US presidential elections

First topic message reminder :

Morning all,

So after the win in Iowa for Ted Cruz last night where do we see this going?

I'm thinking Clinton v Rubio. Lots of twists and turns still to come though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trump did what he had to do and bring up Bill Clinton....Always amusing to hear Hillary's constant misogynistic insults.... when her husband is the king of the misogynists.......Trump certainly did better last night than in the first debate......Though that isn't saying much !!.

Master stroke bringing the four ladies that Bill Clinton is known to have abused to the debate......Bill Clinton was the biggest loser last night......

Trump can't win....won't win.... but what should have been an easy Clinton debate victory was turned into a draw and that will be at least some consolation after a horrific week for him....

However he isn't fit to be President.....She isn't either but she is the worst of two evils..

The USA deserves better..

What beats me is why candidates devote SO MUCH time and energy to dirt-digging and mudslinging, instead of talking about policies and what they intend to do to make peoples' lives better.

I know we indulge in a bit of character assassination over here...but nowhere to the same degree. Yank voters seem to lap it up, but I don't think that sort of behaviour would go down very well over here. Its more like a bleedin' soap opera than politics.

SecretFly wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

The main reason is I believe the average British voter, being a lot more sceptical and a lot less susceptible to gimmicks and slogans, wouldn't get suckered in by a repulsive idiot like Trump. I don't think it would ever get to the stage where he could even be considered as a serious candidate.

Hmmmm.  Tony (super-intelligent?) Blair that got into a cosy bed with a guy (J. W. Bush) that was a few notches down on even Trump's level of intelligence?  He got suckered good.  And wasn't Blair's Reign all about media controlled Gummicks and Slogans?

Well we have to maintain our "special relationship" with the U.S so we can reign them in if they ever decide to do anything really dumb.

Blair's landslide win happened against a backdrop where the Tory party was almost drowning in a cesspool of sleaze and corruption. Tony came across as thoroughly decent and squeaky clean. He had the right image and speaking voice (and Spin Dr. Campbell to assist him).

Also, our politicians' policy statements and slogans tend to be more carefully thought out than, "Ban all Muslims" and "Lets build a wall across the Mexican border".

DAVE667 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Cut it anyway you like SF, he's an hideous human being w/ stuff all diplomatic or executive experience. He shouldn't be anywhere near becoming POTUS.
Clinton has her issues, but Trump is an arse.

Historically, the Trumps come from a long line of arses!

A long line of dicks - surely?

If Trump is dumped should the Republicans go for the second placed Republican - Dr Ted Cruz?  He was basically a top student all the way through his education - cum laude this cum laude that - educational prizes all over the place.

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

The main reason is I believe the average British voter, being a lot more sceptical and a lot less susceptible to gimmicks and slogans, wouldn't get suckered in by a repulsive idiot like Trump. I don't think it would ever get to the stage where he could even be considered as a serious candidate.

Hmmmm.  Tony (super-intelligent?) Blair that got into a cosy bed with a guy (J. W. Bush) that was a few notches down on even Trump's level of intelligence?  He got suckered good.  And wasn't Blair's Reign all about media controlled Gummicks and Slogans?

Well we have to maintain our "special relationship" with the U.S so we can reign them in if they ever decide to do anything really dumb.

Blair's landslide win happened against a backdrop where the Tory party was almost drowning in a cesspool of sleaze and corruption. Tony came across as thoroughly decent and squeaky clean. He had the right image and speaking voice (and Spin Dr. Campbell to assist him).

Also, our politicians' policy statements and slogans tend to be more carefully thought out than, "Ban all Muslims" and "Lets build a wall across the Mexican border".

Yeah like Farage's poster a few days before Brexit, who won that one again?

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

The main reason is I believe the average British voter, being a lot more sceptical and a lot less susceptible to gimmicks and slogans, wouldn't get suckered in by a repulsive idiot like Trump. I don't think it would ever get to the stage where he could even be considered as a serious candidate.

Hmmmm.  Tony (super-intelligent?) Blair that got into a cosy bed with a guy (J. W. Bush) that was a few notches down on even Trump's level of intelligence?  He got suckered good.  And wasn't Blair's Reign all about media controlled Gummicks and Slogans?

Well we have to maintain our "special relationship" with the U.S so we can reign them in if they ever decide to do anything really dumb.

Blair's landslide win happened against a backdrop where the Tory party was almost drowning in a cesspool of sleaze and corruption. Tony came across as thoroughly decent and squeaky clean. He had the right image and speaking voice (and Spin Dr. Campbell to assist him).

Also, our politicians' policy statements and slogans tend to be more carefully thought out than, "Ban all Muslims" and "Lets build a wall across the Mexican border".

You're generalising...Blair never got 50 percent of the vote....He beat Major by the same amount Clinton is ahead of Trump...

Not every GOP supporter wants a wall or Trump...But they stay loyal to their party....Just like over here..

Blair painted the Tories as sleaze mongers.....All elections are personal...

Nore Staat wrote:If Trump is dumped should the Republicans go for the second placed Republican - Dr Ted Cruz?  He was basically a top student all the way through his education - cum laude this cum laude that - educational prizes all over the place.

Can't dump him...Death or resignation..

It's too late to get someone else on the ballot anyway.

The problem with Donald Trump is that he doesn't seem to be a safe pair of hands.  He seems somewhat erratic, unpredictable, a bit of a loose cannon, you are not quite sure what is going on inside that head of his, his political intelligence appears to have gone AWOL.  There is supposed to be a dignity that goes with the office of Presidency that I suspect Trump doesn't quite possess.

Hero wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

The main reason is I believe the average British voter, being a lot more sceptical and a lot less susceptible to gimmicks and slogans, wouldn't get suckered in by a repulsive idiot like Trump. I don't think it would ever get to the stage where he could even be considered as a serious candidate.

Hmmmm.  Tony (super-intelligent?) Blair that got into a cosy bed with a guy (J. W. Bush) that was a few notches down on even Trump's level of intelligence?  He got suckered good.  And wasn't Blair's Reign all about media controlled Gummicks and Slogans?

Well we have to maintain our "special relationship" with the U.S so we can reign them in if they ever decide to do anything really dumb.

Blair's landslide win happened against a backdrop where the Tory party was almost drowning in a cesspool of sleaze and corruption. Tony came across as thoroughly decent and squeaky clean. He had the right image and speaking voice (and Spin Dr. Campbell to assist him).

Also, our politicians' policy statements and slogans tend to be more carefully thought out than, "Ban all Muslims" and "Lets build a wall across the Mexican border".

Yeah like Farage's poster a few days before Brexit, who won that one again?

Thats one example of U.S. style sloganeering in how many years? From a somewhat notorious right-wing party on the fringes of being a major force. Strawman argument I'm afraid.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
[1]You're generalising...Blair never got 50 percent of the vote....He beat Major by the same amount Clinton is ahead of Trump...

Not every GOP supporter wants a wall or Trump...But they stay loyal to their party....Just like over here..

[2]Blair painted the Tories as sleaze mongers.....All elections are personal...

[1] No I'm not. Labour won 418 seats in parliament - the most they have ever won in the party's history. Elections are won on seats, not percentages of the vote.

[2] In this case it was true (or at least more than usual. The Tories were hit by a number of scandals that year, the party was divided over Europe and they also ran a negative campaign (see below)...all of which saw their popularity plummet.



Yes all elections get personal to some degree or other, however the point I was making is that in the UK it rarely (if ever) gets as nasty as it does in the US. Yes unpleasant things get said at rallies and party conferences and the odd distasteful campaign poster gets put up, but thats about as far as it goes.

That said, televised head-to-head debates are a relatively new thing over here...first one was 2012. Maybe we just need to give it time.

Dignity in Presidents like Bill Clinton or George Bush jr ???.....Look up...

Warren Harding...
Chester Arthur....
Richard Nixon..
Ulysses Grant...
Zachary Taylor..
Andrew Jackson....and Trump wouldn't be that bad..

My point is Blair only got 43 odd percent of the vote...

You have a first past the post system...Labour would not have won a majority under PR..

He was good but there wasn't this over whelming love for him..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dignity in Presidents like Bill Clinton or George Bush jr ???.....Look up...

Warren Harding...
Chester Arthur....
Richard Nixon..
Ulysses Grant...
Zachary Taylor..
Andrew Jackson....and Trump wouldn't be that bad..

My point is Blair only got 43 odd percent of the vote...

[1]You have a first past the post system...Labour would not have won a majority under PR..

[2]He was good but there wasn't this over whelming love for him..

[1] Kind of a pointless argument since we use FPTP and not PR.

[2] How many politicians DO get elected with "overwhelming love"? Usually its just a case of the electorate telling the other person, "we've had enough of your lot".

Not really....Just pointing out that Blair wasn't all conquering and the majority didn't vote for him.

Remember that before generalising about Americans.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Master stroke bringing the four ladies that Bill Clinton is known to have abused to the debate......Bill Clinton was the biggest loser last night.........
.......
The USA deserves better..

Master stroke?? Seriously? Bill is known to have abused them? The one he settled out of court, maybe, but even that's not clear cut. The others? Evidence? Also, the fourth wasn't the subject of any abuse by Bill, it was someone who was on the receiving end of Hilary when she was a lawyer. Are you suggesting she shouldn't have done her job by that girl's rapist when acting in his defence? Come on.


The U.S.A. certainly deserves better, but they (and us) get the politicians they/we deserve and that clearly isn't very much as we go further into the 21st century.

Bliar seemed like he was a new/fresh approach in his first term after the tired decline of the Tories. The bollox with Dubya started during his second term, but I have no idea why Bliar got a third term after all the Iraq nonsense came out. The U.K. has no defence over putting him back in knowing what we did about Iraq and Bliar's role in that.

Do your homework...

You asked me to prove Hillary was a liar earlier in the thread...I gave you 5 out of about 100 examples..

All four women have gone on record saying they were abused....Trump basically called him a serial deviant last night....Fox news bring it up all the time...

Clinton is worth 200 million plus why isn't he suing for slander ???....

He knows he'll lose..

Well if Fox News say so then it must be fact.

Mayor Rudy Guiliani used the R****t word last night..

Hit and run though if you want..

If Hillary Clinton is the next president, as seems to be the most likely outcome (Donald Trump is a novice politician - and it shows) - will she be a weak or a strong president when it comes to foreign policy. One can imagine Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, International terrorism (ISIS, al Qaeda) all maybe thinking they have an opportunity here to expand their field of influence / power across their own borders.

She'll do nothing....She just wants to be Commander in Chief....

Republicans own both houses....They will shut her down..

Unless she can gain the Senate which is possible with...The Trump handicap..

Unlikely though..

Ryans already started divorcing the party from Trump to concentrate on that particular battle.

Politically it probably hurts Hilary to be dragged into an attempt to clear Bills name. Better to leave it alone, don't think its really giving Trump any big wins. He looked desperate yesterday.

He turned a home run for Hillary into a draw...

Did a good job...

The Chairman of the GOP...Priebus thought Trump did a great job..

For Trump it was damage limitation...He limited the damage..

Can't believe what I have been hearing about the 12 year old Kathy Shelton r*** victim of 40 odd years ago. Yes Hillary Clinton as lawyer defended the r***ist but the way she talked about it and the manner in which she attacked the victim seems to be extra and appears to confirm that she has always been focussed on herself. Not surprising the BBC has nothing on it. What a choice the Americans have.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-r***-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-r***ist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html

Nore Staat wrote:Can't believe what I have been hearing about the 12 year old Kathy Shelton r*** victim of 40 odd years ago.  Yes Hillary Clinton as lawyer defended the r***ist but the way she talked about it and the manner in which she attacked the victim seems to be extra and appears to confirm that she has always been focussed on herself.  Not surprising the BBC has nothing on it.  What a choice the Americans have.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-r***-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-r***ist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html

She was a LAWYER. Are you suggesting she shouldn't do her job and actually defend the r***ist? I'm sure many defence Barristers know damned well that their clients are guilty as sin, but that doesn't stop them from doing their jobs and they'd be derelict in their duties if they didn't use their legal systems to do their best for their clients. Jesus wept.

Ah, of course, it's the Daily Fail...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Can't believe what I have been hearing about the 12 year old Kathy Shelton r*** victim of 40 odd years ago.  Yes Hillary Clinton as lawyer defended the r***ist but the way she talked about it and the manner in which she attacked the victim seems to be extra and appears to confirm that she has always been focussed on herself.  Not surprising the BBC has nothing on it.  What a choice the Americans have.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-r***-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-r***ist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html

She was a LAWYER. Are you suggesting she shouldn't do her job and actually defend the r***ist? I'm sure many defence Barristers know damned well that their clients are guilty as sin, but that doesn't stop them from doing their jobs and they'd be derelict in their duties if they didn't use their legal systems to do their best for their clients. Jesus wept.

Ah, of course, it's the Daily Fail...

'It's put a lot of anger back in me,' said Shelton, now 54, in an exclusive interview at her Springdale, Arkansas, home in August. 'Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can't do that.'

But you didn't feel it necessary to come forward and vent your spleen when she was the First Lady? Ok.......

If you'd been accused of committing r*pe you'd want your lawyer to conduct a robust defence and that robust defence would involve doing anything within the court rules which would be of benefit to your defence and would likely involve a fairly sustained attack on the background and character of the alleged victim (albeit depending on the victim's character and persona).

Given the presumption of innocence (which I assume no one would want to remove), someone who is guilty of the crime is no less entitled to the benefit of that defence that someone who is innocent.

Not worth it fly, man's looking for someone to blame so he can feel better about himself. You're trying to teach algebra to a chicken.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not really....Just pointing out that Blair wasn't all conquering and the majority didn't vote for him.

Remember that before generalising about Americans.

How is the percentage of votes won even remotely connected to the way campaigns are run? Come back Fido - you're barking up an entirely different tree!

I'm not arguing that most elections here are won with less than 50% of the vote - its been that way for as long as I can remember and don't forget the UK, unlike the US, isn't a 2-party state. Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens and various others all take a few percent away from Labour and the Tories.

What I was saying is that US politics is far more partisan - probably due to the fact you only have 2 parties. You've also had head to head debates for longer than we have. I'm in no way trying to make out I'm any kind of expert on US politics, but I've followed your elections since Reagan left office (or at least the limited coverage we get here) and the degree of mud slinging and personal attacks on candidates definitely seems to have got worse over time.

As I said, its become more like a personality contest, than one based on politics. Call it generalising if you want, but thats just what I'm seeing. Yes we have similar behaviour in UK politics, but not nearly as bad.

The impression I get is that US voters are like crowds at pro wrestling matches and they just lap up the insults, like they're watching wrestlers talking trash about each other before a fight. Over here, that sort of behaviour would see the candidate dismissed as not being serious, because they haven't said anything substantial on their policies.

dyrewolfe wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not really....Just pointing out that Blair wasn't all conquering and the majority didn't vote for him.

Remember that before generalising about Americans.

How is the percentage of votes won even remotely connected to the way campaigns are run? Come back Fido - you're barking up an entirely different tree!

I'm not arguing that most elections here are won with less than 50% of the vote - its been that way for as long as I can remember and don't forget the UK, unlike the US, isn't a 2-party state. Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens and various others all take a few percent away from Labour and the Tories.

What I was saying is that US politics is far more partisan - probably due to the fact you only have 2 parties. You've also had head to head debates for longer than we have. I'm in no way trying to make out I'm any kind of expert on US politics, but I've followed your elections since Reagan left office (or at least the limited coverage we get here) and the degree of mud slinging and personal attacks on candidates definitely seems to have got worse over time.

As I said, its become more like a personality contest, than one based on politics. Call it generalising if you want, but thats just what I'm seeing. Yes we have similar behaviour in UK politics, but not nearly as bad.

The impression I get is that US voters are like crowds at pro wrestling matches and they just lap up the insults, like they're watching wrestlers talking trash about each other before a fight. Over here, that sort of behaviour would see the candidate dismissed as not being serious, because they haven't said anything substantial on their policies.

That may have been true a few years ago, but I don't think we can continue to cling to the notion that our level of political debate is superior.  The level of discourse during the Scottish Independence Referendum, the 2015 General Election, the Labour leadership contests and the EU referendum shows that politics in this country is hampered by the same problems which are prevalent elsewhere.

Facts no longer matter and people now seem to form an opinion and ignore any facts or evidence which are contrary to that opinion.  Social media seems to compound that issue because people just follow or pay attention to opinions which support their own opinions and dismiss or ignore anything to the contrary. Counter debate is shouted down with claims of negativity, 'whataboutery' and/or personal abuse.

I'm dog-tired of it all.

Rumours abound that there are recordings of Trump being a c*nt during his Apprentice shows and they may be leaked in the next few days. Also suggestions that Julian Assange is going to drop some kind of bombshell that will mean the end for Clinton.

Like many people, I think the whole lot of them should be flushed down the toilet and be done with. It's like listening to a bunch of school girls arguing in the playground.

I hope we get another live stream of Assange speaking from his bedroom.

superflyweight wrote:If you'd been accused of committing r*pe you'd want your lawyer to conduct a robust defence and that robust defence would involve doing anything within the court rules which would be of benefit to your defence and would likely involve a fairly sustained attack on the background and character of the alleged victim (albeit depending on the victim's character and persona).  

Given the presumption of innocence (which I assume no one would want to remove), someone who is guilty of the crime is no less entitled to the benefit of that defence that someone who is innocent.

If your 12 year old daughter was raped and you found out that the lawyer defending the r***ist knew her client raped your twelve year old daughter and gamed the system to get the best outcome for her r***ist client (including getting evidence thrown out of court) and laughed about it later - maybe you would think ever so slightly differently about it.

Bit in Bold ("If you'd been accused of committing r*pe").   interesting that you took the position of the r***ist rather than the victim.  In this instance the person charged did r*** the child - but Hillary through gaming the system got the court to agree a lesser charge by having critical evidence thrown out.

Looks like Donalds decided to take the ship down with him.

Nore Staat wrote:

superflyweight wrote:If you'd been accused of committing r*pe you'd want your lawyer to conduct a robust defence and that robust defence would involve doing anything within the court rules which would be of benefit to your defence and would likely involve a fairly sustained attack on the background and character of the alleged victim (albeit depending on the victim's character and persona).  

Given the presumption of innocence (which I assume no one would want to remove), someone who is guilty of the crime is no less entitled to the benefit of that defence that someone who is innocent.

If your 12 year old daughter was raped and you found out that the lawyer defending the r***ist knew her client raped your twelve year old daughter and gamed the system to get the best outcome for her r***ist client (including getting evidence thrown out of court) and laughed about it later - maybe you would think ever so slightly differently about it.

Bit in Bold ("If you'd been accused of committing r*pe").   interesting that you took the position of the r***ist rather than the victim.  In this instance the person charged did r*** the child - but Hillary through gaming the system got the court to agree a lesser charge by having critical evidence thrown out.

I suspect he actually took the position of the lawyer. It's what he does for a living.

VOTE FOR TRUMP!

Well someone has to keep the faith!

Rowley wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

superflyweight wrote:If you'd been accused of committing r*pe you'd want your lawyer to conduct a robust defence and that robust defence would involve doing anything within the court rules which would be of benefit to your defence and would likely involve a fairly sustained attack on the background and character of the alleged victim (albeit depending on the victim's character and persona).  

Given the presumption of innocence (which I assume no one would want to remove), someone who is guilty of the crime is no less entitled to the benefit of that defence that someone who is innocent.

If your 12 year old daughter was raped and you found out that the lawyer defending the r***ist knew her client raped your twelve year old daughter and gamed the system to get the best outcome for her r***ist client (including getting evidence thrown out of court) and laughed about it later - maybe you would think ever so slightly differently about it.

Bit in Bold ("If you'd been accused of committing r*pe").   interesting that you took the position of the r***ist rather than the victim.  In this instance the person charged did r*** the child - but Hillary through gaming the system got the court to agree a lesser charge by having critical evidence thrown out.

I suspect he actually took the position of the lawyer. It's what he does for a living.

I took the position that regardless of a person's guilt or innocence, they are entitled to a defence. I have to confess to not knowing anything about the particular case and if she's abused the system (rather than applied the rules of the system) then obviously that's a big issue and she rightly should be criticised for that and it goes towards any assessment of her character.

As to the example given, I try to avoid forming opinions on something on the basis of what I would do if it impacted on me and my family (one daughter aged 5 and another one aged 4 months). It's probably best not to base a judicial system on the views of a homicidal father.

Man kills another - it's murder, right? Oh no, gets pleaded down to Manslaughter ("I didn't mean to kill him" - of course my question would be, "What did you think was going to happen when you stuck the knife in/fired the gun at him?") Happens all the time. Same with sexual offences. Burden of proof is on the Prosecution, Hilary didn't have to prove her client's innocence, the jury just had to be convinced of his guilt. Also, evidence thrown out of Court? Generally done for a sound legal reason, either a break in the chain of evidence or flaws found in the process used to obtain the evidence. If there's no grounds for the evidence to be dismissed the Judge won't allow it otherwise there's grounds for an appeal.

SecretFly wrote:VOTE FOR TRUMP!

Well someone has to keep the faith!

I'm going to PM you the details of someone that you can talk to about your 'illness'.

I got an illness that don't allow me to change my mind on a whim (of political expediency).... send the details to Mr Slick Willie, Paul Ryan

Who leaves a sinking ship? Yep, that figures..........

SecretFly wrote:I got an illness that don't allow me to change my mind on a whim (of political expediency).... send the details to Mr Slick Willie, Paul Ryan  

Who leaves a sinking ship?  Yep, that figures.......... :

Well, anyone with some f*cking sense.

superflyweight wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not really....Just pointing out that Blair wasn't all conquering and the majority didn't vote for him.

Remember that before generalising about Americans.

How is the percentage of votes won even remotely connected to the way campaigns are run? Come back Fido - you're barking up an entirely different tree!

I'm not arguing that most elections here are won with less than 50% of the vote - its been that way for as long as I can remember and don't forget the UK, unlike the US, isn't a 2-party state. Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens and various others all take a few percent away from Labour and the Tories.

What I was saying is that US politics is far more partisan - probably due to the fact you only have 2 parties. You've also had head to head debates for longer than we have. I'm in no way trying to make out I'm any kind of expert on US politics, but I've followed your elections since Reagan left office (or at least the limited coverage we get here) and the degree of mud slinging and personal attacks on candidates definitely seems to have got worse over time.

As I said, its become more like a personality contest, than one based on politics. Call it generalising if you want, but thats just what I'm seeing. Yes we have similar behaviour in UK politics, but not nearly as bad.

The impression I get is that US voters are like crowds at pro wrestling matches and they just lap up the insults, like they're watching wrestlers talking trash about each other before a fight. Over here, that sort of behaviour would see the candidate dismissed as not being serious, because they haven't said anything substantial on their policies.

That may have been true a few years ago, but I don't think we can continue to cling to the notion that our level of political debate is superior.  The level of discourse during the Scottish Independence Referendum, the 2015 General Election, the Labour leadership contests and the EU referendum shows that politics in this country is hampered by the same problems which are prevalent elsewhere.

Facts no longer matter and people now seem to form an opinion and ignore any facts or evidence which are contrary to that opinion.  Social media seems to compound that issue because people just follow or pay attention to opinions which support their own opinions and dismiss or ignore anything to the contrary.  Counter debate is shouted down with claims of negativity, 'whataboutery' and/or personal abuse.  

I'm dog-tired of it all.  

Think we'll have to agree to disagree. The EU Referendum was different certainly and the closest we've come to US style politics, in terms of blatant scaremongering and personal attacks. I was pretty disgusted with the whole thing myself.

Other than that, I think ours is generally more civilised and we at least try to keep politics involved, rather than devoting pretty much all time and energy into tearing down opponents. Not saying its always tea and biscuits...far from it...but I also think we've a long way to go before we get as bad as the US.

DAVE667 wrote:
Rumours abound that there are recordings of Trump being a c*nt during his Apprentice shows and they may be leaked in the next few days. Also suggestions that Julian Assange is going to drop some kind of bombshell that will mean the end for Clinton.

Like many people, I think the whole lot of them should be flushed down the toilet and be done with. It's like listening to a bunch of school girls arguing in the playground.

Amen to that!

I know our lot can be annoying at times, but some the antics you get in US elections has to be seen to be believed.

ShahenshahG wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I got an illness that don't allow me to change my mind on a whim (of political expediency).... send the details to Mr Slick Willie, Paul Ryan  

Who leaves a sinking ship?  Yep, that figures.......... :

Well, anyone with some f*cking sense.

A nice, urbane young political mover and shaker should have given evidence much earlier that he possessed some f**king sense and that he knew a guy like Trump was a walking timebomb , and so stay the hell away from him?

But nope - Ryan played the double-standards game and stayed with Trump for nothing more than raw political capital (keeping in with the Republican Disaffected crowd in the hope of maybe one day trying out the Oval office himself)

But now political sense and survival means he has to wave bye to the less conventional Republican voters and say Hi to the Prim and Proper brigade.  "Hi my name's Paul, and I'd like to tell you that Trump had me fooled by his earlier pronouncements on women, Mexicans, war-heros, blacks, Europeans and slimy two-faced politicians.  Up til now, I never believed he meant a word of it - honest."

Think Donald should dispense with the handshake and the beginning of the next TV debate and just grab Mrs Clinton by the p*ssy

DAVE667 wrote:Think Donald should dispense with the handshake and the beginning of the next TV debate and just grab Mrs Clinton by the p*ssy

em............................................... I think you've just blurted out Julian's intended bombshell......

Donald ain't going to find what he's looking for.

Hillary to wear a t-shirt saying "If I had balls, they'd be bigger than Donald Trump's!"

SecretFly wrote:A nice, urbane young political mover and shaker should have given evidence much earlier that he possessed some f**king sense and that he knew a guy like Trump was a walking timebomb , and so stay the hell away from him?

Didn't the Trump campaign complain before about how long it took Ryan to get behind him?

Lowlandbrit wrote:

SecretFly wrote:A nice, urbane young political mover and shaker should have given evidence much earlier that he possessed some f**king sense and that he knew a guy like Trump was a walking timebomb , and so stay the hell away from him?

Didn't the Trump campaign complain before about how long it took Ryan to get behind him?

Now they're complaining that he shot Jesse Trump in the back!

Yes, but that's the wild west code. Never give your friends a good aim by letting them stand behind you

DAVE667 wrote:Hillary to wear a t-shirt saying "If I had balls, they'd be bigger than Donald Trump's!"

Or "I got bigger hands than Trump"  .... and she does, as this duet of 'My Way' testifies:

Trump can't relate to normal people and Clinton can't do emotion..

Election is over....Funny leaked Clinton email though..Telling her when to smile during the debates...

Trump is a misogynist without a shadow... but unfortunately Bill was Trump's joker..

Favorite Bill story was Paula Jones...He dragged the court case on till she ran out of money and when she was about to quit....The Christian right said "Don't worry Paula we'll bank roll you...and we have loads of money !!"..

All of a sudden it went from "Trailer Park Trash"..to..."Paula please let me pay you off!!"...

This has to be the biggest joke of an election ever.

sad sad sad

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:This has to be the biggest joke of an election ever.

sad sad sad

And yet you see the supporters of both candidates rallying feverishly behind them, as though they are God's gift to America, hanging on their every word and cheering to the rafters when they attack the other person.

Where are the sceptics, asking where the politics have gone in this election?

dyrewolfe wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:This has to be the biggest joke of an election ever.

sad sad sad

And yet you see the supporters of both candidates rallying feverishly behind them, as though they are God's gift to America, hanging on their every word and cheering to the rafters when they attack the other person.

Where are the sceptics, asking where the politics have gone in this election?

In the UK