The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Question for you folks not living in the US.

Most of you are opposed to Trump becoming POTUS. Is that because you don't like how you expect his presidency to affect your country's interests, or is it because you think it might be harmful to the United States and its interests?

Some of Trump's ideas would indeed have a positive effect on the US, but negative impact upon the interests of other countries. For example; we have trade deals with various nations that are harmful to the US, causing jobs to be outsourced. Trump wants to undo some of those deals. This would obviously negatively affect the countries that we are outsourcing jobs to, as those jobs are brought back to the US.

Are you opposing Trump because he's harmful to the U.S.'s interests, or are you opposing him based on how it will impact other countries?

I'd hardly call picking fights with the US's biggest trading partners beneficial to the US economy. One thing that will result is that domestic products inherently cost more. That means prices will rise. And with weakened unions, that means wages will either decrease or stay the same. That means less consumerism in the states. Retaliatory actions on the part of those trading partners will also stifle export growth, so the only way for companies to make more money is cut short.

Limiting workers to citizens/residents also means that US products in some sectors will loose their competitive edge. Also impacting exports. Some of Trump's proposals are also illegal, and violations of treaties ratified by the Senate...which means lawsuits against the government. This would also cost the US credibility if it can't honor its treaties. The subtleties and complexities of international politics and business seem to be lost on Trump in this area.

He also wants to get friendly with Putin who keeps sending bombers near US airspace and playing a very dangerous series of games of chicken with out fighter jets and naval warships. On top of that, Putin's goals stand in direct opposition to American interests...in other words he right now is NOT America's friend. Also the prospect of pushing Latin America towards China's sphere of influence is there too. May not be too much of an issue right now, but thirty to fifty years down the road it will be a big security risk...Cuban Missile Crisis levels of risk.

His tax plan is ineffective and still leaves a huge gap that will add on to the national debt.

It's safe to say that some of these foreigners are also worried about the US for the US's sake.

[SoulReaver]

She's far right -- not in line with my political views.

you think Hillary's on the left? lol

[Gatefan1976]

you think Hillary's on the left? lol

Agree.
Hillary is where the republicans were 35-40 years ago basically.

[SoulReaver]

Bernie on the other hand seems closer to the real deal

[Gatefan1976]

Bernie on the other hand seems closer to the real deal

Yep, but unless he basically wins everything from now onwards he is basically dead in the water. IIRC however, all the states from now on are open voting which will help him far more than Hillary.

[Annoyed]

Bernie's only shot is if Clinton is indicted. If indicted early enough, they might run him. The DNC has made it clear, they will use the superdelegates and whatever else to ensure Clinton gets the nod. Their primary votes don't mean any more than the rank and file Republican voters do on the right when it comes to the RNC and it's efforts to stop Trump.

In short, the leadership of BOTH parties feet are being held to the fire by their constituencies this year.

PS: That's a good thing.

[Gatefan1976]

Bernie's only shot is if Clinton is indicted.

Not true.
He can still force a contested convention depending on if he can win by larger margins in the open states, and judging by past performance in open states, he could do it. It won't be easy, but it's possible.

If indicted early enough, they might run him. The DNC has made it clear, they will use the superdelegates and whatever else to ensure Clinton gets the nod.

Last interviews I saw with the leader of the DNC, she said no such thing. Yes, the superdelagates make it harder, but they are not bound to do what the DNC want at all. Obama got the SD's to change in '08 as well, and every poll puts Bernie in a better margin of winning the general election against every member of the republican field than Hillary.

Their primary votes don't mean any more than the rank and file Republican voters do on the right when it comes to the RNC and it's efforts to stop Trump.

Umm, those are two distinctly different things dude and that's besides the fact that the RNC can't stand either Trump OR Cruz

In short, the leadership of BOTH parties feet are being held to the fire by their constituencies this year.

How are the Democrats holding Hillary's feet to the fire?
They are not the ones calling to indict Hillary, or are you talking about Democrats looking more for a candidate that is more left than Hillary?

PS: That's a good thing.

Sure, but no matter who get's in, they are going to have a rough 2 years until the mid-terms. I bet you will see -a lot- of E.O.'s coming out of whoever you get next.

[SGalisa]

She's far right -- not in line with my political views.

(EDIT: thought you meant Hillary.. apologies if that was someone else)
No. (Hillary..) She's always been on the left of center. She only speaks now what voters might want to hear. Once she's in, her stance may change into a whirlwind direction that will put the USA into submission to the rest of the world. Socialism to Communism is what I've been hearing or reading over these many months -- based on her previous track record and early career goals. Not exactly super conservatism, at all. Plus, no wall on either northern or southern border. Just guessing on the wall issue, there.. Not that it'll do any good if Trump gets in either and makes such a "fence/wall" get built.

Enjoy 4 years of Trump at the Whitehouse. This is gonna be interesting

Based on the anti-Trump crowds throwing temper tantrums and destroying law enforcement vehicles and other vandalism, injuries, etc., it's still too early to be so positive that Trump will be the 2016 President (starting term in 2017).

Yes, America First!

And thus CHina and Russia will become the next worldpowers -- bye bye America, nice knowing you!

If the USA goes bye-bye, it might not be for the reasons you/others may be thinking. See reply below next quote..

However, personally Trump's rhetorics have been downright scary -- he will not make America great again. He will isolate it from the rest of the world, and America will wither and die.

Yeah, the USA might get isolated from the rest of the world, but if we're allowed / permitted to live, we won't wither and die.. lots of thriving can be done agriculturally, IF --TPTB-- would get their brains working and start building those indoor agricultural farms -- which could provide protection from the nasty bug pests in the natural outdoors, plus from various storms -- as long as tornadoes, lightning strikes, and hurricanes don't wipe out the buildings.. not to mention earthquake zones. Once that issue is taken care of with clean water, etc., food wise, we should be okay. The USA is a big country with lots of different climates and plenty to see, if the people who live within it would actually take **care** of it.

Otherwise, if the USA is not allowed to thrive under Trump, it might end up that way, because some crazy country out there might try to either get rid of him or just blow us all up off the map. Then, we'd be gone forever. I don't think we could trust Mexico to start with, after the comments Trump has made about them paying for the so-called wall. Mexico might have other plans and terminate that situation some other way, which is not something many of us reading between the lines want to think about or imagine (worst case ever scenarios).

I hope she wins so that America has to deal with a female president for the first time in its history, and that after a black president. She needs to rub it in.

Oh, if she wins, she won't just rub it in.. and it won't be for being the first USA "woman" President.. Might be for other things being murmured thru the grapevines of those "conspiracy" theorists. And that is not to mention a few unfinished dealings or vendettas from previous encounters during the 1990's.
It's been suspected she may go on the warpath not with other nations, but personal dealings -- so, that in itself might just a warmup of some oppression that will be felt.

Otherwise, the USA just might get handed over to new rulers -- who would be overseeing the USA on a global level, with Hillary enforcing the commands under those other rulers/forces. That would be the most likely scenario, especially if Hillary is forced to step down and her VP or whoever take over (next in) command.


Either way, oppression is on the horizon.. for whoever ends up winning this election. Unless of course, President Obama has a surprise departure gift for all of us in 2017. He and his family have their future well secured and he can move to anywhere else on the planet, but the rest of us are sitting ducks. Don't want to even imagine what or where that *possible* scenario would lead our nation into. Can happen any day at any time, not necessarily at the next passing of the presidential baton, so to speak.

Even if anyone else at the top executive level (or controlling the proverbial *strings*) ends up sending the USA down the drain, the outcome will be that of an oppressive nature.

(I know, I'm just a positive optimist in the negativity category... it's those skeptic vibes coming out from previous experiences in life that have always turned things upside down and inside out and mashed further into more of something other than an idyllic world scene setting.. more often than not, too.) *sigh*

[Annoyed]

Not true.
He can still force a contested convention depending on if he can win by larger margins in the open states, and judging by past performance in open states, he could do it. It won't be easy, but it's possible.

Last interviews I saw with the leader of the DNC, she said no such thing. Yes, the superdelagates make it harder, but they are not bound to do what the DNC want at all. Obama got the SD's to change in '08 as well, and every poll puts Bernie in a better margin of winning the general election against every member of the republican field than Hillary.


Umm, those are two distinctly different things dude and that's besides the fact that the RNC can't stand either Trump OR Cruz


How are the Democrats holding Hillary's feet to the fire?
They are not the ones calling to indict Hillary, or are you talking about Democrats looking more for a candidate that is more left than Hillary?


Sure, but no matter who get's in, they are going to have a rough 2 years until the mid-terms. I bet you will see -a lot- of E.O.'s coming out of whoever you get next.

You funny, dude.
Do you really think that the existing power structures controlling both the Democratic and Republican parties actually play be the rules? How quaint.
Decisions for BOTH parties are made be people very high up, behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the press.
This hidden power structure is what Trump is so successfully attacking/exploiting on the right, and what Col. Sanders is attacking/exploiting on the left, with somewhat less success.

The grass roots of both parties have been fed up with their leadership for quite some time now, although the Republicans are much farther down the road.

As far as feet to the fire, there is a significant number of lefties/Democrats who embrace Sanders because he is saying what Hilary or the DNC won't. They are not holding Hilary's feet to the fire, they are holding the party's leaders to the fire by refusing to support the "official" choice.

[garhkal]

Yes, America First!

And thus CHina and Russia will become the next worldpowers -- bye bye America, nice knowing you!

Where as I and many others, feel America is already on the way out cause of how Obama and co have done us in, and if HIllary gets in, she will just put the nails in the coffin.

ve been downright scary -- he will not make America great again. He will isolate it from the rest of the world, and America will wither and die.

That makes it sound like you are a globalist..

Trump winning the Republician nominee solidifies that Clinton will win the presidency. Anyone having a chance of taking significant swing states for Republicians has been beaten by Trump

I keep seeing people say that, but i don't believe it for one bit. Based on the fact trump HAS been pulling people from the independents AND those who used to be democrats over to his side, i see him beating Hillary.

The problem with that is that you do not have the technology expertise that would require those jobs to come back to the US.

And who's fault has that been?

Realistically what's the chance of Hillary being indicted?

As long as Lynch (Or as i call her, Holder in a dress) is in the DOJ, highly doubtful.

The word conservative pretty much seals the deal - no.

So pretty much you are a shill for the democrats. If its not liberal, you Don't care one iota about whether their policies are good or not. Just the fact they have a C (conservative) or R (republican) by their name means they are off limits period..

Bernie's only shot is if Clinton is indicted. If indicted early enough, they might run him. The DNC has made it clear, they will use the superdelegates and whatever else to ensure Clinton gets the nod. Their primary votes don't mean any more than the rank and file Republican voters do on the right when it comes to the RNC and it's efforts to stop Trump.

In short, the leadership of BOTH parties feet are being held to the fire by their constituencies this year.

PS: That's a good thing.

Agreed. The way BOTH establishment groups are running things, cause of how they have continually tried shoving who THEY want down our throat, we have been sending a resounding "Hell no. Listen to us or get the flup out the way"..

Based on the anti-Trump crowds throwing temper tantrums and destroying law enforcement vehicles and other vandalism, injuries, etc., it's still too early to be so positive that Trump will be the 2016 President (starting term in 2017).

And based on we always here "X number of people got arrested" but never "These people are now getting charged with/court dates etc, its easy to see why so many in the US think the justice system is borked.. Cause it seems some 'groups' can do what they want with no repercussions..

[Annoyed]

Where as I and many others, feel America is already on the way out cause of how Obama and co have done us in, and if HIllary gets in, she will just put the nails in the coffin.

We've been "on the way out" for A LOT longer than the LSoS has been in office. We peaked in the 1960's with the Apollo moon program. We had a bright spot in the 1980's, under Reagan, but as a whole, we've been on a downhill slide since the 70's, and it's been accelerating. This is the fault of BOTH parties. Some folks have been aware of this for quite some time, but they haven't had a voice till now. What do you think is driving the overwhelming grass roots support for Trump, and to a lesser extent, Sanders? On the Republican side, no one has had both the will and just as importantly the resources to challenge the RNC up till now. And if Sanders had the resources, he could (and should) do the same to the Democrats as Trump is doing to the Republicans.

That makes it sound like you are a globalist..

This was the point of the question I asked here: http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/7...1#post14477181

Question for you folks not living in the US.

Most of you are opposed to Trump becoming POTUS. Is that because you don't like how you expect his presidency to affect your country's interests, or is it because you think it might be harmful to the United States and its interests?

Some of Trump's ideas would indeed have a positive effect on the US, but negative impact upon the interests of other countries. For example; we have trade deals with various nations that are harmful to the US, causing jobs to be outsourced. Trump wants to undo some of those deals. This would obviously negatively affect the countries that we are outsourcing jobs to, as those jobs are brought back to the US.

Are you opposing Trump because he's harmful to the U.S.'s interests, or are you opposing him based on how it will impact other countries?

I suspect many of the people outside the US who oppose Trump are looking out for globalist interests. It might make it easier for them to understand my support for Trump if they realize I'm looking out for the interests of my own nation, first, last and always. Even if it opposes my own personal best interest. (If I was looking to my own self-interest first, I would be supporting Sanders)

And based on we always here "X number of people got arrested" but never "These people are now getting charged with/court dates etc, its easy to see why so many in the US think the justice system is borked.. Cause it seems some 'groups' can do what they want with no repercussions..

Agreed. Although this is a very murky and grey area, in most areas the political stripe of the current administration is rather lenient towards people on the same side of the fence, but not so much for protesters that are in opposition.

A good example is back in 2010 (somewhere around that time), when a bunch of snotnosed college brats decided to try to copy the "occupy wall street" meme, by setting up a tent city in a downtown park in direct defiance of a city ordinance forbidding tents and camping. The (Democratic) city administration publicly announced that they would not be enforcing that law in this case.

Just as an aside, this goes to show how fickle and cruel the weather can be. They set up shop around October or so, and I was thinking they would be back in their parents basements by January, once winter set in.

We really didn't have winter at all that year, much to my displeasure.

[Gatefan1976]

You funny, dude.
Do you really think that the existing power structures controlling both the Democratic and Republican parties actually play be the rules? How quaint.

Yes, they do play by the rules, of course they play by the rules.
The problem is, they get to write the rulebook each year as they are not a part of the "political machine", but more like private clubs.

Decisions for BOTH parties are made be people very high up, behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the press.

Birther by chance?
9/11 truther?
Pearl harbour truther?
Just wondering........

This hidden power structure is what Trump is so successfully attacking/exploiting on the right, and what Col. Sanders is attacking/exploiting on the left, with somewhat less success.

None of this stuff was hidden, people just did not bother to look.

The grass roots of both parties have been fed up with their leadership for quite some time now, although the Republicans are much farther down the road.

Democrats are more tired of their leadership drifting further past the centrist position to being somewhat right of that neutral state. The main reason for that is, the right has taken off the breaks and sped right to the cliff. Clinton is centrist with some right wing political policies, and the only thing left wing about her is her social policies, which are not even supposed to be part of the political process at all. The only reason that they -are- is because St Reagan invited the moral majority into the Republican party and Conservatism went from "small government with limited interference" as a meaning to "socially stagnant from the 50's onwards". (BTW, when Trump says twaddle like "make America great again", he means "back to the 50's".
Of course, the Democrats picked up the socially progressive banner.

As far as feet to the fire, there is a significant number of lefties/Democrats who embrace Sanders because he is saying what Hilary or the DNC won't.

No, they embrace Bernie because he is the first -actual- Lefty to come along for a long time, and they have some faith in the guy because his track record on social progression is pretty much unmatched by arguably any politician in any country right now. He does not jump on an issue because it is "trendy" and will get brownie points, he did it when it was not cool, or in it's infancy. He walks the walk, and people -respect- that.

They are not holding Hilary's feet to the fire, they are holding the party's leaders to the fire by refusing to support the "official" choice.

Bernie is not the "official choice" even if you take super delagates out of the equation at this point in time. IF, as I said he does very well in the remaining states he could still be, and it's at that point where the SD's will need to either listen to the DNC, or the people.

[Annoyed]

Yes, they do play by the rules, of course they play by the rules.
The problem is, they get to write the rulebook each year as they are not a part of the "political machine", but more like private clubs.

Birther by chance?
9/11 truther?
Pearl harbour truther?
Just wondering........

None of this stuff was hidden, people just did not bother to look.

Democrats are more tired of their leadership drifting further past the centrist position to being somewhat right of that neutral state. The main reason for that is, the right has taken off the breaks and sped right to the cliff. Clinton is centrist with some right wing political policies, and the only thing left wing about her is her social policies, which are not even supposed to be part of the political process at all. The only reason that they -are- is because St Reagan invited the moral majority into the Republican party and Conservatism went from "small government with limited interference" as a meaning to "socially stagnant from the 50's onwards". (BTW, when Trump says twaddle like "make America great again", he means "back to the 50's".
Of course, the Democrats picked up the socially progressive banner.

No, they embrace Bernie because he is the first -actual- Lefty to come along for a long time, and they have some faith in the guy because his track record on social progression is pretty much unmatched by arguably any politician in any country right now. He does not jump on an issue because it is "trendy" and will get brownie points, he did it when it was not cool, or in it's infancy. He walks the walk, and people -respect- that.

Bernie is not the "official choice" even if you take super delagates out of the equation at this point in time. IF, as I said he does very well in the remaining states he could still be, and it's at that point where the SD's will need to either listen to the DNC, or the people.

And you can bet your bottom dollar the SD's will listen to the DNC because the DNC holds their own personal position and power in its hands. I don't care if Sanders wins every single primary/delegate still available, he will not be the D nominee unless Hilary is taken out of the picture somehow, such as indictment.

Well, we all have our centerpoints, as it were, but I don't consider Hillary to be anything but left of center. But I do admit, I'm pretty far to the right myself.

By "Birther", Truther" and such, I assume you mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. I am not.

But I am also not naive enough to think that the powers that be in the RNC make their decisions under the light of public scrutiny.

[Gatefan1976]

Question for you folks not living in the US.

Most of you are opposed to Trump becoming POTUS. Is that because you don't like how you expect his presidency to affect your country's interests, or is it because you think it might be harmful to the United States and its interests?

Both, but it depends on the particular subject.
A lot of subjects that would directly affect the US first will have an inevitable ripple effect onto other countries. For example, Trump has proven himself to be an incredibly thin skinned person. As soon as someone says anything that he views "negative" or challenging to his viewpoint, he immediately resorts to schoolyard name calling and bullying. That's a bad trait to have in anyone, it's a -terrible- trait to have in the C-in-C of the worlds most powerful armed forces. He has the diplomatic skills of dead sock which again will invariably lead him to PO'ing other nations leaders, leading to diplomatic upheaval which again is not good for either the US, or anyone else.
Nothing Trump will do, good or bad will exist in a vacuum, that's not a "global NWO" concern, that's just the simple fact that the US is a global superpower.

Things like "build the wall" however have utterly no impact on my countries interest's, and frankly, if it makes you feel good to do it, rather than something -actually- useful, go right ahead, build your walls.
Re-negotiate or tear up the TTP?
Go ahead, you think it "sux to be us" under that thing? try it from some of the other countries that got boned harder than the US. The TPP is a business alliance, designed purely to aid big business, and not really any of the partner countries involved, so cool, tear it up.

Is there an element of "enlightened self interest" in caring about your POTUS, of course, but it's not the only reason.

Some of Trump's ideas would indeed have a positive effect on the US, but negative impact upon the interests of other countries. For example; we have trade deals with various nations that are harmful to the US, causing jobs to be outsourced. Trump wants to undo some of those deals.

Let him, I don't have any issues with that.
Question though, if he does dismantle these deals, and the jobs don't come back, what will you do?
You think Apple will start building products in the US if he does dismantle the deals?
How will dismantling the deals make any company come back to the US?

Are you opposing Trump because he's harmful to the U.S.'s interests, or are you opposing him based on how it will impact other countries?

He is harmful to everyone's interests.

[Gatefan1976]

And you can bet your bottom dollar the SD's will listen to the DNC because the DNC holds their own personal position and power in its hands. I don't care if Sanders wins every single primary/delegate still available, he will not be the D nominee unless Hilary is taken out of the picture somehow, such as indictment.

They might well listen to the DNC, it would not be the first time in history that Hillary got boned by them either. Most of them were pro Hillary in '08, but they changed to Obama at the end, didn't they.

Well, we all have our centerpoints, as it were, but I don't consider Hillary to be anything but left of center. But I do admit, I'm pretty far to the right myself.

Sure, but if you took yourself -out- of that equation and merely looked at the actual political continuum, you would see she really isn't anything more than a centrist politician with some left and right leaning positions based on the subject. It's only natural to see anything left of where you personally are as, well, left. Even some of your own -purely political- positions are more centrist-right than far right.

By "Birther", Truther" and such, I assume you mean I'm a conspiracy theorist. I am not.

But I am also not naive enough to think that the powers that be in the RNC make their decisions under the light of public scrutiny.

That may be true of the RNC, but the DNC is not the same beast. I have no doubt that they are "kissing cousins" in the way they handle themselves, I hardly think that the DNC is some kind of noble beast, but they certainly are not the same thing at all.