Politics & Stuff

[iseah100 5,612]

I know I'm 'foreign' to US politics, but I just can't understand how Trump is unanimously viewed as worse than Hillary. Even if you want to take his rhetoric at face value, he's still come out on the left of Hillary on several issues particularly foreign policy. I mean the woman is a war criminal even before she sets foot in office which makes for a change from the usual procedure. As someone who lives in the middle east, I'm wishing for ANYONE except Hillary Clinton, Trump included! 

As for Cruz, the obvious issue is that if he somehow does get elected and then even more unlikely actually does very well, would anyone really want to see that wax face of his on money everywhere?! Would probably complete devalue the dollar and send the world into a financial crisis.... 

Trump is far, far worse than Clinton. Trump is a fascist and would try to strong arm other nations to agree to deals. People like him because he "speaks his mind". Tbh if Bernie doesn't win the primary nomination I won't vote. Hiliary is sketchy; Benghazi, emails, Libya. He voting record is gray and she flip flops according to public demand. Trump would be worse because he has no plans. I know he goes against the establishment but i dont want a racist bigot to lead my country.

Also, I'd be shocked if Hiliary did anything major, because the House will be Republican and the GOP hate Hiliary more than they hate Obama or anyone else. Like...a ton. I agree wars are waged largely to promote business and unfortunately I do think Hiliary will continue that trend.

[iseah100 5,612]

Looking the Republican primaries more and more and to me it seems like this will go down to Convention. 

Once it goes to Convention more then likely Trump will lose out. 

See that possibility higher and more higher. 

And Cruz at the convention will get the nod. 

Been hearing rumors that Trump may not get the nominations, despite what he's doing in the caucuses. As much as I hate Trump i dont support this. The people elected him to represent them and the GOP should honor that.

[Fernando 6,375]

4 minutes ago, iseah100 said:

Been hearing rumors that Trump may not get the nominations, despite what he's doing in the caucuses. As much as I hate Trump i dont support this. The people elected him to represent them and the GOP should honor that.

Well it's not rumors, it's a reality. 

It's called getting enough delegates to get the nomination. He doesn't have enough and Ted Cruz is taking a lot of delegates from him. 

The rules have changed, as in the past winner took all. Now it's giving out proportional. And because of that is more then likely that Trump won't have enough points ie delegate to get the nomination itself. 

So because no one can get the nomination by the delegates this will go to convention. 

[iseah100 5,612]

4 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Well it's not rumors, it's a reality. 

It's called getting enough delegates to get the nomination. He doesn't have enough and Ted Cruz is taking a lot of delegates from him. 

The rules have changed, as in the past winner took all. Now it's giving out proportional. And because of that is more then likely that Drumpf won't have enough points ie delegate to get the nomination itself. 

So because no one can get the nomination by the delegates this will go to convention. 

Umm, he has far more delegates than Cruz. Drumpf has 329 and Cruz has 231. As of right now he doesn't have enough but he is on track to become the nominee. 

[Fernando 6,375]

8 minutes ago, iseah100 said:

Umm, he has far more delegates than Cruz. Drumpf has 329 and Cruz has 231. As of right now he doesn't have enough but he is on track to become the nominee. 

Yes and you need 1,237 for nomination. 

There's only 1,762 left.....

Meaning if by the end he has not gotten the enough vote he won't get it. 

 

[kellzfresh 7,226]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Yes and you need 1,237 for nomination. 

There's only 1,762 left.....

Meaning if by the end he has not gotten the enough vote he won't get it. 

 

That means he needs 60% of the remaining delegates to win without the convention. Lol, it'll be comedy watching the party deny the will of the people. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

8 hours ago, johnnythefirst said:

I'm no expert on Libya, but the question is what you should do when a president starts to shoot his own people and a major part of the country rises up against him.

Why, though? Why is that even a question for governments that have absolutely nothing with the country of the uprising? 

The answer is very simple: provide medical and humanitarian aid and take in and help refugees. In the worst cases use diplomacy and the UN for non-violent interventions. That's it. 

If he is a dictator whom the people of his country want gone then they will find a way to do so. That's what history teaches us. Don't intervene militarily and increase the violence because that never ends. That's what history teaches us as well. 

The very fact that that is THE question comes from the belief that the US owns the world having inherited it from western European countries. Why else would a government feel that an uprising against a dictator literally thousands of miles away from you be of any concern to it and worse one needing a military intervention?! 

It's even more absurd that this is largely accepted as a necessary question when anyone who knows anything about previous interventions would know that these interventions are about economic and geopolitical gains and NEVER have anything to do with any moral obligations towards civilians.

Simply put, you CANNOT pretend to care about Gaddafi killing 350 Libyan protesters when you support the Saudi government dictatorship over its own people and sending troops to crush the uprising of the people Bahrain against their own dictator and then sell them weapons to bomb and murder thousands of Yemeni civilians and schools and hospitals. And that's just one of endless examples.

 

Regarding Syria, it's WAY too late now to talk about not intervening when everyone and their uncle has already played major roles there. Of course there are countless various reasons for the uprising, the biggest one of course is that the Baathist regime is a bloody dictatorship, but the uprising was doomed before it even started because the US and its regional allies were planing for intervention in Syria through manufacturing sectarian conflicts from at least 2006:

Quote

PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE:  There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis.  Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue. 

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

I genuinely believe that without Saudi-Qatari-Turkish-US intervention to gain political leverage and ensure that the next regime does their bidding (and shares their religious beliefs in the case of KSA) that Assad would have been overthrown within a few months because without the islamization of the revolution, minorities and forces from neighboring countries would not have rallied behind the only remaining secular force: The Assad regime. 

But now the best we can hope for is Russia and the US agreeing on some sort of settlement that would give all the 'involved' countries some political power in Syria so that they would allow for the creation on a semi-operational state in a part of Syria while everyone goes into a decade of 'war on terror' in the other part. 

[robsblubot 3,205]

On 3/4/2016 at 2:08 PM, CHOULO19 said:

I know I'm 'foreign' to US politics, but I just can't understand how Trump is unanimously viewed as worse than Hillary. Even if you want to take his rhetoric at face value, he's still come out on the left of Hillary on several issues particularly foreign policy. I mean the woman is a war criminal even before she sets foot in office which makes for a change from the usual procedure. As someone who lives in the middle east, I'm wishing for ANYONE except Hillary Clinton, Trump included! 

As for Cruz, the obvious issue is that if he somehow does get elected and then even more unlikely actually does very well, would anyone really want to see that wax face of his on money everywhere?! Would probably complete devalue the dollar and send the world into a financial crisis.... 

BTW, I suspect you haven't really read and heard everything Trump said.

Because, IMO, while Hilary is part of establishment, and also part of the problem especially according to the right wingers who hate government *, Trump is the problem according to the left wingers and pretty much anyone who can add and divide.

* without the government the power goes (exclusively) to who controls the capital.

The distribution of wealth is skewed and Trump is the face of the useless wealthy, who inherit everything, produce very little and have little success. It's very hard to lose wealth once you have it: money begets money.

Like Mitt said recently, Trump is really not that great a businessman, but he sure likes to make people believe that. You can really say the most absurd things as long as you do so confidently.

Capitalism only works if all players have chips to play. Think about this a bit: a poor guy will spend 100% of all the money he makes or is given, but it's still not much money (not much moves). Middle class will spend a very high percentage of what they acquire and it is a meaningful chunk. The wealthy will spend very small percentage of what they have parked. So, from an economic POV, you really want a large middle class and if you can follow any prosperous times, even here in the US, you will see a very large middle class with a lot of purchasing power. That's really not what republicans want.

In the end none of this really matters that much as money casts a much stronger vote than the actual electoral votes.

Do you want to understand politics in the US? It's really easy: follow the money. Now, the actual following demands a bit of an effort, because money exerts so much influence that laws are created to help who have it and don't want to be tracked - btw corporations are people too!  NPR's marketplace addressed this a bunch times (good show).

BTW, once you do (follow the money) both parties become somewhat similar. As a independent who usually votes democrat, I find that the republicans usually lose me, ironically, when they offer fewer freedoms: when they try to force religious ideas down my throat, their prejudices, gun craziness (I am not against ownership), and their ideas on the trickle down economics: how they work more for the wealthy and in consequence against the majority.

And if you don't mind being depressed, read Republic Lost by Lessig: http://republic.lessig.org/ (free pdf download) While some of his ideas, especially on the solutions part, may seem controversial, the parts (2/3 of the book) about the influence of money and how congress works are spot on - hard to disagree with any of that. If money had no influence in politics, why there is so much money, and increasingly so, in politics? 

 

[iseah100 5,612]

Bernie wins Nebraska and Kansas. Clinton wins Louisiana. Maine is voting tomorrow, Michigan on Tuesday.

[Fernando 6,375]

10 hours ago, iseah100 said:

Bernie wins Nebraska and Kansas. Clinton wins Louisiana. Maine is voting tomorrow, Michigan on Tuesday.

You saw the Republican? 

Trump is not blowing Cruz out. 

At this pace we will go to convention. 

And then will not be surprised to see Trump not get the nomination at the convention. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,733]

42 minutes ago, Fernando said:

You saw the Republican? 

Trump is not blowing Cruz out. 

At this pace we will go to convention. 

And then will not be surprised to see Trump not get the nomination at the convention. 

 

The bigger question is if that happens will Trump run third party, out of spite, and fracture the GOP.

[Fernando 6,375]

1 hour ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

 

The bigger question is if that happens will Trump run third party, out of spite, and fracture the GOP.

That's a possibility but I doubt he will do it, we shall see. 

But now how things stand I can say that I'm confident this will go to convention and at convention Ted Cruz will get the nomination. 

Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee for me (which I wanted because he is Christian...now doesn't mean he might be a true Christian as there's many phony out there but still I would vote for him as it can't be any worse then Bush and Obama...). 

Now weather Ted can beat Hillary at the general elections is a whole another thing. That would be much harder but we shall see. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,733]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

That's a possibility but I doubt he will do it, we shall see. 

But now how things stand I can say that I'm confident this will go to convention and at convention Ted Cruz will get the nomination. 

Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee for me (which I wanted because he is Christian...now doesn't mean he might be a true Christian as there's many phony out there but still I would vote for him as it can't be any worse then Bush and Obama...). 

Now weather Ted can beat Hillary at the general elections is a whole another thing. That would be much harder but we shall see. 

I don't think Ted would fare well against Hillary either.

 

As a christian what do you make of Trump's faith? Do you think that he is a legitimate follower of the christian faith?

[kellzfresh 7,226]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

That's a possibility but I doubt he will do it, we shall see. 

But now how things stand I can say that I'm confident this will go to convention and at convention Ted Cruz will get the nomination. 

Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee for me (which I wanted because he is Christian...now doesn't mean he might be a true Christian as there's many phony out there but still I would vote for him as it can't be any worse then Bush and Obama...). 

Now weather Ted can beat Hillary at the general elections is a whole another thing. That would be much harder but we shall see. 

Exactly. I want a Republican to win, anyone that's not a Democrat please. 

[iseah100 5,612]

Exactly. I want a Republican to win, anyone that's not a Democrat please. 

Why is that?

[iseah100 5,612]

That's a possibility but I doubt he will do it, we shall see. 

But now how things stand I can say that I'm confident this will go to convention and at convention Ted Cruz will get the nomination. 

Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee for me (which I wanted because he is Christian...now doesn't mean he might be a true Christian as there's many phony out there but still I would vote for him as it can't be any worse then Bush and Obama...). 

Now weather Ted can beat Hillary at the general elections is a whole another thing. That would be much harder but we shall see. 

Ted Cruz is quite possibly the worst candidate possible. He's a fascist sociopath and his peers support him!

He is the reason the government shut down in 2013 after Obamacare and cost the USA $23 billion and advocated another shutdown after the funding of Planned Parenthood.

What the fuck is this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/30/ted-cruz-cites-reports-that-planned-parenthood-shooter-could-be-transgendered-leftist-activist-what/

This after he said Christians don't commit acts of violence. Robert Lewis Dear, a Christian, killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs that same week.

He gets donations from people who think someone should be MURDERED for providing a woman with the option of abortion. And pretty much agreed with him. He said most violent criminals are democrats. Cruz is a nut. Do some research.

Religion and government don't mix. Cruz is the worst candidate, rather Trump or Clinton than him. And that's saying a lot.

[kellzfresh 7,226]

1 hour ago, iseah100 said:

Why is that?

I like balance, Democrats have ruled for 8 years now Republicans should rule. Also I don't like Clinton at all. I would be ok with Sanders, but I'll rather have any Republican including Trump over Hilary. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

21 hours ago, Robguima said:

BTW, I suspect you haven't really read and heard everything Trump said.

Because, IMO, while Hilary is part of establishment, and also part of the problem especially according to the right wingers who hate government *, Trump is the problem according to the left wingers and pretty much anyone who can add and divide.

* without the government the power goes (exclusively) to who controls the capital.

The distribution of wealth is skewed and Trump is the face of the useless wealthy, who inherit everything, produce very little and have little success. It's very hard to lose wealth once you have it: money begets money.

Like Mitt said recently, Trump is really not that great a businessman, but he sure likes to make people believe that. You can really say the most absurd things as long as you do so confidently.

Capitalism only works if all players have chips to play. Think about this a bit: a poor guy will spend 100% of all the money he makes or is given, but it's still not much money (not much moves). Middle class will spend a very high percentage of what they acquire and it is a meaningful chunk. The wealthy will spend very small percentage of what they have parked. So, from an economic POV, you really want a large middle class and if you can follow any prosperous times, even here in the US, you will see a very large middle class with a lot of purchasing power. That's really not what republicans want.

In the end none of this really matters that much as money casts a much stronger vote than the actual electoral votes.

Do you want to understand politics in the US? It's really easy: follow the money. Now, the actual following demands a bit of an effort, because money exerts so much influence that laws are created to help who have it and don't want to be tracked - btw corporations are people too!  NPR's marketplace addressed this a bunch times (good show).

BTW, once you do (follow the money) both parties become somewhat similar. As a independent who usually votes democrat, I find that the republicans usually lose me, ironically, when they offer fewer freedoms: when they try to force religious ideas down my throat, their prejudices, gun craziness (I am not against ownership), and their ideas on the trickle down economics: how they work more for the wealthy and in consequence against the majority.

And if you don't mind being depressed, read Republic Lost by Lessig: http://republic.lessig.org/ (free pdf download) While some of his ideas, especially on the solutions part, may seem controversial, the parts (2/3 of the book) about the influence of money and how congress works are spot on - hard to disagree with any of that. If money had no influence in politics, why there is so much money, and increasingly so, in politics? 

 

Couldn't agree more on all of that, Brilliantly put, my friend.

I would like to add though, that I think I have heard/read most of what Trump has said and I believe that he actually means what he's saying as much as Hillary saying that she opposes the TTP or cares for the rights of minorities. 

I can't help but feel that elections in the US are like a game show. "Super-Tuesday", "Super Delegates", "Winner-Takes-All States", caucuses, and dice throwing to determine winners!  I mean it's just entertainment, I feel...

Frankly, what I care most about from the US presidential race is foreign policy and the amount of damage that is going to be cause. Not because I don't care if the American people get the rights and representative democratic system they deserve, but because I feel the system won't change regardless of who takes office and even the changes in internal politics will be too minuscule. 

In that sense, I have no doubt that Hillary will be the most destructive of the bunch because of her relation with the weapons and oil corporations., hence my original statement that I will have my fingers crossed for anyone other than her, including Trump.

Also, obviously TTP and TTIP are also very important (and incredibly scary) but I've lost any hope that they won't get passed regardless of who wins the elections because every single lobbying group in DC will be pushing for it. 

We need a revolution, man...