Match Day Thread Trump v Clinton

Irrelevant. Doesn't matter in the American system.

 

I don't know how he will fare as President. Although I think it's unlikely, if he does something radical or unprecedented like introducing government-funded universal healthcare a lot of liberals might view him more favourably. Plus, his economic reforms could be hit or miss but if there's a significant rise in growth, productivity and general living standards, he'd become more popular with liberals and progressives. Liberals or moderates tend to be easily led and very flimsy with their principles, as evidenced by the Lib Dems joining the Tories in 2010; they can go from being centre to centre-left or centre-right very easily depending on the situation. What he does in his first six months to a year in office will be crucial.

 

Domestic policy he followed FDR's footsteps and was a New Dealer. On foreign policy he made some massive mistakes like the Bay of Pigs invasion.

 

Not sure if it's been stated but Trump had been a Democrat his whole life, on top of which I've seen a video of him stating that if he ever ran for President he'd run as a Republican, because he could make those voters believe anything . . . I've come full circle on this one, I'm quite glad he got in.

 

He comes from a family of ****s, dodgy as ****.

 

I know.

If you read what I was replying to it was asserted that a majority of people voted for Trump. Apparently not.

 

Link or Source!

 

whatever he claims to be worth, he has no ethics and has constantly cheated people who have worked for him. he's going to be very busy defending himself in legal cases for most of the next four years and may find it difficult to run the country from a much-deserved prison cell.

 

or in the uk system.

 

Exactly what I was just about to post. Do people even know how we vote over here? It's not number of votes, it's number of seats.

And the amount of times I've heard seemingly intelligent people say something along the lines of "I dont know who to vote for - Cameron or Milliband?". Unless you live in their constituency you're not voting for them, you ****ing twat. Similarly, the amount of people who have said of May "we've now got a Prime Minister that we didn't elect". WE KNOW, that's not how the system works here. You don't elect a ****ing PM, you elect your local MP and the party with the most seats chooses its PM. They can change the PM every ****ing week if they want.

If you don't know what you're voting for, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

My local MP is Labour and she's not a bad MP but I always vote Conservative as I don't want the Labour Party running the country and I prefer Conservative Party policies. I suppose you could say my vote is wasted. But it's the thought that counts.

 

That may be true, but it really shouldn't be. It's a big problem with our political system IMO.

 

Once the people voted against the alternative vote there was no chance to improve the system.

 

Pretty much the same as Clinton then?

 

Or, as in Hull and other places, they keep voting in useless prats because their dad, grandad and great grandad did.

I think most people should know who their local MP is, at least in constituencies with over 50% voting as they have voted for him or her or seen his or her name on a ballot paper. Unless they have the memory of a goldfish.

 

The elections over and this thread has descended into local and U.K. politics, it's probably about time the mods think about locking it.

 

Which is why you won't get PR. UKIP got one MP, under PR they would have had 3 times as many as the SNP and about 40 of the seats Labour got. The Greens would have had more seats than the SNP.
As the referendum showed, those that consider themselves intellectually superior don't like it when votes reflect what people want when it differs from what they think they should have.