133 posts
|
Post by whygodwhytoday on Sept 22, 2016 20:57:17 GMT
Sorry to fetter this forum with overseas politics, but I'm sure we all have an opinion on this...
Don't panic. The modern world is not coming to an end. The US constitution is designed to put as little power as possible into the Presidents hands - look how little Obama has achieved. One of his leading policies was to make the US more racially equal, when 8 years on hostility is the most rife it's been for decades, what with Black Lives Matter destroying black neighborhoods. Preface out of the way.
I wouldn't vote, but if someone put a gun to my head I'd go with Trump, considering the crimes stacked up in Hillary's name (FBI Investigation) and the mess the democrat party has made of the US - the national debt has practically doubled. I'd go with him because he represents the biggest threat to globalism and whiny-liberal-victim culture-social justice-types, which run on ideology and 'what if' (much like socialists...) over facts and numbers.
Generic political rant over.
For a laugh...
Hope you're all well XXX
(I don't know how this will go down on a theatre forum.... this isn't serious serious.... don't bite my head off...)
|
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 22, 2016 21:15:38 GMT
She's a liar, he's a bigot. They're both rampant megalomaniacs. Good luck USA.
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 22, 2016 22:08:48 GMT
We're a mess, but hey, I'm seeing Fun Home the night of the election, which wasn't my intent — but it'll be nice to be holed up and away for a little while!
|
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 22, 2016 22:18:19 GMT
Choice between Trump and Clinton?
I would go with Tim Farron.
|
|
1,319 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Sept 22, 2016 22:29:14 GMT
From this lifelong Londoner who votes policies not party
Obama is a class act, didn't think America was ready for a black President, you can't lay the blame for decades of police prejudice at the door of one man.
Trump is a horrible candidate, a dreadful man, ignorant of world politics, a bully, disrespectful. He is an embarrassment. How anyone can see him in the most influential post in the Western world beggars belief.
Clinton isn't anyone's first choice. But better a liar that could learn than a bigot whose ego is off the chart.
|
|
133 posts
|
Post by whygodwhytoday on Sept 22, 2016 22:45:05 GMT
From this lifelong Londoner who votes policies not party Obama is a class act, didn't think America was ready for a black President, you can't lay the blame for decades of police prejudice at the door of one man. Trump is a horrible candidate, a dreadful man, ignorant of world politics, a bully, disrespectful. He is an embarrassment. How anyone can see him in the most influential post in the Western world beggars belief. Clinton isn't anyone's first choice. But better a liar that could learn than a bigot whose ego is off the chart. I will miss the professionalism/relaxed approach of Obama too. Trump is more transparent and plays the media well, Clinton has loads of experience and has all of wall street backing her. Both have positives and negatives I guess. XXX |
|
133 posts
|
Post by whygodwhytoday on Sept 22, 2016 22:46:31 GMT
We're a mess, but hey, I'm seeing Fun Home the night of the election, which wasn't my intent — but it'll be nice to be holed up and away for a little while! Have you ever seen the show before? I LOVE it!! XX |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 23, 2016 2:24:44 GMT
We're a mess, but hey, I'm seeing Fun Home the night of the election, which wasn't my intent — but it'll be nice to be holed up and away for a little while! Have you ever seen the show before? I LOVE it!! XX Yes, five times. I'm going to Chicago for a short vacation and to see the tour. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 23, 2016 6:47:00 GMT
From this lifelong Londoner who votes policies not party Obama is a class act, didn't think America was ready for a black President, you can't lay the blame for decades of police prejudice at the door of one man. Trump is a horrible candidate, a dreadful man, ignorant of world politics, a bully, disrespectful. He is an embarrassment. How anyone can see him in the most influential post in the Western world beggars belief. Clinton isn't anyone's first choice. But better a liar that could learn than a bigot whose ego is off the chart. Obama was in power for 8 years. As you vote policies which of the policies he implemented did you like ? The utterly shambolic Obamacare one which is collapsing in on itself and did not achieve its aims ? His foreign policies in Syria and Libya and Iran ? I agree he's a class act, but that's all it is, an act. Trump is a terrible candidate, so is Clinton. Tough choice. I imagine, like Brexit, Trump's poll numbers are a few points less than the truth as people won't admit they're going to vote for him. That makes the race very tight. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 23, 2016 8:47:27 GMT
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Sept 23, 2016 9:29:10 GMT
When UKIP voters were subjected to ridicule and accusations of thickness they galvanised and UKIP had unprecedented success.
When "Brexit" voters were subjected to ridicule and accusations of thickness they galvanised and we are leaving the EU.
When Trump voters were subjected to ridicule and accusations of thickness they galvanised and....
The problem is that a lot of people in the US, like they did in the UK, have opinions which do not sit well with the liberal elite. However, if you ridicule them they will not suddenly go "Oh, you're right I'll vote the way you want me to" but feel even more convinced of their opinions.
You need to address concerns however uneasy they sit with your conscience. If you don't you exasperate the situation.
Self-Righteousness, ridicule and mockery is no way to conduct an election campaign and will only have the reverse effect.
|
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 23, 2016 9:46:35 GMT
Which is fine if they are legitimate concerns and Trump is actually addressing them - is he really, he barely talks about policy just how wonderful he is, but when he and his spokespeople are blaming Obama & Clinton for war in Afghanistan, before they were even in office, saying they are the literal founders of ISIS claiming Obama & BLM are responsible for racism in the US, that there's some huge conspiracy around her health and all sorts of other nonsense its hard to really have an actual debate on this stuff.
Clinton isn't perfect but dismissing her as a liar when Trump is far worse or claiming he's more transparent when he's refused to release tax returns, his charity has done some deeply dodgy things (far worse than anything they could actually find about the Clinton Foundation which unlike Trump has actually achieved things for people) and when his plans to put his financial affairs in a blind trust if he gets elected are filled with holes is the worst kind of false equivalency.
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by ldm2016 on Sept 23, 2016 10:10:51 GMT
Which is fine if they are legitimate concerns and Trump is actually addressing them - is he really, he barely talks about policy just how wonderful he is, but when he and his spokespeople are blaming Obama & Clinton for war in Afghanistan, before they were even in office, saying they are the literal founders of ISIS claiming Obama & BLM are responsible for racism in the US, that there's some huge conspiracy around her health and all sorts of other nonsense its hard to really have an actual debate on this stuff. Clinton isn't perfect but dismissing her as a liar when Trump is far worse or claiming he's more transparent when he's refused to release tax returns, his charity has done some deeply dodgy things (far worse than anything they could actually find about the Clinton Foundation which unlike Trump has actually achieved things for people) and when his plans to put his financial affairs in a blind trust if he gets elected are filled with holes is the worst kind of false equivalency. There are no non-genuine or genuine concerns, only concerns.
They may be rooted in a completely irrational interpretation of facts or an indelible bias but they are concerns whether you agree with them or not.
Take, for example, the success of the BNP in Burnley, I think, on the back of people's assumptions that there were too many asylum seekers in the town. There may have only been barely double figures but how did the liberal elite challenge their concerns? By discussing the real number and allaying fears or by ridicule and labelling people thick and racist? Yep, the second way....
If people have concerns they have concerns and how you deal with them is paramount to electoral success.
Trump will win for the same reason the UK voted Brexit. Self-Righteous liberals.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 23, 2016 10:11:15 GMT
Hilary ain't a saint - what politician is? - but if you're going to choose between the two candidates based purely on objective measures of their personal integrity, then she wins by a country mile.
I don't know whether that's actually going to make any difference to the American public, though.
Honestly, I think the world might be f***ed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 10:20:02 GMT
And don't forget though, for all of her many faults, Hillary totally bosses a trouser suit.
Gets my vote.
Well, it would if I were an American.
Of course if I were an American, I'd call it a 'pant suit'.
Heaven forbid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 10:42:21 GMT
There are no non-genuine or genuine concerns, only concerns. They may be rooted in a completely irrational interpretation of facts or an indelible bias but they are concerns whether you agree with them or not. Take, for example, the success of the BNP in Burnley, I think, on the back of people's assumptions that there were too many asylum seekers in the town. There may have only been barely double figures but how did the liberal elite challenge their concerns? By discussing the real number and allaying fears or by ridicule and labelling people thick and racist? Yep, the second way.... The problem is that that approach doesn't work either. Once people have an idea in their heads it's almost impossible to dislodge it no matter how obviously untrue it is. To use a non-political example (which I think I may have mentioned on the old forum)... In the UK the standard speed limits are defined in law as 30mph for restricted roads, 60mph for single-carriageway unrestricted roads and 70mph for dual carriageway unrestricted roads and motorways. Some people get the wrong idea and somehow imagine that the 60/70 single/dual difference for unrestricted roads also applies to restricted roads, and so they think that when they're driving through a town with a 30mph limit and hit a dual carriageway they can legally accelerate to 40. I knew of someone who was convinced this was the case no matter who told him otherwise. Policemen, road traffic experts, people who had been prosecuted for doing 40 on a dual carriageway: he wouldn't believe any of them. In the end someone pointed him to the one source he couldn't argue with: the actual law that defines the speed limits, the absolute authority above all others. His conclusion? The law itself was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 10:53:55 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if it's not decided between these two in an election.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 23, 2016 11:07:17 GMT
There are no non-genuine or genuine concerns, only concerns. They may be rooted in a completely irrational interpretation of facts or an indelible bias but they are concerns whether you agree with them or not. Take, for example, the success of the BNP in Burnley, I think, on the back of people's assumptions that there were too many asylum seekers in the town. There may have only been barely double figures but how did the liberal elite challenge their concerns? By discussing the real number and allaying fears or by ridicule and labelling people thick and racist? Yep, the second way.... The problem is that that approach doesn't work either. Once people have an idea in their heads it's almost impossible to dislodge it no matter how obviously untrue it is. To use a non-political example (which I think I may have mentioned on the old forum)... In the UK the standard speed limits are defined in law as 30mph for restricted roads, 60mph for single-carriageway unrestricted roads and 70mph for dual carriageway unrestricted roads and motorways. Some people get the wrong idea and somehow imagine that the 60/70 single/dual difference for unrestricted roads also applies to restricted roads, and so they think that when they're driving through a town with a 30mph limit and hit a dual carriageway they can legally accelerate to 40. I knew of someone who was convinced this was the case no matter who told him otherwise. Policemen, road traffic experts, people who had been prosecuted for doing 40 on a dual carriageway: he wouldn't believe any of them. In the end someone pointed him to the one source he couldn't argue with: the actual law that defines the speed limits, the absolute authority above all others. His conclusion? The law itself was wrong. That's an amazing example. There's a load of research this now. Once someone believes something, and has invested in that belief, no amount of evidence will change their mind. That's why arguments/debates are always about convincing the undecideds. You'll never convince the person you're arguing or debating with, you might convince people in the audience. And sadly, that's why it's all about presentation, and style, and entertainment value, instead of factual content. Factual content is pretty boring. |
|
1,319 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Sept 23, 2016 11:53:31 GMT
From this lifelong Londoner blah blah blah (my editing Obama was in power for 8 years. As you vote policies which of the policies he implemented did you like ? The utterly shambolic Obamacare one which is collapsing in on itself and did not achieve its aims ? His foreign policies in Syria and Libya and Iran ? I agree he's a class act, but that's all it is, an act. - a lazy google says "The health care reforms that President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010 were seventy-five years in the making. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. presidents have struggled to enact national health care reform; most failed. This article explores the highly charged political landscape in which Obama manoeuvred and the skills he brought to bear. It contrasts his accomplishments with the experiences of his Oval Office predecessors". I would presume President Obama has a bunch of advisers who have worked on Obamacare - that it isn't working is obviously appalling, but jeez, the guy tried! I have a friend in her mid-50's, lives just outside Chicago. She's deaf, got made redundant in 2008 and hasn't worked since. Had a heart attack last year that she's still paying the hospital bills for. Her husband has been made redundant twice since 2008, got lower paid jobs each time. He was diagnosed with throat cancer stage 3 three weeks ago. She says "I'm more worried about $$$$ as he only has 80 hours or so of PTO, after that no paid time for days off. Short term disability doesn't start until after 31st day of being off, then only 50% of pay. Kicker - insurance comes out of checks which doesn't leave much it won't even pay our mortgage. First 30 days off we have to pay insurance ourselves". And why is it expected that USA sort out the Middle East and every other problem in the World? Problems that have existed for decades - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995. Hey Obama, 8 years and you ain't sorted it!?! Damn!?! (another lazy google of sarcasm may be required for any US visitors) |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 23, 2016 12:07:58 GMT
Hilary ain't a saint - what politician is? - but if you're going to choose between the two candidates based purely on objective measures of their personal integrity, then she wins by a country mile. I don't know whether that's actually going to make any difference to the American public, though. Honestly, I think the world might be f***ed. Hillary scores zero on personal integrity. Smearing and silencing the hoards of women her husband used while professing to be a feminist, lying to bereaved parents over Benghazi, saving tens of thousands of government emails, many top secret, on a personal server at risk of hacking, running a charitable foundation where 70% of the money is siphoned off into "administration" charges to pay herself and her family and associates, Whitewater, etc etc. Hard to know where to stop. |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 23, 2016 12:15:02 GMT
Maybe you should have stopped at the things there is actual proof of but then you wouldn't have had as much to say.
And Obamacare failed? That must be why the number of uninsured people has dropped in every congressional district since it was introduced.
|
|
1,319 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Sept 23, 2016 12:15:11 GMT
As one of Clinton's most outspoken supporters, Ellen Degeneres didn't do Clinton any favo(u)rs (correct spelling thank you) when she appeared recently on the BBC light news programme The One Show - when talking about Clinton she said "hey, she's got Bill to help her". I swear my mouth dropped open. WTF?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 23, 2016 12:17:34 GMT
The problem is that that approach doesn't work either. Once people have an idea in their heads it's almost impossible to dislodge it no matter how obviously untrue it is. To use a non-political example (which I think I may have mentioned on the old forum)... In the UK the standard speed limits are defined in law as 30mph for restricted roads, 60mph for single-carriageway unrestricted roads and 70mph for dual carriageway unrestricted roads and motorways. Some people get the wrong idea and somehow imagine that the 60/70 single/dual difference for unrestricted roads also applies to restricted roads, and so they think that when they're driving through a town with a 30mph limit and hit a dual carriageway they can legally accelerate to 40. I knew of someone who was convinced this was the case no matter who told him otherwise. Policemen, road traffic experts, people who had been prosecuted for doing 40 on a dual carriageway: he wouldn't believe any of them. In the end someone pointed him to the one source he couldn't argue with: the actual law that defines the speed limits, the absolute authority above all others. His conclusion? The law itself was wrong. That's an amazing example. There's a load of research this now. Once someone believes something, and has invested in that belief, no amount of evidence will change their mind. That's why arguments/debates are always about convincing the undecideds. You'll never convince the person you're arguing or debating with, you might convince people in the audience. And sadly, that's why it's all about presentation, and style, and entertainment value, instead of factual content. Factual content is pretty boring. Confirmation bias is the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 12:21:40 GMT
As evidenced in this very thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 23, 2016 12:22:05 GMT
As one of Clinton's most outspoken supporters, Ellen Degeneres didn't do Clinton any favo(u)rs (correct spelling thank you) when she appeared recently on the BBC light news programme The One Show - when talking about Clinton she said "hey, she's got Bill to help her". I swear my mouth dropped open. WTF? Well probably not as according to Hillary's friend General Colin Powell, in his amusing emails recently hacked, Bill is "still dicking bimbos at home". I suppose Hillary still arranges to pay them all off as she has been doing for years. Bill must be unique amongst Presidents in having been accused of rape. What a delightful couple they are. |
|
