Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
many people call Trump a clown but I think that's just an act he puts on, I think he's a lot more savvy than people give him credit for, at least he's not one of the political elite like Hillary, I think America needs to get away from all these political family dynasty's and elect someone new.
While I agree with you on this, Trump just isn't the right someone new. In this election it's the devil we know vs. the devil we don't know.
Why does the US get such horrible political leaders? It just seems like the system there is designed to filter out promising candidates.
It wasn't originally designed to do that but that's what it's become. At the federal level we don't have a direct popular vote but this stupid, outdated delegate and electoral college system which at times can go against the popular vote. There was one state, I think New Hampshire that Bernie Sanders won but the super delegates gave their support and thus the victory of that state to Hillary Clinton. Only at the state level are elections truly democratic.
I'm doing this the lazy way so forgive my generic quotes.
I think this may have to do with them latching on to Bill Clinton way they can. For many minorities, Bill was by far their favorite president since Kennedy. There is a belief among minorities as well as many whites that support Hillary that he will be behind her, guiding her and that the country may return to a 1990's-like prosperous period. This last point I think is the real reason she has the support she does.
So she's kinda thriving off of the presence of Bill? I didn't expect his presence to play such a positive outcome.
[quote=Gentoo;43969538]I think the belief of the US returning to an isolationist type policy is a bunch of wishful thinking. That simply is not going to happen regardless what anyone thinks.
Yeah again, for this to happen would mean the US becoming more isolationist. The truth is, the US deep down does not trust Europe completely with it's own stability. I said that Americans never forget. From an American perspective, Europe's peace and prosperity is only 70 years of the last 1000 or more of it's history. The whole idea of the amount invested being proportionate to population isn't going to fly in the US for obvious reasons.
Mine is wishful thinking of course but from the articles i have read, Trump doesn't seem to be as interventionist as Clinton, something which matters to European countries whose stability was actually undermined by the American intervention in the Middle East and North Africa to protect its national interests. In fact, i think the reason for why the USA will never be isolationist is because of his corporations and the influence they have on national politics and not because of the common people who seem to have shown a desire to become more isolationist (that can be seen in both the Sanders and Trump camp from what i have read and seen in these last couple months) and who matter little
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
While I agree the electoral system is terribly outdated, it saved us from the disaster that would have been Ross Perot.
What kind of candidate was Ross Perot and why was he so much of a problem? Anyway, as i said your political system and the little amount of time Green/Libertarian seem to have in the medias is probably what stopped them from emerging
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
It wasn't originally designed to do that but that's what it's become. At the federal level we don't have a direct popular vote but this stupid, outdated delegate and electoral college system which at times can go against the popular vote. There was one state, I think New Hampshire that Bernie Sanders won but the super delegates gave their support and thus the victory of that state to Hillary Clinton. Only at the state level are elections truly democratic.
I think Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote in the 2000 elections but didn't win the election because of that electoral system of yours. I think the electoral system on the whole should really be reformed (starting from the primaries which see different systems being enforced in basically each state) but i guess both sides won't be willing to as it doesn't give the chance for a third or fourth party to emerge and challenge them
[quote=improb;43975352]So she's kinda thriving off of the presence of Bill? I didn't expect his presence to play such a positive outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
I think the belief of the US returning to an isolationist type policy is a bunch of wishful thinking. That simply is not going to happen regardless what anyone thinks.
Yeah again, for this to happen would mean the US becoming more isolationist. The truth is, the US deep down does not trust Europe completely with it's own stability. I said that Americans never forget. From an American perspective, Europe's peace and prosperity is only 70 years of the last 1000 or more of it's history. The whole idea of the amount invested being proportionate to population isn't going to fly in the US for obvious reasons.
Mine is wishful thinking of course but from the articles i have read, Trump doesn't seem to be as interventionist as Clinton, something which matters to European countries whose stability was actually undermined by the American intervention in the Middle East and North Africa to protect its national interests. In fact, i think the reason for why the USA will never be isolationist is because of his corporations and the influence they have on national politics and not because of the common people who seem to have shown a desire to become more isolationist (that can be seen in both the Sanders and Trump camp from what i have read and seen in these last couple months) and who matter little
What kind of candidate was Ross Perot and why was he so much of a problem? Anyway, as i said your political system and the little amount of time Green/Libertarian seem to have in the medias is probably what stopped them from emerging
I think Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote in the 2000 elections but didn't win the election because of that electoral system of yours. I think the electoral system on the whole should really be reformed (starting from the primaries which see different systems being enforced in basically each state) but i guess both sides won't be willing to as it doesn't give the chance for a third or fourth party to emerge and challenge them
Trump has vowed to defeat ISIS, which means the bases we have in Europe aren't going anywhere. The US and UK (along with Canada) have such a strong and close military relationship with one another that at times, they almost function as one. The bases in Italy are strategic as that gets us easily into the Mediterranean, eastern Europe and the Middle East. I'd get used to them if I were you at least for the foreseeable future.
I agree with you if I'm understanding correctly that the average American wouldn't mind, maybe not so much as isolationist approach but at least a more hands off approach to the world.
Perot wasn't so much of a problem, he just wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree so to speak and had no business running for president. He did start his own party that, although small, continues to this day.
Al Gore did win the popular vote in 2000. It was that election which started the US down the path of marked political polarization. This polarization has always been there dating back to the civil war but the ending of the cold war which united Americans and the 2000 election which lit a fire under the differences in this country helped create a situation we have today where we have political dynasties and political outsiders who cater pretty much exclusively to their base which is why we now have a Trump vs Hillary situation.
Trump has vowed to defeat ISIS, which means the bases we have in Europe aren't going anywhere. The US and UK (along with Canada) have such a strong and close military relationship with one another that at times, they almost function as one. The bases in Italy are strategic as that gets us easily into the Mediterranean, eastern Europe and the Middle East. I'd get used to them if I were you at least for the foreseeable future.
I agree with you if I'm understanding correctly that the average American wouldn't mind, maybe not so much as isolationist approach but at least a more hands off approach to the world.
Perot wasn't so much of a problem, he just wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree so to speak and had no business running for president. He did start his own party that, although small, continues to this day.
Al Gore did win the popular vote in 2000. It was that election which started the US down the path of marked political polarization. This polarization has always been there dating back to the civil war but the ending of the cold war which united Americans and the 2000 election which lit a fire under the differences in this country helped create a situation we have today where we have political dynasties and political outsiders who cater pretty much exclusively to their base which is why we now have a Trump vs Hillary situation.
I know but that's sad that seventy years after World War Two have passed but we are still paying for it hosting foreign bases (they may be under the name of NATO but they are all but American bases in the end) in our own country.
Do you think there's any way to end this excessive polarization which has led you to have a race between a political dynasty and a populist political outsider?
I know but that's sad that seventy years after World War Two have passed but we are still paying for it hosting foreign bases (they may be under the name of NATO but they are all but American bases in the end) in our own country.
I think some are actually purely American bases, at least in the UK. Aviano in Italy is called a NATO base but you're right, for all intents and purposes, it's pretty much an American base,
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb
Do you think there's any way to end this excessive polarization which has led you to have a race between a political dynasty and a populist political outsider?
Americans are really only united when there is a common external enemy. It's how the union was born to begin with. Thirteen separate colonies joined forces to defeat a common enemy, in that case, the British. After the Mexican-American War, there were no real outside threats so Americans found differences with one another and a bloody civil war ensued. Reunifying the country took priority for a while, then there were the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam and the Cold War all of which helped to unite Americans. In the decade after the Cold War ended, there was no real external threat. The so called war on terrorism didn't serve the same purpose as terrorism isn't an enemy but a tactic. So, in my personal opinion, the union of states (synonymous with country in this context) has always been out of necessity rather than outright desire so without another genuine outside threat to the USA, I don't see more unification happening. I predict we will have more theme park attraction type elections in the future until some sort of political and social change happens.
Why does the US get such horrible political leaders? It just seems like the system there is designed to filter out promising candidates.
Hillary sounds great to me. Obama has been pretty good, too. Bill Clinton was a great president. Bush I wasn't horrible. Bush II, yeah, was pretty bad.
What country has perfect leaders? Canada just had that Harper idiot, the new PM seems most famous for his good looks and taking his shirt off, and your largest city just had Rob Ford as mayor, who makes even Trump look dignified.
Hillary sounds great to me. Obama has been pretty good, too. Bill Clinton was a great president. Bush I wasn't horrible. Bush II, yeah, was pretty bad.
What country has perfect leaders? Canada just had that Harper idiot, the new PM seems most famous for his good looks and taking his shirt off, and your largest city just had Rob Ford as mayor, who makes even Trump look dignified.
Hillary seems like a Dem apparatchik, an empty suit.
Hillary sounds great to me. Obama has been pretty good, too. Bill Clinton was a great president. Bush I wasn't horrible. Bush II, yeah, was pretty bad.
What country has perfect leaders? Canada just had that Harper idiot, the new PM seems most famous for his good looks and taking his shirt off, and your largest city just had Rob Ford as mayor, who makes even Trump look dignified.
Hillary is the better of two evils to me. I completely agree with everything else you said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
