US Elections

Spanky said:
The Nation
Time
Wall Street Journal
Michael Moore
and more and more and more

News conglomerates aren't the form of media. He gets a lot of love, at least from what I have experienced.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying nobody supported him but when major news networks like MSNCB, NBC and CNN had a clear anti-Bernie stance I think that's far more wide reaching overall. Or at the very least counterbalances the idea that the media was pushing for Sanders.
 
vampmogs said:
when major news networks like MSNCB, NBC and CNN had a clear anti-Bernie stance I think that's far more wide reaching overall.
Click to expand...
Again, consider the sources. It would be like complaining that Fox News didn't support Hillary. Or that CNN trashes Trump. News networks are biased and only promote those that agree with their agenda. That's why more than 60% of Americans say they don't trust or follow the News and get their "news" via other sources.
 
Taake said:
Wow, what a tirade, this makes it sound as if the US is filled with ignoramouses who can’t think beyond a catchy slogan (similar to the opinions on Brexiters come to think of it, ”uninformed” voters works for a lot of critiques)

I would argue there are plenty of people hungry for more political substance than is currently on offer, but they may not like the substance some outlets are pushing. Either way, I doubt the US will fall into a degenerated dystopia quite yet, seems more like the wet dream of those who wish it would come to be or kind of already think it is.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there are no intelligent people in the US or that people are not looking for something different from what exists. America has a large population and this is going to continue to allow for leadership to rise. The question is, who can rise up and become president? The Democrats had a number of excellent candidates but for one reason or another, they were judged to be either not popular enough or unable to continue raising money or - let's face it - not white male enough, even in a party that claims diversity as a virtue. The Republicans will have to support Donald Trump because he won once and they will not be able to raise any traction for anyone else. For whatever reason, incumbents have an edge on everyone else because they know that however different the public would like things to be, they will vote for the devil they know rather than the devil they don't know.

In a couple of centuries, I think America will be comparable to Italy. Italy was the centre of learning in the Renaissance and still has the highest national IQ of all European countries, if you believe the statistics. Italy is still a leader in fashion and cuisine and its products have a style that compares favourably to a lot of others. (Think Ferrari.) but on the world stage, it has not been all that important. And people will analyse why it toppled from its level of importance. And students in the 23rd century will still ask themselves, "If Americans were so aware of the defects in how they were governed, how did they let this happen?"

Understand, I would like to see the US not degenerate and not become a dystopia. But the direction it is heading in clearly leads in that direction.
 
Ethan Reigns said:
I'm not saying there are no intelligent people in the US or that people are not looking for something different from what exists. America has a large population and this is going to continue to allow for leadership to rise. The question is, who can rise up and become president? The Democrats had a number of excellent candidates but for one reason or another, they were judged to be either not popular enough or unable to continue raising money or - let's face it - not white male enough, even in a party that claims diversity as a virtue. The Republicans will have to support Donald Trump because he won once and they will not be able to raise any traction for anyone else. For whatever reason, incumbents have an edge on everyone else because they know that however different the public would like things to be, they will vote for the devil they know rather than the devil they don't know.

In a couple of centuries, I think America will be comparable to Italy. Italy was the centre of learning in the Renaissance and still has the highest national IQ of all European countries, if you believe the statistics. Italy is still a leader in fashion and cuisine and its products have a style that compares favourably to a lot of others. (Think Ferrari.) but on the world stage, it has not been all that important. And people will analyse why it toppled from its level of importance. And students in the 23rd century will still ask themselves, "If Americans were so aware of the defects in how they were governed, how did they let this happen?"

Understand, I would like to see the US not degenerate and not become a dystopia. But the direction it is heading in clearly leads in that direction.
Click to expand...

You’re going between culture and politics here? The Renaissance, arguably a rather elitist project though, was certainly a strong cultural and economic force. But, while IQ and fashion remain, the feudal system and warring city states ruled by the nobles do not. The power didn’t come from the people, it came from powerful families eventually threatened by a merchant class. The US system was not built on this base, thus, while it’s cultural influence may be comparable to the development in Italy, it’s political system can hardly be judged by these metrics. Though the system is flawed, the idea that the people have power remains. A lessened cultural influence/world relevance through soft power does not necessarily mean less hard power or a toppling of the internal political system.

Even if there is 4 more years of Trump, or 4 of Biden, it may just serve to revitalize the political engagement of the general public. People are already asking about how the country is being governed and getting involved, no need to wait for the 23rd century. Basically, the 2020 election is not the end all be all of the US’s future and where it’ll head. There’ll be other candidates, hopefully, though the road there will probably be heated, the public won’t be caught between whatever equivalent to Trump and Clinton there’ll be in perpetuity.
 
Why don't more moderates win primaries and run for the presidency anyways ? That's the only way to really get out of a "two bad choices" situation...
 
The United States, that is, The Federal Republic, was designed with three purposes; to provide an effective general government to protect interstate interests, 2. To protect Small States against the power of Large States, and, 3. To protect the states against the General Government. We are not a Constitutional Monarchy; our Executive does not always command majority support in Congress and the federal government only enjoys those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Which are primarily in Foreign policy and Interstate Commerce. So yes, in matters of domestic policy, the President is very much a figurehead. The primary leverage the Federal government has in domestic issues is the purse, it can collect and borrow money better than the states can.
 
The TV stations are reporting that the number of unemployed are listed as 30,000,000 with a lot more who are unable to fit on the lists of unemployed. Should those figures be remembered what chance is there of Trump being re-elected, what chance is there of a republican being voted in?
 
Do you think that Joe Biden actually has a chance of winning ?
I don't see it happening, the guy has a history of touching children inappropriately and I can't think of a single reason why he is a good fit for the presidency...he also has no chance against a loud guy who tries to keep his word and cares about the economy.
 
Give Us A Kiss said:
Do you think that Joe Biden actually has a chance of winning ?
I don't see it happening, the guy has a history of touching children inappropriately and I can't think of a single reason why he is a good fit for the presidency...he also has no chance against a loud guy who tries to keep his word and cares about the economy.
Click to expand...

I mean, it seems like everyone feels like Joe is a bit compromised in terms of health at least, so the eyes are on who’ll be VP, no? If he has an appealing VP, maybe his chances will improve?
 
Taake said:
I mean, it seems like everyone feels like Joe is a bit compromised in terms of health at least, so the eyes are on who’ll be VP, no? If he has an appealing VP, maybe his chances will improve?
Click to expand...
There was a theory going around that that is how Michelle Obama could become president. That she'd run as the vp and months after inauguration day Biden would step down for health concerns so she could be the pres. The fact that she wants nothing to do with the political landscape doesn't seem to matter as people are still saying she 'deserves' to be president.

I for one would love to see her as president just to see how involved Bush would be. That could be a really interesting dynamic.
 
I know very little about American politics, but why would Michelle Obama bother with VP, why not go straight to the presidency?
 
Priceless said:
I know very little about American politics, but why would Michelle Obama bother with VP, why not go straight to the presidency?
Click to expand...
It's easier to get to be VP than president. But a direct answer is why would she not go straight for the presidency? Because she has stated on numerous occasions she has no desire to be involved in politics.
 
I though you were suggesting Michelle Obama would be interested in becoming VP, I didn't realise she had no interest in politics any longer. If I were a high up in the Dem party, I'd have been begging her to stand, prior to Biden getting the nomination. I cannot imagine Trump being elected over Obama (M), but Trump v Biden is harder to predict.
 
TriBel
TriBel
I'd emigrate just for the joy of voting for her.
Spanky said:
There was a theory going around that that is how Michelle Obama could become president. That she'd run as the vp and months after inauguration day Biden would step down for health concerns so she could be the pres. The fact that she wants nothing to do with the political landscape doesn't seem to matter as people are still saying she 'deserves' to be president.

I for one would love to see her as president just to see how involved Bush would be. That could be a really interesting dynamic.
Click to expand...
Don't you think she could win on her own merit (presuming she wanted to run)?
 
TriBel said:
Don't you think she could win on her own merit (presuming she wanted to run)?
Click to expand...
I dunno. As far as popularity but she's a lawyer and not a politician. The thought process was that it was "impossible" for someone not a politician to make waves in the primaries. But again, she's different. Same as Trump. So I don't know, honestly. Condi certainly could. In fact I think she could get a record turnout.

Edit: The other issue with Michelle Obama is not that many people would want another 4 years of the Obama administration. That was part of the reason Clinton wasn't elected as well. Contrary to popular belief the 8 years under Obama wasn't all rainbows and puppies. A lot of people suffered.
 
Last edited:
TriBel
TriBel
Thanks!
Has anyone here had a good look at the gait of Donald Trump? He walks a bit slower than what he did and his sideways movement on each step is more pronounced. Also when he is in a conversation with a person he tends to lean forward as if to hear them properly. If he gets another term as President I'm not sure he will be able to complete his term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom