10:31:19 GMT 1
Never fail to be amazed as to the sort of individuals that the American electorate are prepared to vote into high office. Funny but I had similar feelings when the electorate in this Country voted for "The Devil Incarnate " Thatcher . Agree but at least with Thatcher you knew what you up against and she was fairly consistent. Now Trump to me seems to be off the wall and all you can say if he does get in the Whitehouse the USA could be in for a bizarre future.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 25, 2016 10:31:20 GMT 1
Well I think that's because those two are not the same old, same old. People are just tired of voting in the same people who they feel have not done anything to help them. And would continue along that same vein. What better way to shake up the establishment.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Feb 25, 2016 16:04:19 GMT 1
Being angry is fine, but why channel that into supporting someone like Trump or Sanders? Ultimately it's self defeating. Like supporting Corbyn really, all we have now is an ineffective opposition and a travesty of democracy. At the risk of running off topic, why is the opposition ineffective? Seems to me that he's far better at genuinely challenging some of Cameron's fallacies in PMQs, stands up far better than Milliband ever did when the pathetic mudslinging comes out and has conducted himself with more dignity than any leader of our parties who I can remember. Fair enough if you disagree with his policies, but if we can learn anything from his landslide poll win in the current American situation, it's that unconventional views aren't necessarily a barrier to success. There's massive disillusionment with our political system at the moment and having a leader of the opposition who doesn't lower himself to the level of the rest and answers questions honesty will win over a lot more voters than will be scared off by this bizarre "unelectable" narrative that Murdoch et al are running with. When all's said and done, though, I suspect the smart money is on Clinton to become president. Consensus seems to be that she will avoid the polarisation (and entry of Bloomberg) that Sanders might induce in a race vs Trump and therefore she would be expected to win, but of course needs to get the nomination first.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Feb 25, 2016 16:19:40 GMT 1
Personally I think the prevailing view of the US held by those in the UK is way out of touch. From what I can see;
1. The social divisions going on in the States (the so called culture wars) make the current political discourse in the UK look like a spat over Billiards.
2. The demographics are overwhelmingly in favour of the democrats.
Brits like to obsess over Conservative WASPs, redknecks, Christian zealots and gun nuts because they make for colourful pantomime villains but the reality is they're a minority. A vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Feb 25, 2016 17:53:07 GMT 1
Reminds me of 1964,I believe, when another "Nutter" called Barry Goldwater won the Republican Nomination even after saying in public speeches more than once "That the only way to deal with them Russians is to Nuke em"
Trump may win the Nomination, though absolutely not home and dry for that yet by a long way, someone will dig up some enormous tax fraud or similar dirt that hes been getting away with for years with his business dealings etc to make life tougher for him.
However as happened to the nutcase Goldwater referred to above, he was totally wiped out in the Presidential Election and it set the Republican Party back years.
Its one thing to win a Party Nomination but a completely different thing to actually becoming President..........
Way too early to call with even the slightest degree of confidence.........in my humble opinion as always...........
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 25, 2016 20:52:08 GMT 1
Trump may win the Nomination, though absolutely not home and dry for that yet by a long way, someone will dig up some enormous tax fraud or similar dirt that hes been getting away with for years with his business dealings etc to make life tougher for him. Had you seen this or did you sense it was coming!? "Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned.
Mr Romney says the billionaire was " dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35662202Maybe it's a sign that the Republican Party establishment is about to train its guns on Trump after keeping quiet so far.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 25, 2016 21:01:30 GMT 1
The Republican Party establishment detest Cruz much more than they do Trump. Cruz has made himself very unpopular on Capital Hill with Republican leaders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 21:24:17 GMT 1
Being angry is fine, but why channel that into supporting someone like Trump or Sanders? Ultimately it's self defeating. Like supporting Corbyn really, all we have now is an ineffective opposition and a travesty of democracy. At the risk of running off topic, why is the opposition ineffective? Seems to me that he's far better at genuinely challenging some of Cameron's fallacies in PMQs, stands up far better than Milliband ever did when the pathetic mudslinging comes out and has conducted himself with more dignity than any leader of our parties who I can remember. Fair enough if you disagree with his policies, but if we can learn anything from his landslide poll win in the current American situation, it's that unconventional views aren't necessarily a barrier to success. There's massive disillusionment with our political system at the moment and having a leader of the opposition who doesn't lower himself to the level of the rest and answers questions honesty will win over a lot more voters than will be scared off by this bizarre "unelectable" narrative that Murdoch et al are running with. When all's said and done, though, I suspect the smart money is on Clinton to become president. Consensus seems to be that she will avoid the polarisation (and entry of Bloomberg) that Sanders might induce in a race vs Trump and therefore she would be expected to win, but of course needs to get the nomination first. Ok, but PMQ's is a TV circus and it's great that Corbyn doesn't stoop to the usual nonsense, but if that's all you're measuring the opposition against then you're setting the bar low. Any Labour opposition worth its salt would be finding holes in very IDS and DWP policy, but yet they seem to be letting open goals go begging. For example www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/02/universal-credit-will-not-encourage-saving-ifs-warnsOr www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/02/04/all-the-times-iain-duncan-smith-has-got-it-badly-wrongAnd the cut of £30 a week for ESA WRAG claimants. I don't know, but to me a worthy opposition would be applying relentless pressure on these issues. I mean absolutely slaughtering the government.
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Feb 25, 2016 22:04:05 GMT 1
Some good and insightful posts above. B&A off topic at its best.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Feb 25, 2016 22:56:25 GMT 1
At the risk of running off topic, why is the opposition ineffective? Seems to me that he's far better at genuinely challenging some of Cameron's fallacies in PMQs, stands up far better than Milliband ever did when the pathetic mudslinging comes out and has conducted himself with more dignity than any leader of our parties who I can remember. Fair enough if you disagree with his policies, but if we can learn anything from his landslide poll win in the current American situation, it's that unconventional views aren't necessarily a barrier to success. There's massive disillusionment with our political system at the moment and having a leader of the opposition who doesn't lower himself to the level of the rest and answers questions honesty will win over a lot more voters than will be scared off by this bizarre "unelectable" narrative that Murdoch et al are running with. When all's said and done, though, I suspect the smart money is on Clinton to become president. Consensus seems to be that she will avoid the polarisation (and entry of Bloomberg) that Sanders might induce in a race vs Trump and therefore she would be expected to win, but of course needs to get the nomination first. Ok, but PMQ's is a TV circus and it's great that Corbyn doesn't stoop to the usual nonsense, but if that's all you're measuring the opposition against then you're setting the bar low. Any Labour opposition worth its salt would be finding holes in very IDS and DWP policy, but yet they seem to be letting open goals go begging. For example www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/02/universal-credit-will-not-encourage-saving-ifs-warnsOr www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/02/04/all-the-times-iain-duncan-smith-has-got-it-badly-wrongAnd the cut of £30 a week for ESA WRAG claimants. I don't know, but to me a worthy opposition would be applying relentless pressure on these issues. I mean absolutely slaughtering the government. No, that's not all I'm setting the bar at. I merely mentioned it as it is topical and the first thing that came to mind when trying to think of an example of him being different. Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, but my point was that you said something along the lines of "why do people turn to Trump/Sanders/Corbyn when they're angry" - I don't know too much about Sanders but the other two are miles away from the identikit buffoonery we've grown so accustomed to in our political scene. The thing that genuinely irritates me the most about our parliamentary system is this "old boys" mentality lots of them seem to have and their arrogance - quick search of Tristram Hunt and the "top 1%" will show you what I mean - and I'm one of many my age who feel the same. I'd like to think moderately intelligent people won't vote Trump, but there is the problem - democracy isn't exclusively for the intelligent!
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Feb 26, 2016 1:00:57 GMT 1
Reminds me of 1964,I believe, when another "Nutter" called Barry Goldwater won the Republican Nomination even after saying in public speeches more than once "That the only way to deal with them Russians is to Nuke em" Trump may win the Nomination, though absolutely not home and dry for that yet by a long way, someone will dig up some enormous tax fraud or similar dirt that hes been getting away with for years with his business dealings etc to make life tougher for him. However as happened to the nutcase Goldwater referred to above, he was totally wiped out in the Presidential Election and it set the Republican Party back years. Its one thing to win a Party Nomination but a completely different thing to actually becoming President.......... Way too early to call with even the slightest degree of confidence.........in my humble opinion as always........... Indeed. And with even some prominent Repulican women stating that if it came down to Trump v Clinton they'd vote for Hillary, I don't see how Trump has a chance. Pretty much everyone who is even vaguely Democrat will vote against him, as will a lot of ethnic minority people and women who are generally Republican voters.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 26, 2016 10:47:58 GMT 1
Well whatever they have on him they really need to be careful about how they play their cards. One of the reasons he seems so popular is because many of his supporters deem him 'anti-establishment'. So when the establishment would go after him that will kinda reaffirm people's opinion of him. If anything it could end up doing more harm than good for those looking to stop Trump in his tracks. I do think the 'establishment' have been caught well off guard on this and perhaps haven't quite got to grips with the situation and how to handle it. And because they don't understand the groundswell of support for Trump (and why would you) they are as just as likely to provide him impetus than weaken his position. Unsurprisingly, the politicians seem a little out of touch with the people.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 26, 2016 11:13:56 GMT 1
Well whatever they have on him they really need to be careful about how they play their cards. One of the reasons he seems so popular is because many of his supporters deem him 'anti-establishment'. So when the establishment would go after him that will kinda reaffirm people's opinion of him. If anything it could end up doing more harm than good for those looking to stop Trump in his tracks. I do think the 'establishment' have been caught well off guard on this and perhaps haven't quite got to grips with the situation and how to handle it. And because they don't understand the groundswell of support for Trump (and why would you) they are as just as likely to provide him impetus than weaken his position. Unsurprisingly, the politicians seem a little out of touch with the people. The anti-establishment movement isn't just with Trump on the far right, it's with Sanders on the left as well. It's the Republican establishment that has the Trump problem now. Their party is in danger of becoming hijacked by its Tea Party, Know-Nothing wing rallying behind Trump. In the context of the Republican Party the Sarah Palin / Michelle Bachman nuttiness is becoming mainstream "thinking". Its supporters might be passionate but the real question is how many of them can there be across the country and outside the party? If Trump wins the nomination then he becomes a problem for the Democrats too. With its bizarre convention systems, non-Republicans and even Democrats can vote in the Republican primaries in some states. I read that some of those voters suggest backing Trump in the primaries is the best way to weaken the Republicans' chances of winning the election. They're quite happy to see Trump beating the likes of Rubio and Cruz because the polls still indicate that he has less chance of beating Clinton (or Sanders) in a presidential election than other Republican candidates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 11:14:08 GMT 1
Bookies have Clinton 3/4 to be next President Trump out at 10/3 so still the outsider with the bookies Not quite sure where the conventions have been so far but commentators expect Trump to do well in rural areas, but less well in cities and southern states with higher ethnic voting populations Fascinating though, from a distance. Everythime I see Trumps face I thank the almighty for that distance and wish the atlantic was a bit wider!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 26, 2016 11:18:42 GMT 1
Any British person with pro-Trump leanings should be made to watch the outstanding 2011 film, "You've Been Trumped", to see him and his organisation in action, bullying Scottish homeowners and destroying one of Scotland's last wilderness areas for the sake of a golf course.
Being anti-Trump is an act of British patriotism as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 12:00:35 GMT 1
Trump isn't ant-establishment. He's a capitalist, he is the establishment. Politicians and government are just one part of that establishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 12:04:43 GMT 1
No, that's not all I'm setting the bar at. I merely mentioned it as it is topical and the first thing that came to mind when trying to think of an example of him being different. Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, but my point was that you said something along the lines of "why do people turn to Trump/Sanders/Corbyn when they're angry" - I don't know too much about Sanders but the other two are miles away from the identikit buffoonery we've grown so accustomed to in our political scene. The thing that genuinely irritates me the most about our parliamentary system is this "old boys" mentality lots of them seem to have and their arrogance - quick search of Tristram Hunt and the "top 1%" will show you what I mean - and I'm one of many my age who feel the same. I'd like to think moderately intelligent people won't vote Trump, but there is the problem - democracy isn't exclusively for the intelligent! I get this and I'm broadly sympathetic to Corbyn and some of his policies, but that is different to presenting an effective united opposition.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Feb 26, 2016 14:18:59 GMT 1
No, that's not all I'm setting the bar at. I merely mentioned it as it is topical and the first thing that came to mind when trying to think of an example of him being different. Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, but my point was that you said something along the lines of "why do people turn to Trump/Sanders/Corbyn when they're angry" - I don't know too much about Sanders but the other two are miles away from the identikit buffoonery we've grown so accustomed to in our political scene. The thing that genuinely irritates me the most about our parliamentary system is this "old boys" mentality lots of them seem to have and their arrogance - quick search of Tristram Hunt and the "top 1%" will show you what I mean - and I'm one of many my age who feel the same. I'd like to think moderately intelligent people won't vote Trump, but there is the problem - democracy isn't exclusively for the intelligent! I get this and I'm broadly sympathetic to Corbyn and some of his policies, but that is different to presenting an effective united opposition. Shouldn't that be the most important thing when evaluating a politician - agreement with their policies rather than how effectively they criticise the government's? I don't like the appointment of McDonnell as shadow chancellor not because he shoots himself in the foot by quoting Chairman Mao (however apt the particular quotation may have been), but because he's less qualified in Economics than I am.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 26, 2016 15:57:09 GMT 1
I get this and I'm broadly sympathetic to Corbyn and some of his policies, but that is different to presenting an effective united opposition. Shouldn't that be the most important thing when evaluating a politician - agreement with their policies rather than how effectively they criticise the government's? I don't like the appointment of McDonnell as shadow chancellor not because he shoots himself in the foot by quoting Chairman Mao (however apt the particular quotation may have been), but because he's less qualified in Economics than I am. He and Osborne both. But then economics is hardly a precise science and we've all seen the damage done in the real world when economists and financiers and mathematicians try to make it one.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Feb 26, 2016 16:20:05 GMT 1
Shouldn't that be the most important thing when evaluating a politician - agreement with their policies rather than how effectively they criticise the government's? I don't like the appointment of McDonnell as shadow chancellor not because he shoots himself in the foot by quoting Chairman Mao (however apt the particular quotation may have been), but because he's less qualified in Economics than I am. He and Osborne both. But then economics is hardly a precise science and we've all seen the damage done in the real world when economists and financiers and mathematicians try to make it one. Indeed. Some aspects of it are precise but Macroeconomics as a whole, whilst very interesting, should be treated with the caution it deserves. Not to say it's useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's an evolving subject that may be solved in 300 years or so, but for now we're still at a period where respected academics will create two perfectly viable models, make convincing arguments for them and then predict two completely different things. However, some aspects can be fitted with past data and are empirically sound throughout history where we have economic data (post industrial revolution/Malthusian period) and it's far better to have someone in charge of the economy who has been educated in the subject, however flexible it may be. Take Osborne's "household" budgeting, for example. No economist thinks it's a good idea, but he panders to the uneducated by preaching its virtues and perpetuating the myth that the whole economic slump was down to Labour. Remarkable how many people genuinely believe that.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 1, 2016 13:04:22 GMT 1
I think when we say anti-establishment we mean he isn't from the same mold as the other career politicians who he is up against. That he isn't seems to be holding him in good stead. I spoke to an American friend last night, she is backing Trump. Unfortunately we didn't have long to discuss it but the reason she said she is supporting Trump is because of political correctness. She say that Trump wouldn't let political correctness get in the way of what needs to be said and done. Didn't really have a clue what that was about to be honest. What exactly needs to be said and done I have no idea. But when you have a look about what is being reported it seems his un-PC manner alone is generating support. So I guess even if he were to put his mouth in it. I mean again. It's probably not going to do him any harm. So perhaps a lot of this is a PC backlash. I have no idea whether it really is that bad over there but there seems to be something in this (even if only a little)...
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 1, 2016 13:44:45 GMT 1
I think you're right that apparently he can't say anything that offends his supporters. He offends a huge number of other people though. It's all so vague though. "He says it like it is", "wouldn't let PC get in the way of what needs to be said and done" - what does any of it really mean? What would he actually do?
It's also inevitable that, the day after someone like Trump becomes President, they become part of the establishment. You can't be an anti-establishment president, it's a contradiction in terms. Trump knows that and he'd have to do deals with Congress just like every other president has. That's the American system (flawed, but more democratic than ours).
Looks like he'll have a successful Super Tuesday today and then he could be almost there. His party is coming apart though, with a significant number of Republican congressmen (and voters) saying they'd refuse to back him in a presidential election. The party seems to hate Cruz even more than Trump and Cruz may get knocked out of the race today. If he does, and Rubio gets a decent number of convention delegates (even though Trump wins in all the states), then it'll be all on the winner-take-all states later in March.
I think Cruz is probably more dangerous than Trump. He believes God is on his side whereas Trump doesn't really believe in anything except money. Hope it's the end for Cruz today.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 1, 2016 13:58:44 GMT 1
I think you're right that apparently he can't say anything that offends his supporters. He offends a huge number of other people though. It's all so vague though. "He says it like it is", "wouldn't let PC get in the way of what needs to be said and done" - what does any of it really mean? What would he actually do? I have absolutely no idea to be honest and was a little thrown by the response. Maybe sommat going on over that way that we're not aware of...dunno.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 1, 2016 14:02:39 GMT 1
I think you're right that apparently he can't say anything that offends his supporters. He offends a huge number of other people though. It's all so vague though. "He says it like it is", "wouldn't let PC get in the way of what needs to be said and done" - what does any of it really mean? What would he actually do? I have absolutely no idea to be honest and was a little thrown by the response. Maybe sommat going on over that way that we're not aware of...dunno. Yes, it's a bit like his infamous Muslim ban statement - that no Muslims could enter the US until we figure out what the hell is going on, or words to that effect. How on earth can that be translated into a workable strategy, let alone a coherent policy?
|
|