5,121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 25, 2016 14:53:29 GMT
Any apology phrased as "sorry but" isn't an apology. My pet peeve ANYWHERE. I read "sorry but I don't give a sh*t". You're are 100% correct. |
|
213 posts
|
Post by peelee on Jul 25, 2016 14:59:44 GMT
Trump or Clinton — what a choice to have to make.
|
|
5,121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 25, 2016 16:40:56 GMT
Democracy is tempered by what is possible, you don't appear to understand that or the nature of elections. Historical perspective teaches you this; Margaret Thatcher was assisted by a labour split because of supposed socialist purity and so labour supporters shared the blame. On the other side, Blair was assisted by a conservative party riven with splits over Europe and so conservative supporters shared the blame. You don't get to stand aside and say 'nothing to do with me'. You also don't seem to understand that 'don't blame others', means 'take your own share of the blame'. I very much understand the nature of elections. I understand that if there's a candidate who has all the right policy ideas, you should vote for them. And to address your point of "what's possible", that's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you keep saying that a certain party can't win because no one knows who they are, but at the same time you are the one who keeps them out of the presidential debates (I'm talking about the media here), then of course they won't win. If you say don't vote for them because they won't win, then obviously they won't win. They can win once people start thinking for themselves and no longer let themselves be scared into voting for someone they don't want. Sure, the Green Party of the Libertarian Party aren't going to win this year. But if they get a decent percentage of the vote now, and some more next time, ultimately they will get big enough to make a difference. Also, this election could make a considerable difference for them, because if they get enough votes they can get federal funding. That would mean they will be able to get there message out with more people and thereby build up more support. Politics is all about presentation. The saying style over substance has never been so true. Look how slick Tony Blair or David Cameron was, it is all about presenting yourself in the best possible light to the country, if people wanted conviction politicians Gordon Brown or John Major wouldn't have been dethroned. People vote for who is leading the party. Neil Kinnock - being ginger; no chance. William Haque - Being Bald; no chance. It's all about style, presentation and soundbites. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Jul 25, 2016 16:51:24 GMT
Thanks for your insight. Are you a stylist?
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jul 25, 2016 17:25:13 GMT
I think 49thand8th, foxa, ggerstein and myself are the only people here who actually have a vote in this election - forgive me if I've overlooked anyone. We should take a poll!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2016 17:45:29 GMT
Not a scientific sample, so a meaningless poll. So, quite appropriate for this Board. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 27, 2016 14:33:16 GMT
Just in the spirit of enquiry can anyone explain why Trump's idea of building a big wall along the Mexican border is bad ? My first reaction is that it obviously is but then on closer inspection I can't think why. Of course part of the border already has a wall and the necessary legislation to build it already exists.
Actually I think the legislation to ban any travel from designated countries to USA (his latest modification) also exists and has been used in the past too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 14:39:43 GMT
He also said in the same speech that he would make Mexico pay for the construction. I don't know whether he has specified how he will achieve this.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2016 14:46:35 GMT
Just in the spirit of enquiry can anyone explain why Trump's idea of building a big wall along the Mexican border is bad ? My first reaction is that it obviously is but then on closer inspection I can't think why. Of course part of the border already has a wall and the necessary legislation to build it already exists. Just watch this 18min clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, where he's taking a serious proposal by a serious presidental candidate seriously. |
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 27, 2016 16:54:36 GMT
As many of you may have gathered I am a big soppy leftie, so Clinton would be my cup of tea normally (except I cannot stand her), but I probably would have voted that way anyway. Funny thing is: compared to our European standards, the Democrats would be a centre-right party. If he were British, Bernie would be a member of the Tories. Not having that. It might be the Democratic Republican party and Hilary Clinton would be a Tory but Bernie Sanders is definitely not right wing |
|
1,507 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 27, 2016 17:26:50 GMT
Funny thing is: compared to our European standards, the Democrats would be a centre-right party. If he were British, Bernie would be a member of the Tories. Not having that. It might be the Democratic Republican party and Hilary Clinton would be a Tory but Bernie Sanders is definitely not right wing I know that's the given wisdom about Hillary, but, in my opinion, it's not quite right. The system of checks and balances is different in the U.S., so unless you have Congress and the Senate behind you it is hard to do what you want, but some of the issues she has championed over the years include healthcare, women's rights and disability rights. Progressives who actually want to get something done, so therefore understand that there is the need to compromise and work with people, value her. I have a left wing friend who is a disability rights activist who hugely values the input Hillary has had with them over the decades - she is much more than a few Goldman Sachs speeches. She is left of Bernie on gun control, though she is more hawkish than he is and she was slow to come to gay marriage, but she's there now. (And no, Bernie wouldn't be a Tory - for one thing, he's not clubbable enough.) And either Bernie or Hillary would be far preferable to Trump who is truly frightening. The worst outcome for any country is to have a flake at the helm. I honestly don't know how it has come to this. Okay, as you were. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 27, 2016 17:46:25 GMT
Just in the spirit of enquiry can anyone explain why Trump's idea of building a big wall along the Mexican border is bad ? My first reaction is that it obviously is but then on closer inspection I can't think why. Of course part of the border already has a wall and the necessary legislation to build it already exists. Just watch this 18min clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, where he's taking a serious proposal by a serious presidental candidate seriously. Painful to watch. Like an unfunny version of Ben Elton and that's saying something. So his #1 problem is the cost it seems. Well, that's just a judgement call like HS2, nothing inherently wrong with the idea itself. I'm not convinced by his suggestion it is racist and xenophobic to even try to control the border, I have been deported from USA (technically denied entry) under the Obama regime and I wouldn't suggest he is racist as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 27, 2016 17:58:37 GMT
Not having that. It might be the Democratic Republican party and Hilary Clinton would be a Tory but Bernie Sanders is definitely not right wing And either Bernie or Hillary would be far preferable to Trump who is truly frightening. The worst outcome for any country is to have a flake at the helm. I honestly don't know how it has come to this. I lived in USA for several years (just incidentally I also lived in Germany for several and it was far easier in terms of paperwork and admin to be in USA - so much for the EU's precious freedom of movement). It is not a surprise to me Trump is popular. Obama has been in power for 8 years and in the face of limited Republican and Supreme Court opposition has delivered very little beyond a costly botched healthcare policy and a more divided society economically, racially, and politically. Quite an achievement for someone who promised so much. As a result there is a big "a plague on both your houses" vote. It is similar here where the practically uneducated Corbyn has been swept to Labour leadership on the same wave of anti-establishment feeling that is propelling Trump. I imagine Trump will win too as there isn't an establishment candidate to match Mrs Clinton with her massive load of baggage, you would have hoped the Democrats would have chosen someone a bit more electable. |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2016 18:06:09 GMT
Costs are only part of the problem (costs of building the wall, getting all the material to the borderline and maintaining). And why on earth should the Mexican government pay for this wall? Just why? Biggest problem with the wall is that the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants simply overstayed their visas (i.e. they entered legally via a port of entry (border crosspoint, airport) and did not return to Mexico after the approved period of time they were allowed into the US) - a wall would do nothing against them; only a small minority actually entered the US illegally via the land border between the US and Mexico. Also, such a wall would alienate Mexico and the US, and Mexico is the US's third biggest trade partner. Then there's the land ownership problem. The wall must - obviously - be built on American soil, so the US government would have to confiscate land from American citizens. Plus that would also generate areas of no man's land. Also, how would a wall help against digging tunnels? Or someone bringing a ladder that is 1ft taller than the wall? I have been deported from USA (technically denied entry) under the Obama regime and I wouldn't suggest he is racist as a result. I don't think it's the president's responsibility of who is allowed entry and who not. That's usually decided by the CBP officer (and maybe their superior). I don't know the background of your denied entry, but CBP officers don't deny entry for nothing, so something must have been fishy. I've entered the US quite a few times and found the CBP officers to be always polite and friendly - much more than their German counterparts. And now that I'm enrolled in Global Entry (the best spent $100 ever!), it's even easier and quicker. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 27, 2016 18:49:13 GMT
Costs are only part of the problem (costs of building the wall, getting all the material to the borderline and maintaining). And why on earth should the Mexican government pay for this wall? Just why? Biggest problem with the wall is that the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants simply overstayed their visas (i.e. they entered legally via a port of entry (border crosspoint, airport) and did not return to Mexico after the approved period of time they were allowed into the US) - a wall would do nothing against them; only a small minority actually entered the US illegally via the land border between the US and Mexico. Also, such a wall would alienate Mexico and the US, and Mexico is the US's third biggest trade partner. Then there's the land ownership problem. The wall must - obviously - be built on American soil, so the US government would have to confiscate land from American citizens. Plus that would also generate areas of no man's land. Also, how would a wall help against digging tunnels? Or someone bringing a ladder that is 1ft taller than the wall? I have been deported from USA (technically denied entry) under the Obama regime and I wouldn't suggest he is racist as a result. I don't think it's the president's responsibility of who is allowed entry and who not. That's usually decided by the CBP officer (and maybe their superior). I don't know the background of your denied entry, but CBP officers don't deny entry for nothing, so something must have been fishy. I've entered the US quite a few times and found the CBP officers to be always polite and friendly - much more than their German counterparts. And now that I'm enrolled in Global Entry (the best spent $100 ever!), it's even easier and quicker. The best estimate is there are about 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants in USA and about 40% overstayed on visas. So not a vast majority. |
|
5,121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 27, 2016 19:58:08 GMT
Just in the spirit of enquiry can anyone explain why Trump's idea of building a big wall along the Mexican border is bad ? My first reaction is that it obviously is but then on closer inspection I can't think why. Of course part of the border already has a wall and the necessary legislation to build it already exists. Actually I think the legislation to ban any travel from designated countries to USA (his latest modification) also exists and has been used in the past too. Wouldn't be better to have a president in the most powerful country in the world that actually built bridges instead of walls? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 20:06:33 GMT
Just in the spirit of enquiry can anyone explain why Trump's idea of building a big wall along the Mexican border is bad ? My first reaction is that it obviously is but then on closer inspection I can't think why. Of course part of the border already has a wall and the necessary legislation to build it already exists. Actually I think the legislation to ban any travel from designated countries to USA (his latest modification) also exists and has been used in the past too. Wouldn't be better to have a president in the most powerful country in the world that actually built bridges instead of walls? Oh my God, are you seriously quoting that line? It's become such a cliché over the last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 21:21:26 GMT
And either Bernie or Hillary would be far preferable to Trump who is truly frightening. The worst outcome for any country is to have a flake at the helm. I honestly don't know how it has come to this. I lived in USA for several years (just incidentally I also lived in Germany for several and it was far easier in terms of paperwork and admin to be in USA - so much for the EU's precious freedom of movement). It is not a surprise to me Trump is popular. Obama has been in power for 8 years and in the face of limited Republican and Supreme Court opposition has delivered very little beyond a costly botched healthcare policy and a more divided society economically, racially, and politically. Quite an achievement for someone who promised so much. As a result there is a big "a plague on both your houses" vote. It is similar here where the practically uneducated Corbyn has been swept to Labour leadership on the same wave of anti-establishment feeling that is propelling Trump. I imagine Trump will win too as there isn't an establishment candidate to match Mrs Clinton with her massive load of baggage, you would have hoped the Democrats would have chosen someone a bit more electable. On what planet have the Republicans given 'limited opposition'? They have been the most obstructionist group I have ever seen. They no longer actually believe 'in' government in fact. Scalia was a traitor, no more, no less; the supreme court is better off without him. I really can't get where your views on the state of US politics comes from (you haven't been watching sex pest Ailes' channel have you?) but the healthcare plan works and the division has come pretty much solely from the far right party that is what the GOP has become. I am fine with Cameron/May but Republicans are housing extremists. True conservarives are jumping ship. |
|
1,507 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 28, 2016 8:41:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 10:01:27 GMT
Cue Republican musical counter-peformance of the von Trumpp family singing Pink Floyd's Brick in the Wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 11:48:16 GMT
Cue Republican musical counter-peformance of the von Trumpp family singing Pink Floyd's Brick in the Wall. The thing is, they DO need education! |
|
5,121 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 29, 2016 15:04:36 GMT
Some truth in that, however we have American guests on this forum who are more eloquent and smarter than me,, as their posts prove - so this definitely doesn't apply to them.
But you begin to worry when people who vote in this election, that 42% actually believed that human beings used to ride around on dinosaurs!?!?! You can see how they're going to vote.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jul 29, 2016 16:13:11 GMT
42% actually believed that human beings used to ride around on dinosaurs My diplodocus has over 1.5m miles on the clock, and I'm not part-exchanging it for anything. I'll give you part exchange on a nice zippy little velocirapator. Only one previous owner (although no one knows what happened to him!). |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Jul 29, 2016 16:17:04 GMT
I am a worn-out American but the DNC has reinvigorated me... just a bit. Love how high the ratings were, too!
|
|
