Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 343

Thread: American Politics

  1. #261
    Apprentice
    Joined
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    30
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Midwest and Northeast. Sounds about right SkStu.

    I've been here for a decade, mainly on the West coast...which also sounds about right!

  2. Thanks From:


  3. #262
    First Team
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    53
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    659
    Thanked in
    422 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fly View Post
    I'd like to know how many of the posters actually live, or have lived, in America?
    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    I’ve lived and worked there (J1 and another job assignment) but too long ago and not long enough to really count. I do have close family and friends scattered throughout the Midwest and Northeast that I interact with quite regularly.
    Similar to Stu, J1 in '97, lived in Canada from '99-'01 and since 2009

  4. #263
    Capped Player
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    17,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,800
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,800
    Thanked in
    2,157 Posts
    J1 (NY / Long Island) in 1988 - I flew over the day after the Dutch game in Gelsenkirchen. Another summer in 1989 (Boston this time). Multiple visits since including WC 1994, and I worked for a bank HQ'd in Charlotte, NC, which is the furthest west of I95 I've been.

  5. #264
    The Cheeto God Real ale Madrid's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,690
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    410
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,379
    Thanked in
    676 Posts
    I opened the thread referencing Rutger Bregman - the Dutch historian / author / journalist. He was asked who he would vote for if he was an american - I found his analysis spot on:

    A couple of people have asked me who I would vote for in the Democratic primaries, if I could. Now obviously, I’m not an American citizen. But the US presidency is a rather powerful institution, so I think I’m allowed to have an opinion!
    Here’s who I would vote for: Bernie Sanders.
    Yes, I think other candidates – like Warren or Yang – are really good as well. I don’t like Warren's backpedaling on Medicare-for-all though, and even though I *love* Andrew Yang’s basic income advocacy, I don’t understand why he’s against a wealth tax for the super-rich
    Sanders, meanwhile, diagnoses the core sickness of the United States. Inequality.
    We all know the crazy statistics. The working class today pays higher tax rates than the billionaire class, the top 0.1% owns about as much as the bottom 90%. - etc.
    A democracy cannot survive this way. Such radical inequality is a poison that destroys the bonds between people.
    And maybe this is my European perspective, but Sanders’ ideals and proposals seem totally common sense to me.
    To most people in developed countries – even for conservatives – it's bewildering that policies like Medicare-for-all are seen as 'radical' or 'socialist' in the US. Currently, the US has the most expensive health care system in the world, and life expectancy is going *down*
    A system like the French or the Germans currently have would save millions of lives and billions of dollars.
    Moreover, I don’t see Sanders as a revolutionary socialist. He’s an old-fashioned social-democrat.
    Social democracy means universal health care, high-quality public education, much higher taxes on the rich, parental leave, child care, or in short: policies that are hugely popular and work really well in the countries that tried them
    One of the things I love most about Bernie Sanders is his earnestness. With him it’s always about the issues, because he knows what’s at stake. Unlike many journalists, politics is not a game to him. He's the opposite of cynicism.
    To be clear, I don’t think anyone in the world should have as much power as the US president. But if we must have someone in that office, then let it be an authentically good person. I think that's what Bernie Sanders is.
    Finally, I believe he’ll beat Trump.
    https://twitter.com/abc/status/1220351246088929280

    If a dog weighs under 50 lbs it's a cat, and cats are useless.

  6. Thanks From:


  7. #265
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,609
    Thanked in
    1,922 Posts
    The thing, i think, about Sanders and Warren is that no matter how we see it as Euros, their policies are seen as extreme in the USA and their platform as presented has not got a hope of getting through Congress. That is a real issue. They don't demonstrate the ability to find a way towards the middle in their platform or rhetoric - which they really would have to do to get anything done.

    Despite the loud voices on both sides that get far too much attention (and warps our perception of reality), most of America is fairly moderate (neither far left or far right). While Sanders, i believe, could get the backing of most of the democratic base at about 25%-30% with the large field currently in the race, I do not think that he has the backing of the Democratic party. They are going to keep the field fairly large as long as possible into the primaries and do as much damage to Bernie as possible along the way. It would actually be good fun if he ran in the general as an independent but suicide for the Dems and he'd never do that. With Sanders or Warren as nominee, the democrats would be very likely to hemorrhage some votes from their own moderates and most votes from independents. Despite the desire of many on the democrat side to get rid of Trump at any cost, I do think a good chunk of the Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar vote would stay at home on election night because, to these folks, the economy does matter a lot. Whereas if one of those three was the nominee, the Sanders/Warren block would likely vote them (as long as there was no dirty tricks like in 2016). If i was to pick someone from the Democratic race that i could vote for it would be Yang or Gabbard but i'm mental.

  8. #266
    Capped Player
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    17,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,800
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,800
    Thanked in
    2,157 Posts
    I also thing it's amazing how Sanders is seen as a dangerous borderline communist. From what I can tell he's a northern European style social democrat. However my instinct is that he'll be an easy target to beat, too easy to label a radical socialist. I think he's bit stubborn in that regard, the way he describes himself, like Corbyn. Whereas on everything else I see him as very different to Corbyn. I think he genuinely gets things vis a vis the US's institutional protection of money and privilege. He understands Wall Street and I think he has a more nuanced understanding of macro economics etc. Corbyn was nothing but an immature student who hadn't grown up. Banks are bad, bankers are bad, wealth is bad, nationalise everything. I'm not saying he'd be my preferred candidate - I'd run a mile from Biden - but in Europe he'd be pretty normal. The UK could do with an articulate and credible candidate / party arguing well from Sanders' perspective.

  9. #267
    First Team
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    53
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    659
    Thanked in
    422 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    It would actually be good fun if he ran in the general as an independent but suicide for the Dems and he'd never do that. With Sanders or Warren as nominee, the democrats would be very likely to hemorrhage some votes from their own moderates and most votes from independents.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuttgart88 View Post
    I also thing it's amazing how Sanders is seen as a dangerous borderline communist. From what I can tell he's a northern European style social democrat. However my instinct is that he'll be an easy target to beat, too easy to label a radical socialist.
    On the point of Sanders' elect-ability, in head-to-head polls against Trump in 2016, Sanders was ahead in all but one out of 27, often with double-figure leads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ducted_in_2016 - this time around in 100 head-to-heads so far, Sanders has trailed in 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...Bernie_Sanders

  10. Thanks From:


  11. #268
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,609
    Thanked in
    1,922 Posts
    I think some of the information in here will be of interest given the recent conversation here. A host of issues that we have discussed. A synopsis:

    1) satisfaction with race relations advanced 14 points, from 22% at 01/2017 to 36% 01/2020.

    2) satisfaction with position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation jumped 9 points, from 37% 01/2017 to 46% 01/2020.

    3) satisfaction with the economy up 22 points since he took office.

    4) average satisfaction across all issues is at a 15 year high.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/284033/...ved-mixed.aspx

    As Trump enters his re-election year, Americans are more positive on eight key issues than they were just before he took office in January 2017.

    Gallup records double-digit increases in public satisfaction with the nation's economy, security from terrorism, military strength and the state of race relations.

    Satisfaction is also up by between six and nine points on crime, the position of blacks and other racial minorities, the distribution of income and wealth, and the opportunity for a person to get ahead through hard work.

    Over the same period, Americans have grown slightly less satisfied on three issues: abortion (down 7 points), the level of immigration (-6) and the environment (-6).
    Also, interesting article linked below about his support among blacks at the moment being at 34% but that it drops into to the 12%, 14% & 17% against Biden, Sanders and Warren respectively. And all still higher than the 6% he received in 2016.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-seal-2020-win

    Those levels are the best for a GOP president or presidential candidate since 1968.
    Maybe he’s not a white supremacist after all lads?

  12. #269
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,129
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,566
    Thanked in
    855 Posts
    Interesting to see what impact the Bolton book excerpts will have on Republican position not to call witnesses.

    At least a couple (Romney and Collins) have wavered a bit, but none have explicitly supported the idea.

    There must be a huge amount of straw polling going on to see where public opinion is on this.

  13. Thanks From:


  14. #270
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,129
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,566
    Thanked in
    855 Posts
    Lamar Alexander, one of the moderate Republicans that might have voted for witnesses has said he will not do so, which means the balance is now going to be 50:50, which would see the motion fail.

    His reasoning seems skewed, to say the least:
    "There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offence."

    ...

    "The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday."
    What exactly is he saying has been 'proven'? That Trump withheld the aid for political favours? But that it doesn't matter because it's not impeachable anyway?

    That's how I interpret it, but if that's the case, why spend so long denying it happened in the first place.
    Last edited by osarusan; 31/01/2020 at 8:18 AM.

  15. #271
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,609
    Thanked in
    1,922 Posts
    It is an interesting one. That is what he is saying Osarusan. Basically one of the lines of defence put forward by Trumps team - a kind of "even if" argument. "Deny deny deny any wrongdoing but even if he did, it is not impeachable anyway". I think it was Dershowitz who made that argument on Monday.

    Alexander is retiring and wont run for reelection later this year so he has absolutely nothing to lose and Tennessee is a safe red state so little political capital for the party to lose in the 2020 Senate election race there. Murkowski and Collins are also interesting as they are in what would be considered purple states so there is a lot of politicking involved in whatever they decide. Romney just hates Trump . On the flip side, there are rumours that a number (1 or 2) Democrats plan to vote against removal (essentially finding Trump not guilty) for essentially the same political reasons. Feinstein was one name mentioned. The vote against more witnesses probably will give them cover to vote along party lines though. Maybe? Who knows.

    Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...t-trump-108130

    Re Feinstein, I didn’t see the clarification: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.usat...amp/4602585002
    Last edited by SkStu; 31/01/2020 at 11:39 AM.

  16. #272
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,129
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,566
    Thanked in
    855 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    It is an interesting one. That is what he is saying Osarusan. Basically one of the lines of defence put forward by Trumps team - a kind of "even if" argument. "Deny deny deny any wrongdoing but even if he did, it is not impeachable anyway". I think it was Dershowitz who made that argument on Monday.
    I think they covered all bases with the defense. "He didn't do it, but if he did, it's not an issue." I'm surprised Alexander hasn't been pressed on what exactly he believes has been proven.

    Vote on the way soon, Romney and Collins may vote with the Democrats, but that won't be enough, even if all Democrats keep the faith.

    This was always likely to be the outcome, so I never understood what the Democrats were aiming for with this whole thing. Yes, it brings good headlines in the Congress, but it was always going to end like this, and will be portrayed as a win, and an acquittal, a statement of innocence, for Trump. Whatever about the last two, there's no doubt it's a win for him.

  17. #273
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,129
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,566
    Thanked in
    855 Posts
    51-49 in favour of not calling witnesses, which paves the way to Trump being acquitted.

  18. #274
    First Team The Fly's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,264
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    320
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,024
    Thanked in
    547 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    51-49 in favour of not calling witnesses, which paves the way to Trump being acquitted.
    That was always gonna happen.

  19. #275
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,129
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,566
    Thanked in
    855 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fly View Post
    That was always gonna happen.
    Yeah, and so obviously going to happen that you wonder what the Democrats have planned for after the acquittal...how they try and spin it then.

  20. #276
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,609
    Thanked in
    1,922 Posts
    I mentioned this quite a few posts ago about the DNCs approach to Sanders. They screwed him in 2016 and they’ll screw him again. Hillary making comments about running again. The Democratic Party is an absolute shambles. Cutting Sanders off at the knees like this would be suicide and would make it even easier than it already seems to be for Trump to be elected in 2020.

    Do you guys really think that this bunch is any less morally bankrupt than the Republican Party?

    https://www.politico.com/amp/news/20...mpression=true

    It will be interesting to see if the rule changes by the Dems will cover the issue of puns at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    Yeah, and so obviously going to happen that you wonder what the Democrats have planned for after the acquittal...how they try and spin it then.
    I think they’ve already got their key messages on this. “It’s not a legitimate acquittal if there weren’t witnesses called, black mark against this acquittal, black mark against the presidents name etc etc.”

    I heard Chuck Schumer make those points yesterday already. They’re happy with the smear job. It’s been a tactic of theirs for a long time.

    Hopefully they get on with their business of selecting a candidate and implementing legislation in the house and all these failed and unfounded attempts to reverse the results of 2016 will take a backseat.
    Last edited by SkStu; 01/02/2020 at 2:48 PM.

  21. #277
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,378
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,129
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,566
    Thanked in
    855 Posts
    Crazy stuff from Rubio:

    "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

    Here's a link - just one crazy comment after another, including his mention of Putin.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...uld-be-removed
    Last edited by osarusan; 01/02/2020 at 5:15 PM.

  22. #278
    Seasoned Pro peadar1987's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,560
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    754
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    799
    Thanked in
    471 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    Crazy stuff from Rubio:

    "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

    Here's a link - just one crazy comment after another, including his mention of Putin.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...uld-be-removed
    Well... Definitely something to be said for not impeaching. If Trump is removed from office, Mike Pence takes over. I reckon the fact that Trump is a moron has meant that he hasn't been able to do as much damage as otherwise. I think Pence is a horrible man, and shrewd enough to actually push through some really harmful things.

  23. #279
    Director dahamsta's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    The Internet
    Posts
    13,562
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    335
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    674
    Thanked in
    424 Posts
    Pence is just as guilty as Trump on this specific impeachable offence though, the evidence is there that he knew too.

  24. #280
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,775
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,609
    Thanked in
    1,922 Posts
    The DNC really got the excitement and momentum behind them on their opening night in Iowa yesterday... lulz.

    Turnout also far lower than anticipated.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...turnout-110674

    “It’s an enthusiasm gap,” said Michael Ceraso, who worked for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign and was Pete Buttigieg’s New Hampshire director before leaving the campaign last year.

    Since the start of the campaign, a critical part of the candidates’ electability-based appeals had been a promise that they were uniquely suited to rouse an unreliable electorate in the fall.

    The lesson from Monday, Ceraso said, is that “None of these candidates right now are inspiring what they’re claiming they’re inspiring.”

    ...

    And it wasn’t just the turnout totals that were worrisome for Democrats. It was the makeup of the electorate.

    Entrance polls showed first-time caucus-goers down this year, to about one-third of all caucus-goers. That fell lower not only than 2008, when nearly 60 percent of caucus-goers were first-time participants, but also 2016.

    It was a deflating acknowledgment for a party that is desperate to register and turn out first-time voters in the fall.

    If they could do it any year, this would seem to be it. Turnout had surged in the 2018 midterm elections, fueling a strong year for Democrats. And party officials believed that if they could maintain that momentum in 2020, they could not only defeat Trump, but make additional gains in Congress and in the nation’s state houses.

    In Iowa, the conditions for high turnout were especially ripe. Not only were Democrats anxious about Trump, but the state’s early date on the primary calendar meant a large number of candidates were still in the hunt — many of them with their own aggressive turnout operations in the state. Party officials expanded the number of caucus sites in some counties and booked larger rooms.
    Last edited by SkStu; 04/02/2020 at 9:24 PM.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Politics in football?
    By Dassa in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19/05/2006, 5:39 PM
  2. Politics Test?
    By Poor Student in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05/02/2006, 12:55 PM
  3. eL politics
    By @ndy in forum Cork City
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 01/07/2003, 2:59 PM
  4. More Politics (FAO: Conor)
    By Macy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29/05/2003, 11:02 AM
  5. Politics, Politics
    By Shed End John in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05/12/2002, 3:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •