No, it is completely different. I don't think I have ever defended or agreed with Trump (directly) in my life. You probably defend Corbyn 95% of the time, occasionally lobbing in a titbit of criticism occasionally to try and throw us off track.
Absolutely, 100%, no doubt, Clinton. She would probably be just a pretty useless President, whereas Trump would be a total f*****g disaster.
What's interesting is the states in which Sanders is beating Clinton in the primaries. For the most part, he's winning the battleground/blue states, while she's winning the red ones (i.e. the states in which "socialist" is spoken with the same tone as "paedophile"). It's interesting because most of the states Clinton is winning have almost zero change of going blue in the actual election. Strategically, which candidate seems better: the one appealing to the blue/battleground states, or the one appealing to the states which will never vote democrat? Personally, I think Sanders looks the stronger candidate: he seems to have more appeal appeal in the states which matter, while not being dogged by legal issues. If Clinton wins the nomination only to be indicted by the Federal Government, the Democrats will look pretty stupid. The primary results in states like Ohio and Florida will be very interesting. Clinton is currently winning in both, but Sanders has been trending up while she has been trending down.
That won't happen as the Grand Jury is currently listening to evidence and with Pagliano's immunity then someone will get indicted...we don't know who though. However, some legal analysts are claiming that the indictments could be finished up by May and the Democratic nomination is in July. What they reckon is Hillary won't get indicted because the Obama administration don't want to weaken the Democratic race. So if the FBI recommend indictment to the Justice Dept and the Justice Dept don't indict, then accept it America...the fix is in. Expect resignations from the FBI and leaks left, right and centre. If Hillary drops out, then expect Joe Biden to enter the race.
Bernie is winning state's but the electoral math isn't there. He hasn't gained any traction with Minorities. Take this weekend for example, he won 3 states, Nebraska, Kansas and Maine, Lost 1 Louisiana, and still came away with less delegates. That's his problem, he will win states, but Clinton has the big ones, running away.
Can someone who understands US politics better than me explain a bit about the "brokered convention" that's being talked about in relation to the Republican nomination? As far as I understand it, someone needs 1237 delegates to get the nomination. If they fail to do so, then there can be a brokered convention (which apparently is looking likely now). Am I right in thinking that this consists of the party bigwigs sitting around and deciding how to divide up the delegates until they come up with their preferred candidate? It's not like an alternative vote option where the delegates themselves would choose who to give their second preference to? Is this likely to stop Trump becoming the nominee and what effect is it likely to have on the Republican nominee's chances of winning if they choose someone other than Trump? The craziest thing I've read about a brokered convention is that someone who hasn't even taken part in the primaries could end up with the nomination meaning that all of these debates, campaigning and expenditure were for nothing! I appreciate there's quite a few questions in there - feel free to write your response in the form of An Idiot's Guide to Brokered Conventions!
Long story short Steve is that if Trump doesn't hit the 1,237 mark, it becomes like a leadership election with anyone able to stand and 'delegates' choosing a first, second and third choice. For example, Paul Ryan could stand and beat Trump as he doesn't have the support of the actual delegates involved. If this happens, Trump won't win the nomination out right and it comes down to who does deals with who. A bit like FIFA. This is why John Kaisch, who has no chance of winning outright, is hanging around in the race. As Trevor Noah said on the Daily Show a few weeks ago, the Republican establishment are viewing this as 'your vote counts, unless we disagree with it, then only our vote counts and in that case, every vote counts.'
Thanks. One further question then... if the delegates choose a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice why is there any need to cut deals? Wouldn't they just eliminate the lowest ranked candidate and redistribute their 2nd preferences? One of the articles I was reading about brokered conventions suggested that it would likely all be decided by the party hierarchy rather than the delegates' votes.
Well, cutting deals will happen as someone's got to win. They have to appeal to the party faithful and make agreements with others not to run or to have their supporters choose someone else for a second or third choice in case of a run off. At the moment, the delegates are assigned by who wins the state they are from. So, for example, Trump won Florida meaning he gets all those delegates whether those delegates like it or not. However, in a case where it's a brokered convention, the delegates are all reset and can vote to get behind whoever they want. This means that Ted Cruz and Trump are basically dead men walking in case of a brokered convention as they are both viewed as evil by the party hierarchy led by Paul Ryan. John Boehner has already thrown his support behind Ryan for President. Usually, a candidate or a number of candidates will be liked by the party. In this case, the two leading candidates are hated by them, leaving a choice of Kaisch, who has much personality as a freshly dug grave or somebody who isn't currently in the race. Like Paul Ryan or Mike Huckabee. If they go to a brokered convention and don't choose Trump (if he ends up with the most delegates), Trump will without a doubt stand as a third party candidate - handing the keys to the White House to Hillary.
Ryan's a ***, too. He's from my state. Less of a *** than trump or Cruz (who is probably a bigger *** than Trump, to be honest), but still a ***. Kasich is probably the least-titty, in that he actually doesn't flat out deny climate change science and isn't a religious fundamentalist. He's a bit of a misogynist, but not too bad. Certainly far more palatable than most of the Republican line up. Rubio might do well in a brokered convention, since he's got very favourable poll ratings and matches up well against Sanders and Clinton in current polling. If you've watched the latest season of House of Cards where they're finding a VP running mate via convention, that's pretty much how it goes.
This sums up the problem of the contested convention. What is "Rule 40" and does it apply in 2016? In past years, the process had mostly been an afterthought. But the pre-convention meeting in 2012 was more contentious than usual, as loyalists to Mitt Romney led a successful push to change a number of rules. Among them: a requirement that candidates win a majority of the delegates in at least eight states in order to be considered viable at the convention. Right now, only Donald Trump meets that standard. But -- as Republicans versed in the rules will tell you, the eight-state requirement in Rule 40 is technically temporary. The RNC could vote on a new rule at the convention in 2016 and might again change the number of states at that time. It would have to be changed if party grandees wanted to make way for a late-entering longshot challenger -- like, say, Mitt Romney. The problem being a large majority of the people who make up the rules are based on how many delegates you have meaning Trump and Cruz people will have a large say in any rule changes
Trump won't get elected unless the following happens: - He wins the Repub nomination (looks likely) - Clinton wins the Democratic nomination (also looks likely) - The FBI indict Clinton over her emails (doesn't seem that farfetched anymore after Guccifer self-incriminated himself on having accessed her mail server) If I was the DNC I'd be really worried at this point. Most of the scandals have refused to stick to made-of-teflon Clinton, but if Guccifer is willing to self-incriminate over accessing her mail server she might be in serious trouble. If they confirm her as nominee and then she is indicted, they can kiss winning in 2016 goodbye. Sanders is the safer option in every way: there are no ongoing FBI investigations into his past activities, and he comfortably wipes the floor with Trump in every head-to-head matchup based on current polling. By way of contrast, Clinton is already almost as despised as Trump is on a national level. A Sanders win would almost certainly guarantee Democratic control of the White House, but a Clinton win will probably mean a close race (especially once Trump softens his stance after winning the Republican nod) and possible egg on the face if the FBI collar her after the Democratic convention. Should be an interesting 2016 in US politics.
As interesting as the UK hell bent on giving herself away to the EU and act as the cuckold nation as EU leadership dump the human refuse of their mistakes in foreign policy on to the UK yet take her money ! Arakel stick it out see what happens with Trump , I have more faith in him than I do in Scamoron. If I didnt have family in UK and I didnt love watfordfc there would be no way I would spend my twilight years in UK and admitting that hurts me to the core. whatever we believe ,whatever religion God help us !
I really can't see the USA electing someone president who says he's a socialist. It seems impossible. So the best way, probably the only way, to stop Trump is for the odious Hills to take him on. That is what I expect to happen and for Hills to win fairly comfortably. The worrying thing is the election will polarise people even more. Trump is correct in that there's a worryingly large number of people who believe that nonsense about building massive walls and nuking Europe and having a nazi-style kristallnacht against suspected Muslims and women who've had abortions. Trump want to 'make America great again'. But he cannot even slow down the inexorable decline of the tired old empire. Like history has shown us, all the empires collapse in time. Lose their edge. Get overtaken and left behind. We just have to hope the dying beast doesn't lash out with the awful weapons it has at its disposal.
Firstly, Sanders classifies himself as a democratic socialist, not a socialist. It's not the same thing. The polls speak for themselves: as it stands, if he was the Democratic candidate he'd win. I actually think he'd even stand a chance as an independent candidate at this point, which is a very credible feat. He's built very impressive support and his fundraising has been a roaring success, all sources from normal people instead of big business. The issue he's got is he's been hamstrung by the states running closed primaries like New York, where you a) needed to be registered as a Democrat to vote in the primary and b) needed to register as a Democrat almost a year ago, before campaigning really started. He's run away with the open primaries, especially the caucuses. You just need to look at the demographic patterns. Sanders' support is sky high among younger people. It's the older generations who are hanging on to the oligarch/hawkish candidates, particularly those over 50. It's only a matter of time before US politics finally lurches away from the extreme right wing outlook that makes their left wing candidates further to the right than the conservative party in most other western countries. The spectre of McCarthyism is finally on its last legs and the next 20 years are likely to see significant political revolution. Don't be surprised if you see Elizabeth Warren elected as president in the next decade.
The problem with Sanders from the DNC point of view is Hillary has pent time and money on helping other Dems get in the house and senate. With trump on the other side there is a good chance of the dems taking back the Senate. No one knows if Bernie will go out and stump for dems the same way Hillary has/will. I don't see the email problem coming out to take her down, if they had it I think they would have done it by now, Once she takes office, she gets immunity against lawsuits while in office, so there is a short window for them.
I would agree that on the surface that would be the case, however some investigative journalists have actually been doing their job. I know Politico aren't particularly enamoured by Hillary, however based on FEC statistics, the 'down ticket' Democrats are not being helped by Clinton's fundraising. Especially since the George Clooney $353,000 to meet Hillary Clinton fundraiser. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670 So it appears, proceeds from the fundraisers have been sent to the state Democratic parties, however within a day almost the same amount has been transferred back to the Hillary Victory Fund...so they're bypassing election fund raising laws by laundering the money through the states. It's also clear the Superdelegates have been bought off by Hillary. Add to this her refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall St banks - which she was paid $225,000 per speech (in total I forget the amount but I think she made $20m dollars in speeches to Wall Street) With the email server situation growing more precarious - - Reports Russia are allegedly debating the release of 20,000 emails they hacked from Hillary's server - Guccifer the hacker co-operating with the FBI on his hacking of Hillary's server, - The State Dept being unable to find any of Brian Pagliano's emails during his time at the State Department, - All of Clinton's aides being interviewed by the FBI On a national level the polls are indicating that Trump has closed to within 1% of Hillary - state by state Trump beats Clinton in some of the key swing states. Hillary's disapproval rating is at 55% and she is deemed untrustworthy, only Trump's is higher. Yet compare Sanders against Trump...Sanders beats Trump by double digits. I still can't believe such a corrupt and odious person can still be the front runner. I think Jon Stewart said it best recently... [YT]watch?v=aE9IBn4F0bc[/YT]
Great article in the Guardian (believe it or not) about Trump and his supporters http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/donald-trump-supporters-bigots-left-demonise I'm also getting fed up with all this ridiculous talk of 'apocalypse' and 'Trump is like Hitler' from otherwise seemingly intelligent people (the ban debate in parliament was an embarrassing farce, genuinely pathetic) so a lot of what Harris says struck a cord. Especially when you consider that Trump is by most measures a better person and potential leader than the corrupt, serial disaster that is Hillary
Yes, I would argue that a few cases off dodgy off hand comments aren't as bad as being a corrupt war monger in the back pocket of wall street Depends what you want from a President, someone who says what they actually think and has a vision (even if it offends at times) or a polished but corrupt and proven failure of a career politician who changes policy position every few years to stay in line with fickle and often irrational public opinion
You're allowed to want neither. Yeah, he wants to build a literal wall along the Mexican border and says stuff about banning all muslims from entering the country, but at least this is a vision eh?
Yeah, Trump's got it all worked out. He's advocated the targeting of innocent civilians and the use of torture and waterboarding. He's such a stand up guy that he's managed to garner endorsements from wonderful people like the heads of the KKK. Unless he does a complete u-turn on all the stupid things he's said while campaigning, he'll be an absolute disaster if elected. If you think otherwise you simply haven't been paying attention to what he's been saying in the televised debates (which to be fair I doubt are screened in the UK anyway).
Ah yes, the wall that would cost the US an absolute fortune to build, man and maintain. Quite literally billions of dollars. Great policy.
To be fair to him he has said hundreds of times that Mexico will pay for it via a number of channels: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall Well yeah, obviously, but you're getting one of the two regardless Bit of an oversimplification, he called for a temporary halt on Muslim immigration until a comprehensive vetting process could be established to weed out extremists. The wife of the San Bernadino killers was a recent entrant to the US for example and easily got passed the clearly inadequate vetting process which currently exists
"To be fair"? If I said I was going to build a wall in my garden and you were going to pay for it, what would your response be? I'm fairly certain I can imagine. There is no way in hell Mexico would pay for a wall the US wants. It's an absolutely ludicrous, ludicrous suggestion and has been thoroughly mocked and laughed off by the Mexican government already. It's also a perfect illustration of how clueless Trump is with regards to foreign policy and diplomacy.
