Sign in to follow this  
Bleep1673

President of USA (Merged threads)

Who will win?  

45 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who is going to win the US Presidential Election

    • Trump (Republican)
    • Clinton (Democrat)
    • Don't care (English)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, M j M said:

The American right wing (or their echo chamber) are so rabid that they will paint anyone who isn't craven to their weird mixture of undiluted corporatism, selected libertarianism and fundamentalist Christianity as a dangerous radical.

Gosh.  That's very sweeping.  Have you spent time with Republicans in the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

Gosh.  That's very sweeping.  Have you spent time with Republicans in the USA?

Of course its sweeping, but note that he said right wing, not republicans.  It is very tribal (we are going the same way here) so that it is possible to overlook great deficiencies so long as the other lot lose.  Obama and Hillary were labelled as radical liberals, Obamacare is labelled as communism, etc.  People voted for Judge Moore, even though they thought he was probably guilty of the accusations, just so the other guy wouldn't win.  

The centre right republicans have been slowly culled by the tea party wing meaning compromise and cross party consensus is going to be a thing of the past.  The left wing of the Dems seem to be pushing for the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

If the economy is good and unemployment is low, then they certainly are (normally) plus points on a re-election campaign.  Add in that (normally) being the incumbent gives a boost too.  I agree all of those will be in his favour.  Will Trump ever be the favourite?  Probably not, regardless of who the Dems pick.

Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard will bring a different sort of baggage and middle america is not a great hunting ground for 'socialists'.  Obama was hated for being a 'maxist' (he wasn't), can you imagine the Fox response to Bernie?  

 

The huge advantage that Tulsi Gabbard would have over trump is that she served in the military by choice unlike trump who did every thing possible to make sure he didn't serve his country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

The huge advantage that Tulsi Gabbard would have over trump is that she served in the military by choice unlike trump who did every thing possible to make sure he didn't serve his country.

Serving in the military certainly used to be a big plus, however it also used to be a negative to be say a draft dodger, yet another issue were Trump has rewritten the conventions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

Serving in the military certainly used to be a big plus, however it also used to be a negative to be say a draft dodger, yet another issue were Trump has rewritten the conventions.  

I do think if someone like her with a military background kept bringing up trumps cowardice over Vietnam in a one on one face off he would explode as he wouldn't have a logical answer as to why he repeatedly dodged the draft.

I think the way to get to trump is repeatedly ask him if he's such a proud American why did he dodge the draft, and lets not forget the public still hasn't seen his tax returns he promised to show. That's another issue he's very weak on, let alone the wall he said the Mexicans would pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
50 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I do think if someone like her with a military background kept bringing up trumps cowardice over Vietnam in a one on one face off he would explode as he wouldn't have a logical answer as to why he repeatedly dodged the draft.

I think the way to get to trump is repeatedly ask him if he's such a proud American why did he dodge the draft, and lets not forget the public still hasn't seen his tax returns he promised to show. That's another issue he's very weak on, let alone the wall he said the Mexicans would pay for.

If Donald Trump had any balls he should say he opposed the Vietnam war but a large part of American society would view this as being “anti-American” or “against the troops.” These people view sending 60,000 young Americans to their death in a pointless and unjust war in a jungle overseas and killing millions of brown skinned people as “patriotic.” 

I’m waiting and praying for the day a US presidential candidate that runs on a peace ticket and tells the American people that pushing for peace is a lot stronger and talks more courage than rushing to and declaring war all the time overseas.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, walter sobchak said:

If Donald Trump had any balls he should say he opposed the Vietnam war but a large part of American society would view this as being “anti-American” or “against the troops.” These people view sending 60,000 young Americans to their death in a pointless and unjust war in a jungle overseas and killing millions of brown skinned people as “patriotic.” 

I’m waiting and praying for the day a US presidential candidate that runs on a peace ticket and tells the American people that pushing for peace is a lot stronger and talks more courage than rushing to and declaring war all the time overseas.

Trump would never admit he opposed the Vietnam as he probably didn't, but wasn't prepared to go to Vietnam either, despite his claims nowadays he's a proud American.

Trump like all bully boys is a coward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Trump would never admit he opposed the Vietnam as he probably didn't, but wasn't prepared to go to Vietnam either, despite his claims nowadays he's a proud American.

Trump like all bully boys is a coward

Well he was all over the place regarding the Iraq war. He was against then he was for it and then he was against it because it was costing too much and stated that the US should have just took all of Iraq’s oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm following the failure of this new memo scandal that was going to put half the Obama administration in prison and completely exonerate Trump. Apart from Fox nobody else seems to be covering it. Breitbart couldn't even keep it trending for more than 24 hours and hasn't bothered writing a follow-up story.

It seems pretty clear. The Dems/DOJ/Obama White House/FBI/CIA/FISA Court were all involved in a conspiracy to damage the Trump election campaign. The plan was to get wiretapping warrants for central members of the campaign, and maintain surveillance on all their contacts and get Fusion GPS to concoct a bogus file on Trump's alleged business dealings with various Russians. All of this material would then be strung together to support a damning fake Trump/Russia narrative which could be steadily leaked to the Press after the election was over.

Sounds pretty damning and I'm no expert in covert operations strategy but isn't there a tiny flaw in this plan?

Of course the failure of Breitbart to pursue this story can only mean one thing and I think we all know what that is - the Deep State has taken control of Breitbart. Most of the staff are already in a FEMA camp in Montana. The older ones and the alcoholics are probably already dead but they'll keep the younger healthier ones alive so that the Clintons and Obama and George Soros can use them as organ banks. And I bet the MSM won't tell you any of this.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back at reality, is there any possible way the GOP can get around this Democrat obstructionism to get this vital truth out to the American public? I think it's probably a total legal minefield that would take years to go through the Courts before even a fraction of it can be released.

OR

They could just read it out in Congress. (as per their Constitutional immunity from prosecution for any speech in Congress) It's called the Speech or Debate Clause.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon reflection, perhaps I've been a little harsh on the Republicans. After all we know how much they love the Constitution. They have always been the lovers and protectors of the Constitution and they've told everyone that hundreds of times. But I guess it's unreasonable to think they've all read and absorbed the whole thing. Hey, a massive legal document like that must be huge. I guess the Speech or Debate Clause is probably way up on page 527, buried in the footnotes, annotations and appendices.

Nope. It's in Article 1. That's 1 as in "one." It's also on Page 1, as in "one." In fact, the US Constitution is only 4 pages long.

https://www.nationalarchivesstore.org/products/u-s-constitution-full-size-4-page-reproduction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Farmduck said:

I'm following the failure of this new memo scandal that was going to put half the Obama administration in prison and completely exonerate Trump. Apart from Fox nobody else seems to be covering it. Breitbart couldn't even keep it trending for more than 24 hours and hasn't bothered writing a follow-up story.

It seems pretty clear. The Dems/DOJ/Obama White House/FBI/CIA/FISA Court were all involved in a conspiracy to damage the Trump election campaign. The plan was to get wiretapping warrants for central members of the campaign, and maintain surveillance on all their contacts and get Fusion GPS to concoct a bogus file on Trump's alleged business dealings with various Russians. All of this material would then be strung together to support a damning fake Trump/Russia narrative which could be steadily leaked to the Press after the election was over.

Sounds pretty damning and I'm no expert in covert operations strategy but isn't there a tiny flaw in this plan?

Of course the failure of Breitbart to pursue this story can only mean one thing and I think we all know what that is - the Deep State has taken control of Breitbart. Most of the staff are already in a FEMA camp in Montana. The older ones and the alcoholics are probably already dead but they'll keep the younger healthier ones alive so that the Clintons and Obama and George Soros can use them as organ banks. And I bet the MSM won't tell you any of this.

I've seen republicans being interviewed on cable TV who have seen the memo and their views range from it being a danger to the Republic and a palace coup to it being completely overblown so I'll guess it's something in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, walter sobchak said:

I've seen republicans being interviewed on cable TV who have seen the memo and their views range from it being a danger to the Republic and a palace coup to it being completely overblown so I'll guess it's something in between.

I just saw an article by Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept and he thinks it's horse sh???? He also pointed out that there are 4 different ways of releasing the memo to the public with minimum effort.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/republicans-have-four-easy-ways-to-releasethememo-and-the-evidence-for-it-not-doing-so-will-prove-them-to-be-shameless-frauds/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

I just saw an article by Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept and he thinks it's horse sh???? He also pointed out that there are 4 different ways of releasing the memo to the public with minimum effort.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/republicans-have-four-easy-ways-to-releasethememo-and-the-evidence-for-it-not-doing-so-will-prove-them-to-be-shameless-frauds/

Glenn greenwald is a journalist who I totally respect and trust so if he says it's BS then I'll take his word over a few republicans everyday of the week until the memo is released to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the beat goes on.......

releaseMEMO.JPG.a38f47361a4d79d5fd299c91c8af7b32.JPG

19+ Congressional work days? ?@?#?$?%?^ I consider this official confirmation that there is nothing there. I worked on farms for nearly 20 years so trust me when I say I can recognise a pile of animal excrement when I see one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually genuinely shocking if you're familiar with the American system - I know Trump has upended the traditional boundaries of Commander in Chief and political leader but his VP, overseas, using the troops as props in a propaganda piece against the shutdown (whilst his party blocked a move to ensure they got paid) is jawdropping.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just finished rewatching 'You've been Trumped' many years after first watching it. At the time I found the whole thing so unbelievable that it would've been funny had it not been so serious.

To think that man is now President defies belief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has slapped tariffs on washing machines and solar panels.

He did say he would do this and he has - historically it's never really worked but time will tell. However we should watch this carefully - post Brexit he will be looking to do a deal with us that balances trade back in the US favour and he has the threat of extra tariffs on some of our key exports and we have er... nothing other than "yes sir, you can target the NHS and our farmers".

You don't need to spend long studying his business tactics to recognise this approach - ideally you don't get in the water with a shark unless you have a cage. We risk getting in covered in blood and wearing a sign that says "Dinnertime!!"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tim2 said:

Trump has slapped tariffs on washing machines and solar panels.

He did say he would do this and he has - historically it's never really worked but time will tell. However we should watch this carefully - post Brexit he will be looking to do a deal with us that balances trade back in the US favour and he has the threat of extra tariffs on some of our key exports and we have er... nothing other than "yes sir, you can target the NHS and our farmers".

You don't need to spend long studying his business tactics to recognise this approach - ideally you don't get in the water with a shark unless you have a cage. We risk getting in covered in blood and wearing a sign that says "Dinnertime!!"

In OZ we have a National Pharmaceutical subsidy system that holds down the consumer price of 99% of common drugs. When we signed our first "Free" Trade deal with the USA it included a clause that allowed the US Pharmaceutical Industry Body (not the Govt or the Trade Dept) a seat at the table in any future policy discussion regarding raising or lowering the level of this pharmaceutical subsidy.

We also have a free trade deal on agriculture and OZ farmers can deliver much lower prices on a whole range of staples because big agricultural States like California rely so heavily on irrigation which in turn was made possible by taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. In OZ we would grow many of the same crops in semi-arid areas without irrigation and just accept a lower yield/acre balanced lower production costs. 

We're about 20 years into this deal I think and our total agricultural exports to USA are still only £3 billion/year which doesn't stack up well against the total USA/OZ trade imbalance - about £6.28 billion/year in favour of the USA. 

In short, there are NO FREE TRADE deals with the USA. They're just a myth.

total-domestic-support-chart.jpg

 

I haven't been able to find a simple distinction or definition of the line between "trade-distorting" and "non-trade-distorting." Perhaps it's flexible. Say if 2 countries both impose 20% tariff on beef then, in any deals between the 2, the tariff, although possibly undesirable, has no distorting effect on those specific deals? Dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Farmduck said:

I haven't been able to find a simple distinction or definition of the line between "trade-distorting" and "non-trade-distorting." Perhaps it's flexible. Say if 2 countries both impose 20% tariff on beef then, in any deals between the 2, the tariff, although possibly undesirable, has no distorting effect on those specific deals? Dunno.

Could it perhaps be what is often defined as 'trade-diverting' and 'trade-creating/non-trade-diverting'? In this case, trade-diverting would be moving from a more-efficient producer to a less-efficient producer due to a trade deal. Trade-diverting effects would generally be the impact on third countries i.e. those outside of that trade deal. For example:

Suppose the UK place a tariff on the import of cauliflowers to all countries equally. There is an equal tariff to European countries and equal tariff to Australia.

In this case, the UK will import from Australia at a price of P1 + tariff. This is the lowest cost country in terms of producing cauliflowers.

After joining the customs union, the UK abolishes tariffs with EU, but not Australia. The price of importing cauliflower from the EU falls to P2 (which is lower than P1 + tariff, but crucially not lower than P1).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tim2 said:

Trump has slapped tariffs on washing machines and solar panels.

Probably 10-15 years too late.  China were subsidising there manufacture years ago, so a tariff then might of saved jobs and kept factories open.  They no longer subsidise solar, but the costs have dropped massively.  So its unlikely an american factory can compete (unless massive automation and investment) at the current prices.

So the cost to buy panels will go up after years of the prices dropping and renewables growing massively.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Online 28 Jun - July 2018

Rugby League World - July 2018 - Out Fri 29 Jun

Rugby League Books On Sale Here