🇺🇸 💣 The US Presidential Race

[pap]

With five days left until the poll, some commentators are still talking Clinton landslide. I doubt few would bet their houses on it. The last week has illustrated just how brittle her campaign is, and just how soft her support is. The news has been reporting that Hillary just isn’t inspiring people. Crucially, she’s failing to get the black vote out and ticking her box.

Even if Hillary hadn’t come back under the FBI’s microscope, there’s a good chance that the election results would have been much closer than the suggested landslide. I’ve long suspected that there are people voting for Trump that’d never admit it publicly, their version of the Shy Tory.

The odd thing is, anyone with knowledge of recent Presidents will know that the US haven’t had many good ones since the Second World War. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, widely regarded as one of the best Presidents, was a complex and flawed character. The much admired Kennedy had a personal life that few of the time (or perhaps today) would have approved of. From then on, it mostly gets worse, even when the US managed to elect someone that appeared to have a decent heart, such as Carter.

Carter is something of an exception to this next statement, but it seems to me that the chief difference between the Trump/Clinton race and every other is that most know they’re dodgy as all hell prior to voting, something previously determined once a President has served some time in office. We have Bill to thank for getting to know Hillary, and Donald for allowing us to see some facet of Trump.

My view? Trump will be worse for the US itself, while Hillary represents a bigger danger to the world at large. Trump’s brand of populist blamery will cause big problems internally if he decides to realise the bollocks he’s been saying at rallies, but wants to cool the coming confrontation with nations that the US is presently trying to contain. Clinton won’t be building any walls in the US, but she’ll do her best to consolidate the US Empire worldwide.

I’m sticking with my prediction from way back. If it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, Trump will win.

[TheCholulaKid]

Originally posted by @pap

I’ve long suspected that there are people voting for Trump that’d never admit it publicly, their version of the Shy Tory.

I’m sticking with my prediction from way back. If it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, Trump will win.

The Shy Brexiter surely? There were plenty of those around as it turned out.

You predicted a Trump win from way back? Fair play if you did as it’s looking increasingly likely. Not sure about your assertion that Trump’s going to be better for the world at large than Clinton, though.

[MrTrampoline]

US Politics Betting | American Political Odds | Oddschecker

Clinton still heavy favourite although then again, so was ‘Remain’ going into the Brexit vote.

I’d be surprised if there’s as much of a ‘shy voter’ phenomenon favouring one particular candidate. I don’t think many are particularly ‘proud’ of voting for Hillary either (nor indeed all that ashamed of voting for Trump).

[Nottarf-Krap]

I think whatever happens there will be trouble on an unprecedented scale after the election. There is just no common ground at all between the Trump and Clinton supporters. Neither will accept the result if it goes against them. If anything the Trumpsters are probably more genuine in their support for him, (even though they are mostly bonkers), a vast amount of her ‘supporters’ will be holding their noses when they cast their vote. Of the two i personally believe that Clinton will be far more dangerous for the world at large. If she wins. She will be a lame duck President from day one, and will be desperate to ‘prove’ herself. She has never seen a war she didn’t like. Not for nothing is she known as ‘Killary’. She is in the pockets of Wall St, Military Industrial Complex etc. She is crooked to the tips of her fingers, and if she caught herself telling the truth she would immediately tell a couple of lies just to keep her hand in!

The irony is, of course, if the Republicans had put anyone other than Trump up against Clinton they would have been out of sight by now. Likewise if the Democratic Party hadn’t corruptly stitched up Bernie Sanders, ( a decent man who was in hock to nobody, least of all Wall St and the MIC), and gerrymandered the nomination for Clinton, he would have been out of sight of Trump. Serve them right, karma is a bitch! Although i suspect that if someone like Sanders, with the policies he espoused, looked like getting anywhere near the White House, he would have come to a mysterious, sticky end. That is, after all, the ‘American Way’!

A pox on both their houses say I, but God help the rest of the world whichever of them win!

[Fowllyd]

Those who think that a Trump presidency would be less bad for the rest of the world than a Clinton presidency should maybe consider a few things: Trump’s attitude to climate change (say’s it’s all a big hoax cooked up by the Chinese and would tear up the Paris agreement); Trump’s enthusiam for nuclear weapons (he thinks more states, including Saudi Arabia, should have them); Trump’s views on how the military should behave (he thinks that terror suspects should be tortured and their families killed - put another way, he believes that the US military should commit war crimes). Plus, of course, his views on Mexicans, Muslims, you name it. And the thinness of his skin - not a great attribute for a man who has the nuclear codes available to him at all times (launching a nuclear strike is something that the President can order in a matter of seconds, with no checks or balances).

Beyond that, a Trump presidency would give legitimacy to the vile, racist alt-right bunch who have been prominent in his support and at his rallies. Of course, this will mostly be in the US, so I guess we shouldn’t really give a fuck about it.

Dislikeable though Hillary Clinton is, I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at those two candidates and think that there’s not much to choose between them. Still less can I understand the thinking that a Trump presidency would maybe do more damage within the US, but less in the world at large.

[SaintBristol]

If Donald Trump wins, it’ll be a new age of darkness | Jonathan Freedland

[SaintBristol]

3 days left.

[Fatso]

Ted, learn how to link to articles please.

[SaintBristol]

Seems this Ted guy doesn’t know how to use hyperlinks … twat

[SaintBristol]

https://thinkprogress.org/what-language-experts-find-so-strange-about-donald-trump-2f067c20156e#.1tgjmgdaw

[SaintBristol]

Ugh

[Fatso]

I’m going to kick your ass, Ted.

[lifeintheslowlane]

Originally posted by @SaintBristol

Ugh

Here have a sympathy upvote Ted.

[Fatso]

YouTube

[pap]

I’ve been meaning to respond to this post for a couple of days, as I made some of the comments that inspired yours.

Why is Hillary more dangerous to the world at large? She’s an unabashed warmonger, and an unaccomplished decision maker. Some might even say disastrous. She’s bang up for the continued efforts at containment on the Russia and China. She’s quoted as saying she’ll bomb Iran. Bush and Cheney did their best to catch up, but it’s usually Democrats, not Republicans, that get the US into wars. The fear with Clinton is that she’ll force an escalation of the world’s other super-powers, force an arms races, eventually leading to a world wide conflagration. It’s already a tinderbox out there. Some historians reckon the beginning of World War 2 is actually 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria. If you’re sympathetic to that logic, you could argue that we may in a similar position. Hillary will take us over the edge, whether she plans it or not. She hasn’t coveted this job for decades to do fuck all with it.

The other deeply concerning thing about Hillary are the cumulative reports of her activities wedded to the machinery of state. Perhaps she’ll be no more powerful than she was when Bill was on Pennsylvania Avenue, but that’s probably a little optimistic. Any power she wanted to exercise back then needed Bill as a conduit. She’ll be unconstrained now, and if the reports of her skulduggery are even half accurate, we should be worried about her commandeering the entire US state apparatus.

So let’s talk Trump. We have exactly the same concerns about him getting the machinery of state, except he’s likely to use it in other ways. I’d expect the real danger of Hillary lies mainly with her political opponents. If Trump is semi-serious about some of his domestic ideas, then we’re going to see a lot of racists enabled, a lot of shitty policy, demonstrations and domestic disturbance. The fading notion that the US is the moral centre of the world is going to disappear.

At the same time, Trump has a much more conciliatory foreign policy position. Both look set to continue the unqualified support for Israel, which means little will change there. Trump’s big policy departure would involve the other world superpowers. He wants warmer relations with them, rather than the increasing sound of sabre-rattling. I’ve read up on his nuclear strategy and it seems confused, if anything else. Any commitment to torture will erode the US’s credibility, just as it did the last time they practiced it.

Finally, I think people need to get real on what the US presently is, and has been. It’s an aggressive imperialist war mongering state armed with an international media there to sugar coat and validate its actions. Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize early on, yet at the end of his Presidency, the US is involved in seven wars, up from two. He broke the mould as the first President _to be reported _to have ordered extra-judicial killings of US citizens. That’s acceptable now. Daily drone strikes hit far off targets with 95% collateral damage, while their operators sit in an Idaho control centre, slowly being driven insane by their actions. Martial law and military equipment on US streets, race wars in places like Ferguson, institutional racism in the police forces. This is a dysfunctional country coming apart at the seams.

Trump and Clinton just represent that filth coming front and centre. The agony of choice, and no choice at all.

[pap]

Pilger and Assange.

YouTube

[pap]

Slavoj Žižek would vote for Trump - Nov. 2016

[TheCholulaKid]

Pap, your agenda seriously fucking hinders your thinking sometimes. I’m no defender of Clinton but…

‘Trump has a much more conciliatory foreign policy position’ and ‘I’ve read up on his nuclear strategy and it seems confused, if anything else.’

What a crock of shit. Trump has no foreign policy - he doesn’t know what he thinks from one day to the next. And I’d rather not have someone at the helm with a confused nuclear strategy.

This article is interesting…many parallels to be drawn seemingly.

Ideas that fed the beast of fascism flourish today

[Intiniki]

I just think he’s using projection a lot. “Oh she’s so corrupt”. He could be talking about himself.

Most people I know are extremely worried about a Trump president.

Armando Iannucci does a very good impression of Trump’s talking style on a recent Richard Herring podcast. Does he put together any coherent sentences?

[pap]

Trump wants to talk with Russia instead of antagonise them. That’s a step forward. He hasn’t said he’s going to bomb Iran.

Have you read his nuclear statements? Don’t go spoffing off on my one word summary. If it’s as important as you reckon it is, you’ll probably want to clarify for yourself.