The Politics Thread

Ultimately I think enough people don't want Clinton and what she represents, that she won't get the Presidency by anything but a slim margin in the event it happens. The challenge Sanders has is to reconcile his domestic and foreign policy on the left/right spectrum, as so much of what he offers in one of those areas is such a turnoff for parts of the electorate.

I'd love to see the reaction if Trump got in, but I think it would stop being funny after about 5 minutes. If he gets the GOP nomination and picks the right deputy then he has an outside chance.

 

Having tried to read his book ( no, I really did, but I couldn't stop laughing!) he is a seriously flawed character, IMO. A complete egomaniac! The thought of him effectively leading the western world is a truly scary one!

 

This, reluctantly, is how I feel. If Sanders gets the nomination I will keep everything crossed for him, I just don't think the American electorate will vote in someone labelled Socialist.

This is interesting. From a distance I don't see this - I see a Liberal President thwarted by a right wing Congress, but I'd be interested to hear why you say this. Free Healthcare, Gun Control are all Obama policies - what makes him to the right of Goldwater?

 

Once. Problem is that was his second win...

 

I just about follow English politics and all they seem to do is promise false dawns, I'm sick of Labour and the Tories, would much rather someone else has a chance to impress and do what they actually proposed but as for US politics I take no notice whatsoever apart from knowing Trump seems like a bit of a nut case, albeit somewhat of a comedic one and so on that basis alone I say vote for him, the world's ****ed already, might as well just let him **** it up even more with a bit of humour.

 

Slavoj Zizek makes an interesting point about uprisings, stating the reason people revolt is because the people had an idealised vision of what the government was supposed to represent, and when that vision failed to materialise that is what angered them. He cites the Arab Spring as an example, but there's certainly an example much closer to home...

Back in 2010, people were hoping that the coalition government meant that the Lib Dems would prevent the Tories from bulldozing through all of their plans to stick it to anyone who doesn't have a double-barreled surname - hopes that were quickly dashed when the Lib Dems reneged on every single one of their election promises and backed the Tories to the hilt. As a result, come the 2015 election the Lib Dems lost 85% of their seats overnight and 2/3 of their voters.

 

He may look and sound amusing, but him as US president would be about as funny as a burning orphanage!

 

I've voted LibDem (or equivalent) my whole life up to 2010. I felt completely betrayed by the party I voted for and incredibly angry that my vote was used as an excuse to justify the coalition, and believe a vast majority of LibDem voters would not have voted in the way they did had they known how their wishes would be hijacked and abused. And don't get me started on the voting system!

The more I think about it the more I believe that we do not live in a democracy at all. Think about it like this. Have you seen one of those adverts for a shampoo or something like it when they put on the screen something like "70 out of 114 people agreed"? Have you then thought that wasn't very many? Well in terms of the current government with a majority of seats, if it were 100 people being asked, 24 of them agreed with the choice of government. And that was about something a bit more important than shampoo.

 

SoS he might look a bit funny but there is nothing in the least funny about Trump frightening is a more appropriate word.

 

Can you imagine a worse double act than Trump and Cameron. If you thought Reagan and Thatcher was bad......

 

I'm quite left-wing on the political spectrum, so in an ideal world, Sanders would be the best option - although I disagree with his views on gun control.

But as someone has said before, he is seen as a 'socialist' and that is not what the American electorate want to hear.

Clinton is very centre-right and I'm not a big fan of what she's said/done in the past - embracing Israel, supporting Bush on Iraq War & Patriot Act, her views on homeland security and WikiLeaks. But if it's a choice between her and Trump, which I most likely think it will be, it has to be Clinton every day of the week.

It's just sad that people have to choose from the lesser of the two evils rather than who actually has the best attributes. It is also a huge shame that, realistically, Sanders won't be elected.

 

I've tended to vote tactically recently but I think your response to the coalition as a Lib Dem is quite typical. But I have to say I don't really understand why. The outcome of the election was a hung parliament. There are only two possible responses to this: have another election (which seems ludicrous to me - it basically says "voters - you go it wrong, try again") or make do with a coalition government. In the latter case it's not unreasonable for the larger party to have the most say. I actually think that a lot of the left wing tactical voters for the Lib Dems fell for a trap set by the Tory press. Everyone was told that the Lib Dems had betrayed them so they went and voted for someone else with the effect that the Tories won most of the seats the Lib Dems held. The electoral system is a travesty but if more Labour votes had voted tactically for the Lib Dems in both the last two elections then there would have been a Lib Dem Labour coalition both times.

 

I don't either, but I'm starting to hope. Republicans have controlled the agenda, perversely, with an anti-elite, anti-establishment message. It's driven most of us crazy, because it actually supports the elite and the establishment, and is supported by them.

Now there's a candidate who has a true anti-elite message. People haven't had the option to really be against the elite in forever. Most voters weren't even aware that option existed. And they really seem to like it. Why shouldn't they? Sanders is in favor of the many against the few. It's just possible the many can understand this--though certain the few will find ways to prevent their interests from being much damaged.

I gave a bit of a flip characterization. Obama has passed a number of pieces of legislation dear to the liberal agenda, especially universal health care. The problem is that the effect of his presidency has been W. by other means. He's carried on his tragic foreign so-called policy unchanged. He's also carried on the looting of the US by the rich, arguably upping the ante. With all due respect, it's not exactly free health care. It's the biggest scam in the history of the world, putting the previous scams by financial and defense interests firmly in the shade. The cost of my five minute skin cancer screening was $1200*. I know, I can't believe it either. Thanks to my health insurance, I was only billed $450. Those numbers translate to $24,000 an hour and $5500 an hour. My legally necessary health insurance, which is skyrocketing despite the fact that I never use it, amounts to a kind of tithe granted to the healthcare industry. You don't have to be a very good business person to make money charging $5500 an hour. Of course, my HMO has muscled its competitors out of the market to make it a local monopoly. Most appalling of all, it's a non-profit, which is legally obligated to provide public service, (a requirement it flouts). There is an argument that Obamacare will have to be followed by a single payer system, simply because the scam as it stands is so obscene. I doubt it. Obama's government has had the central effect of supporting the unprecedented looting of the United States by various rich interests, including big medicine, big education and the financial industry. He's farther right than Goldwater in the sense that there is nothing resembling a principal to be found anywhere in the important policies he supports. He's also to the right in being far friendlier to the rich than Goldwater ever was. He has been opposed by Congress both because they have an irrational hatred of Democrats in general and because W. part 2, which is what Obama is, does not jibe with their preferred vision of a Loony Tunes Cookoo for Cocoa Puffs Waiting for the Rapture Land America.

*(By way of contrast, an hour consultation resulting in a diagnosis of strep throat and mononucleosis and two prescriptions 25 years ago cost me $5. I had a cyst removed for a total of $90 at around the same time. Last year, I had God knows how much dental work, entailing maybe 15 visits, done for $4000--a very reasonable sum, all things considered, maybe $100 - $200/hour).

I will say in defense of Obama that I'm certainly glad to have my country represented by someone who is so intelligent, well-spoken and presentable. He makes a fine figurehead. I just wish he hadn't sold his soul.

Obama was elected on the slogan of "Change we can believe in." He has given us 8 years of continuity from the worst president in our history. Bit disappointing.

 

If Sanders can actually beat Clinton, somehow, then I think he'd become President.
Mainly because whoever wins from the other side will be an absolute fruitcake who's had the **** kicked out of him by his own party.

I really like Sanders, though I should probably do a little more research before saying too much more.
He seems sensible, committed and genuine.

 

If there's any candidate who is going to suffer from Obama's record, surely it's going to be his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. If you think there's dissatisfaction with Obama from the right in America, there is just as much coming from the left, who feel betrayed in that they thought they'd elected a progressive, but ended up with a moderate. Hillary Clinton would be nothing but an extension of that regime, disliked by both sides.

You're right there is stigma around the term 'socialist' in America (only since the Cold War when it has been idiotically mistaken for Communism) - however, much of that stigma is perpetuated by the media 'establishment', on both sides, who are essentially self-preservatory and afraid of what a proper tax regime will do to their profits. I think we will see in this election that those traditional forms of media - TV and newspapers - will have much less influence than they are accustomed with the rise of the internet, social-media, and the dominance of the young left on those platforms.

The picture we get over here is the picture projected by their highly partisan, self-serving, preserve the status-quo media, and I don't think it's a true reflection of what is happening behind the scenes in terms of popular political opinion. I admit it's an uphill battle for Sanders, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there's something happening in the states much like the unexpected and very sudden rise of the independence movement in Scotland.

 

That's fair comment. Shame the electorial system needs tactical voting (yes I'm very much in favour of PR, yawn).

Good discussion on this thread!

 

My feeling is that Clinton will win the primaries. As far as the republicans go, Cruz is a Tea party candidate, Trump is an egotistical maniac, both are potentially dangerous - especially Trump!

Personally, I couldn't give a toss who is elected president, so long as it's not Trump!

 

I do find the schedule for these primaries and caucuses absolutely ludicrous. The fact that the states stagger their votes over a number of weeks means that the results of previous elections have a stupendous impact on how others vote. Also there are far more candidates running in the first few states, meaning that any of the candidates advocating wide-spread, universally popular policies split the vote, and more extreme candidates like Trump benefit. It's completely anti-democratic. Why can't they all be held in one day? I have sneaking suspicion that it's so the media can stretch the process out and make maximum profits from prime-time commercials.

 

For sure. It's the American way!

 

The arcane, complex and seemingly inexplicable process works to preserve our system, which is a plutocracy with a certain degree of democratic influence. The idea is to make it very difficult for anyone without a lot of financial support to stay the course, which ensures that only very rich-friendly candidates are likely to win. It will be very difficult for Sanders down the road, when so much will depend on having a good infrastructure in place in five states at the same time.

It’s just possible, and I’m beginning to hope. After all, the US has had in its history two presidents who were willing to at least try to do something about issues of economic fairness (both Roosevelts, in very different styles). There does come a point when people decide they’re fed up, and that time does feel long overdue.

To tell you the truth, I don’t think most people in the US have any idea what a socialist is these days.

I find Cruz every bit as appalling as Trump, incidentally, maybe more so. If Trump is Mussolini as clown, Cruz is Joe McCarthy with religion. He looks like the butler in a thirties horror film and spews poison.