US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

sebster wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Should we tolerate a candidate whose policy is to jail his political rival?

I have to admit that bit kind of just washed over me. I heard it happen, but at the time it just sounded like yet more incredibly terrible Trump nonsense, and fairly similar to stuff he's been claiming in campaign speeches. In hindsight, though, t was pretty incredible, and a historic new low.

You can't make threats more direct than he did. It wasn't even a threat, he detailed the specific mechanism by which he would try Clinton (a Special Prosecutor under the authority of the US Attorney General). This is serious gak. I don't think this has ever been done before in US politics.

Welcome to the Third World, for realsies.

**sebster**

AduroT wrote:
Trump REALLY can't stay on topic at all, and he's totally obsessed with isis.

At the start of the debate Trump would know there was going to be a question about his groping comments. His strategy was to apologise, then minimise by claiming there are much more important things, and he made the pretty reasonable call to go with ISIS. It was probably about the best thing he could do from that situation.

He still kind of fethed it up though. After Trump's initial deflection, Cooper softballed him a question asking to confirm he never groped any women and Trump didn't adjust and run with that, instead he tried to minimise again, going on a weird little thing about immigration.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Is there a transcript for his discipline answer? Because that was...wow.

**sebster**

jasper76 wrote:
You can't make threats more direct than he did. It wasn't even a threat, he detailed the specific mechanism by which he would try Clinton (a Special Prosecutor under the authority of the US Attorney General). This is serious gak. I don't think this has ever been done before in US politics.

Welcome to the Third World, for realsies.

Yeah, exactly. I was at work while I was listening to the debate, so half distracted it sounded kind of like more the same old 'lock her up' bs. But actually seeing the words written on the page, with a specific plan in place for how he plans to go about targeting a political opponent, fething wow.

I remember a story a while ago about a journalist who was targeted by Trump. It wasn't Timothy O'Brien, it was another journalist, the guy who first started saying Trump's empire was a house of cards in the early 90s. Trump tried a few times to get the guy fired, and the articles retracted. The paper held firm. Years later this guy had moved on from journalism, was running an investment company, and came across Trump again while organising for the company's affiliated charity. Trump saw it all as water under the bridge, "You hit me so I hit you" was how Trump thought of it. Trump even cut a cheque for $5,000 for the charity.

It's a mindset that's pretty alien to me. It can only be understood by removing any kind of reason or reality from consideration, and just looking at things entirely in terms of yourself.

**d-usa**

This might actually be the most interesting thing that happened tonight:

https://www.yahoo.com/style/social-media-finds-deep-inner-meaning-in-melania-trumps-hot-pink-debate-outfit-021436411.html

Mrs. Trump showing up in a pussy-bow pants suit.

**Steelmage99**

BigWaaagh wrote:

Ahh, Susan Hutchison...glad to see someone has picked up the "clueless and just plain dumb" torch left behind by Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Ah. So that is what happens to clueless women in the US.

Brunettes goes into politics and blondes.....well, apparently they become Fox hosts.

**Maddermax**

Wow, watched most of the debate, what the hell... I don't think Donald could even see reality with a telescope on a clear night, he's just in a different universe.

The fact this guy will still get 40% of the vote as a minimum for his support just astounds me, I guess you can see how the same forces that brought the fascist leaders of the 30s and 40s to power are still around today, all it would take is a split vote with a strong 3rd party and President Trump would be a terrifying reality.

**tneva82**

Maddermax wrote:
Wow, watched most of the debate, what the hell... I don't think Donald could even see reality with a telescope on a clear night, he's just in a different universe.

The fact this guy will still get 40% of the vote as a minimum for his support just astounds me, I guess you can see how the same forces that brought the fascist leaders of the 30s and 40s to power are still around today, all it would take is a split vote with a strong 3rd party and President Trump would be a terrifying reality.

Well it's been what? 80 years or so when they came back? Too short time for humans to change. Evolution is tad slower process than that.

**Hordini**

Maddermax wrote:
Wow, watched most of the debate, what the hell... I don't think Donald could even see reality with a telescope on a clear night, he's just in a different universe.

The fact this guy will still get 40% of the vote as a minimum for his support just astounds me, I guess you can see how the same forces that brought the fascist leaders of the 30s and 40s to power are still around today, all it would take is a split vote with a strong 3rd party and President Trump would be a terrifying reality.

Thank goodness for checks and balances. But it doesn't look like Trump is going to be president anyway.

**sebster**

I just read about the 'empty jewelry box scam'. This was con to avoid sales tax, run by a high end jewelery store in New York in the 1980s. A buyer would come in and pick some piece of jewelry, and then sign a purchase slip as if they'd pick the item up at some other store, one that doesn't have a sales tax. In this way they'd avoid New York's high sales tax. An empty box would be shipped to that other store, and meanwhile the buyer would walk out of the store that day with their new piece of jewelry.

Of course Donald Trump was happy to be part of this. The pettiness of it is kind of incredible, it wasn't just Trump but plenty of other incredibly wealthy people including at least billionaire, breaking the law to save tiny amounts of money. When the deal was uncovered Trump turned, and testified against the jewelry store owners to save himself.

Maddermax wrote:
Wow, watched most of the debate, what the hell... I don't think Donald could even see reality with a telescope on a clear night, he's just in a different universe.

The fact this guy will still get 40% of the vote as a minimum for his support just astounds me, I guess you can see how the same forces that brought the fascist leaders of the 30s and 40s to power are still around today, all it would take is a split vote with a strong 3rd party and President Trump would be a terrifying reality.

That's actually a really good argument for narrowing the field down to two candidates. It prevents a split vote that lets a crazy sneak over the line.

**Kilkrazy**

The BBC's verdict is that Trump succeeded in avoiding a total melt-down, so while he came out covered with gak and will have lost some more support, Clinton failed in the opportunity to push him off the cliff and clinch the election.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The BBC's verdict is that Trump succeeded in avoiding a total melt-down, so while he came out covered with gak and will have lost some more support, Clinton failed in the opportunity to push him off the cliff and clinch the election.

That seems a reasonable summary. Clinton didn't seem that strong tonight. She seemed to struggle to bring focus to her arguments, and she lacked the really good canned lines from the first debate (might have moved away from them after Kaine's overuse?).

But I think a lot of the effect of the first debate came afterwards, once the performance had worn off and we were left with the words. Trump's confused, kind of tired effort in the second half of first debate may have opened the door to the hammering he took, but the real work came from repeating his evasive and nonsensical answers.

Something similar might happen this time, because man Trump said some crazy bs.

**Sarouan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The BBC's verdict is that Trump succeeded in avoiding a total melt-down, so while he came out covered with gak and will have lost some more support, Clinton failed in the opportunity to push him off the cliff and clinch the election.

I'm not sure what the commentators really expected. Basically, they were hoping Trump would burst in the middle of the debate.

It seems like most of the comments after the debate are saying how much Trump managed not to feth it up. Well duh. I don't really see how it can be seen as something really positive.

Both candidates had trouble to stay on the "2minutes time" for answering. And what Clinton should have done? Going into Flame War with Trump when he interrupted her in the middle of her argument?

Thing is, just by reading the spamming comments on some videos, it's really feeling like what they said don't matter. Trumpeteers see their champion as destroying her rival and Clinton supporters think she crushed Trump. Maybe the expectations were a bit too high, after all.

**Maddermax**

sebster wrote:
I just read about the 'empty jewelry box scam'. This was con to avoid sales tax, run by a high end jewelery store in New York in the 1980s. A buyer would come in and pick some piece of jewelry, and then sign a purchase slip as if they'd pick the item up at some other store, one that doesn't have a sales tax. In this way they'd avoid New York's high sales tax. An empty box would be shipped to that other store, and meanwhile the buyer would walk out of the store that day with their new piece of jewelry.

Of course Donald Trump was happy to be part of this. The pettiness of it is kind of incredible, it wasn't just Trump but plenty of other incredibly wealthy people including at least billionaire, breaking the law to save tiny amounts of money. When the deal was uncovered Trump turned, and testified against the jewelry store owners to save himself.

Pettiness seems to be a theme of his. He was also claiming a low-income (because he zeroed out his taxable income) housing benefit for a house he wasn't even living in - worth $300 a year. Guy is the living embodiment of greed, like Scrooge McDuck picking up pennies but without the saving grace of always coming good in the end.

sebster wrote:

That's actually a really good argument for narrowing the field down to two candidates. It prevents a split vote that lets a crazy sneak over the line.

I've always been a massive fan of our Preferential Voting (AKA "instant runoff") system, I'm always amazed at how many countries have no runoff system at all, and are apparently fine with the possibility of a terrible candidate being voted in with a significant minority of votes because there was a 3 way split.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The BBC's verdict is that Trump succeeded in avoiding a total melt-down, so while he came out covered with gak and will have lost some more support, Clinton failed in the opportunity to push him off the cliff and clinch the election.

Clinton went gently because there was no reason to push him off a cliff - between video releases (and there's more coming), being dumped by the GOP establishment and Trumps own words, he's already falling as hard as possible, and a single debate won't change that outcome. Best make it forgettable, and let events take their own toll.

**sebster**

Maddermax wrote:
Pettiness seems to be a theme of his. He was also claiming a low-income (because he zeroed out his taxable income) housing benefit for a house he wasn't even living in - worth $300 a year. Guy is the living embodiment of greed, like Scrooge McDuck picking up pennies but without the saving grace of always coming good in the end.

Scrooge also managed to be make quite a lot of money for himself. The jury is out on Trump, but it doesn't look good.

I've always been a massive fan of our Preferential Voting (AKA "instant runoff") system, I'm always amazed at how many countries have no runoff system at all, and are apparently fine with the possibility of a terrible candidate being voted in with a significant minority of votes because there was a 3 way split.

Yeah, it seems a really effective way to make sure that a candidate that horrifies 50% of the population can't win office.

**Steve steveson**

I was quite surprised by some of the stuff Trump gets away with. Clinton has had many opportunities to take him apart but failed. When he started banging on about locking her up I was surprised she didn't tear him a new one attacking him for what people have been saying about ignoring due process, and that this is the kind of actions of a third world despot.

Is my assumption that this should happen down to the different political systems? I can't imagine someone getting away with that in the UK, but our political system is much more adversarial, with heated debate being the bread and butter of parliament. Trump would be torn a new one in PMQs.

**Kid_Kyoto**

I miss the mature and professional political races I saw in Trinidad and Guyana.

How did we get here?

How?

**sebster**

Steve steveson wrote:
I was quite surprised by some of the stuff Trump gets away with. Clinton has had many opportunities to take him apart but failed. When he started banging on about locking her up I was surprised she didn't tear him a new one attacking him for what people have been saying about ignoring due process, and that this is the kind of actions of a third world despot.

Is my assumption that this should happen down to the different political systems? I can't imagine someone getting away with that in the UK, but our political system is much more adversarial, with heated debate being the bread and butter of parliament. Trump would be torn a new one in PMQs.

I think there's a few things. Part of it is culture, US politics has always placed a strong emphasis on being civil. That's changed as hyper-partisanship has taken over, and Trump has accelerated that change massively, but there is still some expectation that people should be respectable, even if their campaigns are doing all kinds of dodgy stuff in their name.

The second part is Clinton herself, she's made a decision that she won't get too bogged down in attacks on Trump directly. She just comments that it was wrong, and then lets the fact checkers do the rest of the work for her. There's been polling done that fact checking is a lot more effective when it comes from third parties that are seen independent, Clinton has no doubt seen that and dozens of other bits of analysis that's led to her strategy.

The last part is that while a person might look very clever if they take on another clever person and win a point on some technical detail, it would be very hard to challenge the idiocy that comes out of Trump's mouth and not look like an idiot. As an example, in tonight's debate Trump spoke about the Syrian refugees, saying that "we have no idea who they are". That statement is utterly ignorant of the very thorough vetting process already in place. Can you challenge Trump directly on that? What about when he followed up by saying "we have no idea where they are from"? Would it be possible respond to Trump by explaining to him that the Syrian refugees are from Syria and not look like a bully?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

As always, my verdict is the same: a complete and utter embarrassment of a debate that shames the USA.

John Adams, James Madison, Lincoln et al, must be spinning in their graves.

Trump was clutching Clinton like an ageing heavyweight boxer desperately trying to cling on and limit the punches coming their way...

This is Goldwater Vs Johnson all over again, with the same result - a landslide victory for Clinton...

**LordofHats**

Well John Adams would be a hypocrite then, as the first of America's political drama queens

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

LordofHats wrote:
Well John Adams would be a hypocrite then, as the first of America's political drama queens

That may be, but no John Adams, no USA IMO, and I stand by that assertion.

**AllSeeingSkink**

So these are the best 2 people you could find in all of America to run for president? What do you have to say for yourselves?

**Chute82**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So these are the best 2 people you could find in all of America to run for president? What do you have to say for yourselves?

16 gop and 2 Dems.... Biggest problem is that we really need 3rd party candidate to get more air time. 2 party system have a monopoly with the major news networks and control the media.

**reds8n**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I miss the mature and professional political races I saw in Trinidad and Guyana.

How did we get here?

How?

... ain't over yet.....

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/white-nationalists-see-opportunity-to-pack-trump-administration-we-are-the-new-gop/

White nationalists are working to identify their “top people” — or at least any racist with a college degree — to staff a potential Donald Trump administration.

William Johnson, chairman of the white nationalist American Freedom Party, and other organized racists who back the Republican presidential nominee see a chance to set White House policy if Trump is elected next month, reported The Guardian.

Johnson, who briefly was a Trump delegate from California, and Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute and originator of the term “alt-right,” believe Trump might pack his cabinet with white supremacists.

“I want Jared Taylor [of American Renaissance] as UN Ambassador, and Kevin MacDonald [an evolutionary psychologist] as secretary of health and Ann Coulter as homeland security,” Johnson said, recalling a conversation he had with Spencer three months ago.

Spencer said at the time that his wish list was “a pipe dream,” but now they believe it could become a reality.

“If Trump wins, all the establishment Republicans, they’re gone,” Johnson said. “They hate him! So who’s left? If we can lobby, we can put our people in there.”

Johnson and other members of his white nationalist organization, which is working to turn the United States into a white-only ethnostate, have been poring over “The Plum Book” that lists thousands of civil service positions in the federal government.

“It’s plum because of the color, but also because of the plum positions – there are 20,000 jobs in that book that are open to a new administration,” Johnson said.

“So we need to identify our top people!” said Eric, a neo-Nazi who moved on from Buddhism to Norse and Celtic religion.

“Just anyone with a college degree!” Johnson said.

The Guardian reported that Eric was practically bouncing in his seat with excitement about helping to serve as Trump’s transition team.

“We need to get the word out,” Eric said. “We are the new GOP!”

... astonishing.

**Herzlos**

I can't even tell if that's a parody any more.

**BigWaaagh**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
What 59 year old man who isn't a coach is using "locker room talk" in the first place? This is a man who is stuck in the mindset of a 10th grader.

Hey! My son is a 10th grader and if I heard him talking like that...

"Locker room talk"? Just another piece of spin to try and polish that gak of a human being.
Pence came out and reaffirmed his loyalty to fethhead. This man, Pence, prides himself on his faith...what have they been teaching you at the church you go to Mr. Pence?

**Ouze**

538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

**BigWaaagh**

Ouze wrote:
538 is forecasting a 82.3% chance of a HRC victory. If you use their "nowcast" - which would factor in very current events like the debate, but are slightly less accurate - it jumps to 86.8%.

I still have spider sense tingling about him winning. Brexit showed the Polls mean nothing. There are still too many variables, which, if they swing the wrong way, could allow this walking dung heap a victory.
The one point he's resonating on is taxes and the economy. That's a very powerful message and has swept in POTUS candidates before.

**skyth**

How can he resonate on something that he doesn't have a consistent plan on and has been proven not to work? I just don't get that...

**Spetulhu**

sebster wrote:
Part of it is culture, US politics has always placed a strong emphasis on being civil. The second part is Clinton herself, she's made a decision that she won't get too bogged down in attacks on Trump directly.
The last part is that while a person might look very clever if they take on another clever person and win a point on some technical detail, it would be very hard to challenge the idiocy that comes out of Trump's mouth and not look like an idiot.

All good points. A last one might be that Hillary doesn't need to strike Trump down verbally because he's doing a perfectly good job of hanging himself. If she went on the attack over his blunt comments she'd look like the schoolyard bully pushing poor slow Donnie into a ditch.