America

[Copps is Magic]

What a choice.

A narcissistic, corrupt, war-mongering, token Christian, greedy, turncoat, serial liar or Donald Trump.

[BobG]

Oh but you forget Copps! We've declared Splendid Isolation rides again. It don't affect us now. Obvious innit?

Cheers

BobG

[Colemans Left Hook]

i'm sure I read in the last few years that technically we were still at war with "our former colony "

on trying to check this out I came across this little belter from 2011 in the daily mail

no it isn't april 1st

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps
If you genuinely cannot see the difference between Clinton and Trump, then all your other political comments on here suddenly start to make sense.

[The Red Baron]

Clinton is hardly a great choice, but when the only realistic alternative is Trump then you have to say she's a shoo-in.

Though it does make me wonder if we're seeing the end of two party politics in the USA as well as over here.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

No. You might well be seeing the end of the Republican Party though.

Trump is the logical conclusion of a 50 year process whereby voodoo economics, faith-based politics and attacks on strong science from climate change to evolution (oh aye, and sprinkled with not-very covert racism).

The Republican leadership has been playing with those flames for years and convincing themselves that they could rely on the ignorance and prejudice of their voter base to keep returning them to power, even when it was bleeding obvious that it was against the ordinary Republican voters' interests.

It was inevitable that that approach would eventually blow up in their faces. When the base has surreptitiously told that logic doesn't work, that the world is full of people trying to shit all over them, that America is a special place and that they are right to dislike the blacks and Hispanics, it's obvious that they'll vote in droves for someone who screams that message in words of one syllable.

And it's not just people on the Left claiming that the Republicans are falling apart. Those on the Right who think deeply about this are also saying the unsayable.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy

What scares the living shit out of me is that Trump could actually win if enough Sanders supporters follow this intellectually vacant argument that Trump and Clinton are as bad as each other and either abstain or vote for Trump as a "protest" (read: "I didn't get exactly what I wanted so I'm going to stamp my foot and scream 'f**k you all'".)

[Lipsy]

Flying through - as I am dragging the nippers off to Camp Bestival in an hour or so - but I read this the other day. It scared the living bejesus out of me. Placed in and amongst our recent comedy voting, it makes too much sense.

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

[The Red Baron]

BST

The reaction of the Sanders supporters (not Sanders himself) suggests that the Democrats are deeply split. Maybe not so much as the Republicans but still undergoing some profound convulsions.

[MachoMadness]

Am I really reading that Trump is openly inviting the Kremlin to hack Democrat email servers? What a time to be alive, eh?

[RedJ]

BST

The reaction of the Sanders supporters (not Sanders himself) suggests that the Democrats are deeply split. Maybe not so much as the Republicans but still undergoing some profound convulsions.

May end up being the end of the two party system?

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

You are making the mistake of reading equality into the situations of the two parties.

The Dems had a hard, at times nasty fight between different wings of the party, but with real policy stances put forward and real debates had. At the end, they have chosen a candidate who, for all her faults, can be supported by most in the party, albeit through gritted teeth, and who has a more or less logical policy on most issues (even if you don't fully agree with it).

On the Republican side, they had a freak show. Rubio prevaricated on whether the Earth was literally formed by God in 6 Biblical days. Then he went into that bizarre stuck loop of accusing Obama of destroying America in response to every question he was asked. Cruz is an overt racist and climate change denier. Carson was off the the mad as a box of frogs scale (Joseph of biblical fame built the pyramids as grain stores...) And these were the most serious contenders to the freakiest freaking freak of the lot who won the nomination.

There is simply no comparison between the problems of the two parties.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Am I really reading that Trump is openly inviting the Kremlin to hack Democrat email servers? What a time to be alive, eh?

Ever see the film Shane..? 

[Copps is Magic]

Copps
If you genuinely cannot see the difference between Clinton and Trump, then all your other political comments on here suddenly start to make sense.

whooosh

[BillyStubbsTears]

Is that the nukes being fired?

[Copps is Magic]

It would be remiss to point out Trump's support for the Clintons in the past

What's happening now is Hilary is going to wheel out as many populist figures and say as many populist things as she can muster and how many of them she actually believes in no one will actually know.

We accept the lesser of two evils and we call it democracy. This system gets sustained, not by Trump being bat-shit insane, but by apologists like bst who can't see beyond the confines of history.

Hilary Clinton is an egregious woman who's first and absolute priority is her own political career. She will sustain Western involvement in the middle-east and push for greater controls on individual freedoms.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on then Copps. What's your alternative?

I'm talking hard, real-world ones, not "hey, wouldn't it be great if..." concepts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS:

"Apologist"!

Good one! That's one I'd forgotten from the 1980s. Eeeh, all we need is Limahl and Wham and it'll be just like old days.

[Copps is Magic]

There is no room in your head for alternatives so its pointless discussing them. Anything that smells like 'utopian' thinking you've abandoned as senseless through you're experience in the 1980s which will no doubt get brought up again.

What is this comment about nukes going over?

Do you honestly think Clinton is good, and a safer alternative than Trump, for USA - Russia relations?

[BobG]

No Copps. BST's point is that when given a choice between those two, it's pretty bloody obvious which one every sane person will choose.

Anyway, that wasn't why I'm posting. Has anyone seen those four horsemen in the distance? Over there? You know - that way?

Bob

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

I only keep bringing up the 1980s, because you will insist on displaying the same tired thinking, and trotting out the same tired insults that were de rigeur back then. You should have been there. You'd have loved it.

As for who will make the USA safer, well, given the emerging situation in the Baltics, if you really think that a prospective President who says, "Article 5? Yeah, well, maybe yes, may maybe no. Depends what the accountants say" makes ANYONE safer, you are away with the fairies.

Make no mistake. This is the single most dangerous issue in geo-politics, and that clown has just given a strong hint that he'll turn his back on Russia doing a Ukraine there. If you REALLY don't understand how dangerous that is, then you are even more naive than I thought.

[The Red Baron]

BST

Although one should be careful when looking at the Democrats given their choice of candidate  (Hillary is very much a "Marmite" character, even within her own party) there does seem to be a significant shift to the Left among Democrat supporters.

At the moment, rather like the Tories in the UK, they LOOK both united and to be dominating the centre ground. But that is only because they are being measured against a party that is more dysfunctional than they are.

I think Hillary will be the next POTUS, but I don't think those who supported Sanders will simply pack up their tents and go home. She may find that she is fighting battles on both her left and right.

[BobG]

She may well have to do so John. But she's gone one unique advantage. An advantage that will do her an immense amount of good if she wins in November. It's called 'Bill'.

If they chose to, they could share out the lead on various tasks, issues, problems, between them - even unofficially that's some headstart she's got.

Bob

[wilts rover]

Copps

I only keep bringing up the 1980s, because you will insist on displaying the same tired thinking, and trotting out the same tired insults that were de rigeur back then. You should have been there. You'd have loved it.

As for who will make the USA safer, well, given the emerging situation in the Baltics, if you really think that a prospective President who says, "Article 5? Yeah, well, maybe yes, may maybe no. Depends what the accountants say" makes ANYONE safer, you are away with the fairies.

This is the single most dangerous issue in geo-politics, and that clown has just given a strong hint that he'll turn his back on Russia doing a Ukraine there. If you REALLY don't understand how dangerous that is, then you are even more naive than I thought.

Yes and it will be a proper Cold War this time. Not nuclear warheads on a boat to Cuba - all Russia needs to do to destabilse the west (or at least Western Europe) is turn the gas tap off. Around a third of our gas supply currently comes from Russia - and this is set to grow as North Sea supplies run out. They are currently building a new pipeline, bypassing Ukraine, to meet these needs. Putin if he wishes can do serious damage to our way of life without even sending a drone up - never mind a warhead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/16/europes-reliance-on-russian-gas-to-hit-record-highs-this-year-sa/

That's why it is different to the 1980's. That decade has gone, with all its jump suits, silly haircuts and electro-pop, it's in the past. We and Russia are now connected in the global market, our resources are running out, theirs are being exploited, we are their customers. They own our football teams - and a fair proportion of our country houses.

Actually if you are seeing the world of geopolitics through ownership of territory rather than economic and political benefit and dialogue - it is more like the 1910's than the 1980's. They said then that war was inevitable. And it was because they made it so.

Bob has also made a mistake. You are imagining that because Bill Clinton is a well respected politician on the world stage he is popular in the US. Tony Blair is a well respected politician on the world stage. He is as well liked here as Clinton is in the US.

And that is the danger there. Which of them has the strongest group of supporters? How many people will be put off from voting for either of them? Do enough people feel disenchanted with mainstream politics to vote for the outsider - whatever rational commentators say?

Oh and it is not only Trump who appears to be giving the green light to Russia in the Baltics, so does a senior NATO General who says it is impossible to defend them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/nato-cant-protect-baltics-from-russia-says-us-general/

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

Disappointing. You usually get your facts right even if your conclusions are way off.

This time your facts are way off.

Bill Clinton left office with one of the highest approval rating of any departing president (HS Truman or FDR beat him from memory). Since then, his net approval rating has stayed at historically very high levels (+20-30%) until just the last few months as it became clear that HRC was going to be the Dem nominee and the Republicans started churning out the hate on both of them.

If you're going to draw robust conclusions, I'm sure you agree that you've got to start from basic facts.

[wilts rover]

Yes apologies to both yourself and Bob there Billy, as you may remember my partner is American and I based my post on discussions I thought I remembered with her and various of her American aquaintances. I think this shows the accuracy of my memory rather than their conversations though.

However checking the facts as I should have done I agree with you. Bob is still incorrect when he says Bill will be an advantage for Hilary. While his introduction has had no effect on her campaign
http://fortune.com/2016/06/17/bill-clinton-hillary-millennials/

it has seen a big fall in his ratings
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/28/bill-clinton-approval-rating-plummets-to-39-percent/

and he is now less popular than George W Bush
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/19/george-w-bush-is-suddenly-as-popular-as-bill-clinton/

[wilts rover]

Fascinating piece here on how historic this election will be. We all know that America has never elected a female president but did we know:

No Democratic nominee has followed a Democratic president since 1857
The last person to win office without experience in congress or as a governor was Eisenhower (the General who won WWII) and before then Hoover whose projects saw them through the depression.

Interesting times indeed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36202424

[Colemans Left Hook]

Copps

I only keep bringing up the 1980s, because you will insist on displaying the same tired thinking, and trotting out the same tired insults that were de rigeur back then. You should have been there. You'd have loved it.

As for who will make the USA safer, well, given the emerging situation in the Baltics, if you really think that a prospective President who says, "Article 5? Yeah, well, maybe yes, may maybe no. Depends what the accountants say" makes ANYONE safer, you are away with the fairies.

This is the single most dangerous issue in geo-politics, and that clown has just given a strong hint that he'll turn his back on Russia doing a Ukraine there. If you REALLY don't understand how dangerous that is, then you are even more naive than I thought.

Yes and it will be a proper Cold War this time. Not nuclear warheads on a boat to Cuba - all Russia needs to do to destabilse the west (or at least Western Europe) is turn the gas tap off. Around a third of our gas supply currently comes from Russia - and this is set to grow as North Sea supplies run out. They are currently building a new pipeline, bypassing Ukraine, to meet these needs. Putin if he wishes can do serious damage to our way of life without even sending a drone up - never mind a warhead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/16/europes-reliance-on-russian-gas-to-hit-record-highs-this-year-sa/

That's why it is different to the 1980's. That decade has gone, with all its jump suits, silly haircuts and electro-pop, it's in the past. We and Russia are now connected in the global market, our resources are running out, theirs are being exploited, we are their customers. They own our football teams - and a fair proportion of our country houses.

Actually if you are seeing the world of geopolitics through ownership of territory rather than economic and political benefit and dialogue - it is more like the 1910's than the 1980's. They said then that war was inevitable. And it was because they made it so.

Bob has also made a mistake. You are imagining that because Bill Clinton is a well respected politician on the world stage he is popular in the US. Tony Blair is a well respected politician on the world stage. He is as well liked here as Clinton is in the US.

And that is the danger there. Which of them has the strongest group of supporters? How many people will be put off from voting for either of them? Do enough people feel disenchanted with mainstream politics to vote for the outsider - whatever rational commentators say?

Oh and it is not only Trump who appears to be giving the green light to Russia in the Baltics, so does a senior NATO General who says it is impossible to defend them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/nato-cant-protect-baltics-from-russia-says-us-general/

wilts you've inspired me to look up a vey old email link from 2013  I had in the archives

read the first bit of it on  fox news from 2013  IT SHOWS THE POST IS GENUINE - I was shocked when I was educated by this post ---

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/06/united-states-going-go-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline


you can get the full whack here

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/guest-post-us-going-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline

I find myself more and more listening to the American channels and to sum up the Hispanics won't vote for trump and just like (normally) in the uk  it is a certain 10% of voters who will decide the outcome according to guest speakers "who are familiar with the matter"  (classic Bloomberg phrase there)

[BobG]

Yes apologies to both yourself and Bob there Billy, as you may remember my partner is American and I based my post on discussions I thought I remembered with her and various of her American aquaintances. I think this shows the accuracy of my memory rather than their conversations though.

However checking the facts as I should have done I agree with you. Bob is still incorrect when he says Bill will be an advantage for Hilary. While his introduction has had no effect on her campaign
http://fortune.com/2016/06/17/bill-clinton-hillary-millennials/

it has seen a big fall in his ratings
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/28/bill-clinton-approval-rating-plummets-to-39-percent/

and he is now less popular than George W Bush
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/19/george-w-bush-is-suddenly-as-popular-as-bill-clinton/

Hi Wilts!

I meant advantage in the sense she would have a ready made personal brains trust to which she could turn for experience, advice, support and sharing of workload. Not for garnering extra votes. If she even dipped her toes in that one I suspect it would be hugely counter productive.

Bob