The President Of The USA: Donald Trump

Forums › Politics › The President Of The USA: Donald Trump

1 | ... | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | ... | 997

8932 posts

Uber Geek

# 1655403 20-Oct-2016 22:08

One person supports this post

cynnicallemon:

If Hillary wins then expect a major conflict in the Persian Gulf within 18 months. The Putin v Clinton war will stage there.

Putin is way too scared to do this. The US military budget is 10x Russia's. Russia also doesn't have a history of victory in proxy wars vs the USA. One of the ways Reagan destroyed the USSR was to throw a few SAMs etc the way of some anti-soviet agitators in countries they were trying to invade. This while Putin was a KGB thug.

The US is also not dependant on Middle Eastern Oil - it's now self-sufficient. Europe is dependant though, so any "war", then Russia would not face only the US. France, UK, and German military budgets also dwarf what Russia has.

It's not going to happen. One reason why Putin has been working hard to support Trump - in order to destroy NATO.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
10960 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655493 21-Oct-2016 09:06

Who asked what it is like in the States? I happened to glance at the CNN live feed with their chat window open. Most of the comments rolling past are truly revolting. I realise that those with troll instincts will mainly be the ones making use of such a facility, but it is still pretty awful. Truly sad to see how many f***ed up people there are in that country.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

networkn

21581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655503 21-Oct-2016 09:38

Just heard something on National radio I thought was interesting. The Republican strategist made a good point that without Trumps comment about potentially not accepting the election result, everyone would/should be talking about the WikiLeaks re Clinton and the foundation.

I was worried the moderator was going to be Pro Trump as Fox seems to be (or Pro-Republican at least), but I thought he asked some interesting questions of Trump, like the 6 foot statue of Trump, paid for by his charitable foundation.

I thought it was a little rich him complaining about the Clinton foundation when there is equal number of questionable decisions made by his own.

I was, however, shocked that Clinton foundation accepted $25M from such a source, even if it was for good).

Coil

6615 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

# 1655520 21-Oct-2016 09:52

What has this world come to i say, Where two of Americas richest families are battling to run the country to make themselves richer. Cant they just keep Obama!

So far from this campaign all we have learnt is that each candidate is a criminal and nothing about what good they would bring to the Oval office.

frankv

3026 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655530 21-Oct-2016 10:07

One person supports this post

joker97:

Can you explain the way the electoral college set up favouring Clinton? thanks

Thanks for that... it made me look into this a bit more. On reflection, I think I've fallen for Trump's rhetoric on this! I don't think that there's much benefit for either side from the Electoral College system itself. In the process, Here's the results of a bit of research which will hopefully illuminate how someone *could* manipulate the system, examples of which will no doubt be used by Trump as "evidence" that the system was manipulated.

Wikipedia has a good description of how the Electoral College works. Basically, it was set up to overcome the problems of running a national election in a widely dispersed country back when it could take months to get from one side to the other. Citizens vote for electors who have promised to vote for a particular candidate. Almost all the states allocate their electors' votes on a winner-take-all basis. so it's a 2-stage FPP system. In some States, electors don't *have* to vote for who the people choose, although it's very uncommon for them not to, and it's never actually made a difference in the past.

But, for example, electors in a Republican State *could* vote for Clinton instead of Trump. Even threatening to do this (or perhaps even suggesting that it's possible) would dissuade Republicans from voting, and possibly deliver all that State's electors to Clinton. It just needs one "Faithless Elector" for Trump to claim that he was undermined by the GOP.

Winning a few states by a few votes can offset losing a number by large amounts, and candidates campaign to maximize electoral votes in the swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida in 2004 and 2008, Colorado in 2012), and to more or less ignore the majority of the population. Essentially, any Trump supporters in California (large population, safe Democrat) are disenfranchised. Equally, of course, and Democrats in Texas or New York (safe Republican) are disenfranchised. However, only four times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (to John Quincy Adams); Samuel Tilden in 1876 (to Rutherford B. Hayes); Grover Cleveland in 1888 (to Benjamin Harrison); Al Gore in 2000 (to George W. Bush).

Elections are locally organised, which can lead to all sorts of dodgy processes to make voting difficult in areas that favour one or other candidate (voter suppression), which in turn could deliver the entire state's electors to the opposition... an example from the 2008 Presidential election: In Franklin County, Ohio (swing state, 48% Republican, 51% Democrat): Wait times of six hours were reported for early voting, leading to people leaving the line without voting. Who were these people that turned away? If they were mostly Republicans, it *could* have stolen the Presidency from the Republicans. (In reality, Franklin County voted 60% Democrat).

Batman

Mad Scientist
21237 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655540 21-Oct-2016 10:14

Electorates are always manipulated by the ruling party to favour them or at least not be unfavourable. That's how things are I'm afraid, but I'd like to know about blatant gaming - US elections are too complicated for me to understand. Maybe if I watch the results live that will educate a bit but other than that no clue.

THe thing is whoever becomes president it's not looking good!

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

DarthKermit

5003 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1655596 21-Oct-2016 11:30

TimA:

What has this world come to i say, Where two of Americas richest families are battling to run the country to make themselves richer. Cant they just keep Obama!

So far from this campaign all we have learnt is that each candidate is a criminal and nothing about what good they would bring to the Oval office.

Hey dude, didn't you know that anyone* can become president?

*Provided that they are either rich, or have a lot of filthy rich backers. I'm not surprised that a great number of citizens are deeply unhappy with the establishment and its cronyism.

Rikkitic

Lock him up!
10960 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655644 21-Oct-2016 12:33

Here is a disturbing thought. Trump's attacks may actually improve things. At least some of what he says is actually valid, he just says it in an extremely unpalatable way. Perhaps the Washington club will become a little less cosy and exclusive thanks to his criticisms. Wouldn't that be ironic?

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

frankv

3026 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655671 21-Oct-2016 13:21

Rikkitic:

Here is a disturbing thought. Trump's attacks may actually improve things.

Here's a more disturbing thought... Trump's attacks may make things worse.

The System will certainly change to prevent this debacle from recurring. Most likely, both the Republican and Democratic Parties will review the process by which they select candidates, so that it won't be possible for someone like Trump to become a candidate for either party. My guess is that the Party hierarchy will get more say in the candidate selection process, thus maintaining power in the hands of the elite.

Stu

Hammered
5302 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655673 21-Oct-2016 13:23

One person supports this post

If people don't tone down attitude and content in some of their posts, there could be one or two looking at a ban.

Keep it civil people!

Keep calm, and carry on posting.

Fred99

8932 posts

Uber Geek

# 1655676 21-Oct-2016 13:25

Rikkitic:

Here is a disturbing thought. Trump's attacks may actually improve things. At least some of what he says is actually valid, he just says it in an extremely unpalatable way. Perhaps the Washington club will become a little less cosy and exclusive thanks to his criticisms. Wouldn't that be ironic?

It might actually happen. Just don't want that movement to be led by another false prophet there - or here for that matter.

DarthKermit

5003 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1655704 21-Oct-2016 13:38

Stu:

If people don't tone down attitude and content in some of their posts, there could be one or two looking at a ban.

Keep it civil people!

Sorry about that.

networkn

21581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1655711 21-Oct-2016 13:48

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787491649148641280

That doesn't exactly fill me with joy.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

# 1656331 22-Oct-2016 19:29

tdgeek:

There has been 1500 posts in this thread. Thats just us. I wonder what its like over there? Is it the talk of the town, or are they just used to dirty laundry campaigning?

Relatives in the US are terrified and probably discussing everything in minute detail. In Canada, it's the talk of the town and there's some very worried people here. I'm one of them. I see a lot of US television news because it doesn't make sense to watch reports about this election in French, so I run US channels. I don't think people (generally) are that bothered by the he said/she said dirty tricks campaigning. That confrontational style is par for the course in the US. People are worried about what Trump its saying and how his supporters are becoming increasingly extremist in their stated opinions. Gun stores are having pre-election sales urging people to stock up in preparation for election day. If there's no violence and no deaths on election day I'll be happy, but surprised. Trump supporters are using words like "overthrow" and "revolution" - the kinds of noises that came ahead of the Arab Spring. Could the US have its own watershed? It's possible but, geez, I hope not.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

# 1656333 22-Oct-2016 19:44

One person supports this post

networkn:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787491649148641280

That doesn't exactly fill me with joy.

Take any speech, that may or may not include jokes, extract a snippet then spin it. Seems to me that Wikileaks likes taking things out of context and turning it into a conspiracy. (I'm not a fan of Clinton by any means & consider her dangerous, but Wikileaks has forgotten it was supposed to be about bringing truth to light).

1 | ... | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | ... | 997