American Politics the 2016 edition

micky wrote: here is the McMatrix of political predictions                  Trump                Cruz                     Rubio Clinton        Clinton        Clinton landslide       tight Clinton Sanders      Trump             Sanders            Rubio landslide as most do think...  I think Rubio is the most electable thus most dangerous.. though exposed for an unexperienced political shrill.. it was done early. He has time to be better coached up by his handlers and puppeteers for a general election.

So far in the polls I've seen, Sanders wins against all GOP candidates by a wider margin than Clinton. Of course, those kinds of polls are not very useful at this stage, but still.

Icarium wrote: next i will make a thread about Norwegian politics :D

pfffff... sounds like a yawn fest.   I'll give you all credit enough to not have the same sh*t house crazy candidates and wacky irrational voters that support them there that we have here. Politics isn't simply politics here.. it is the 3rd wheel of all things entertainment.

zappaholic wrote: lazland wrote: What is worse than a loony such as Trump in power? A theocrat.

but Trump is a theocrat; he believes in the God Mammon

lazland wrote: BaldJean wrote: lazland wrote: BaldJean wrote: mark also that it is by far not only the "nice liberal ones" that have failed these people. I sincerely doubt anyone would coin George W. Bush a "nice liberal", but he has failed these people just the same I said the metropolitan liberal establishment, not liberal in terms of political factions. There is a difference, and Bush was as establishment as you can get, supported, as he was, by big corporations and the like. Also, by the way, I didn't equate uneducated with stupid. Indeed, the anti establishment waves coming over the working class indigenous populations is, if anything, an entirely rational and sensible thrust against how they are being treated. you said "For these people, nice liberal governments have been an utter disaster", and I would not call the Bush government that. no-one who releases anything like the patriot act (which should better be called "unpatriot act" since it is against everything the USA is supposed to stand for; it reminds me of the McCarthy era) can be called liberal, in whatever sense of the word Jean, I will make one more attempt to explain myself. You are referring to Bush, correctly, as a Conservative politician. Clinton, by contrast, was a Liberal politician. Note the capital letters. They describe their factional politics. What unites them? They are both part of the metropolitan liberal establishment. It was that I meant by nice liberal governments. I used the lower case very deliberately, and I believe that most people who have even a passing interest in societal politics will understand the very distinct difference between the lower and upper case. For example, although both would try to persuade the populace that they were, in their Liberal and Conservative politics, "radical", and changed society indubitably for the better, they were not, and did not. Neither changed the overall consensus of big business and rich, powerful, elites governing and shaping us one jot. Why? Well, because they were both a product of said establishment, as is, of course, Hilary. In this country, swap Clinton and Bush for Blair and Cameron/Osbourne. Would Trump be any better? Nope. Trump is a chancer who sees his chance to tap into that zeitgeist. Worse, he appears to be a genuine demogogue. However, the masses who appear to be flocking to his standard represent a very real, and growing, disenchantment with the established order. One day, that movement will win power in a mature democracy, and then we will see politics become rather interesting again.

I fully understood you; I just don't agree with your terminology

I think this sums it all: http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/

hahahha... I like that.  I am going to make a label for my shirt pocket at the next corporate meeting..

goodby Michael.. hello temporarily embarrassed millionaire

lazland wrote: BaldJean wrote: mark also that it is by far not only the "nice liberal ones" that have failed these people. I sincerely doubt anyone would coin George W. Bush a "nice liberal", but he has failed these people just the same I said the metropolitan liberal establishment, not liberal in terms of political factions. There is a difference, and Bush was as establishment as you can get, supported, as he was, by big corporations and the like. Also, by the way, I didn't equate uneducated with stupid. Indeed, the anti establishment waves coming over the working class indigenous populations is, if anything, an entirely rational and sensible thrust against how they are being treated.

you said "For these people, nice liberal governments have been an utter disaster", and I would not call the Bush government that. no-one who releases anything like the patriot act (which should better be called "unpatriot act" since it is against everything the USA is supposed to stand for; it reminds me of the McCarthy era) can be called liberal, in whatever sense of the word


Edited by BaldJean - February 21 2016 at 12:30

^ My late brother, a  liberal democrat, used to ask me that same question all the time. Why do these white low wage earners (and many middle class people) vote for these rich Republicans who could care less for them? Why do they vote against their best interests when it's the Dems who have probably helped them far more over the years?  Never had a good  answer for him.

Raff wrote: micky wrote: no doubt darling.. but I think Steve hit that particular nail directly on the head in his post prior to yours. Agreed. However, many of those people are also those who in the past repeatedly voted for the people Steve listed, and fell for bunk such as the American dream.

nah.. I don't think anyone falls for that crap. It's just something we tell ourselves to make us feel superior but no one really believes that.  During Reagan we started the slide and it continues today into a country of haves.. and have nots. The destruction of the middle class has in all honesty been the one aspect of society that worrys me the most... yet seems completely unimporant to most.

Again.. someone remind me.  Time to enlist our right wing friends on the forum.. we know you are out there. Don't be shy...

so why on earth do people, the core GOP voter, who are generally uneducated low wage earners support these jokers.  I heard a un PC but all too true comparison to 'southern Wal-Mart worker voting GOP makes as much sense as a member of a certain religion hailing a certain historical figure.

It makes no sense... and thus the GOP was empowered to wreck the middle class. Enriching their real support big business.. all while getting the votes of those hurt most by it.

my god.. say what you will about the GOP.  But man oh man are there some smart devious folk over there. How they pulled off that one.. making people care more about if two men are married than if they can move out of their frickin mobile homes into ... you know.. real houses and actually earn a good living instead of seeing what I read about yesterday. A company loses millions... workers pay the price..  thousands laid off.. the CEO?  Millions of dollars in bonus's.  That is the GOP economic model.. and their core voters lap it up...

whatever...