Post Removed

[Son of Thatcher]

America has an irrational obsession with freedom of speech and hates being told that racism/sexism/whatever is a Bad Thing

There is nothing irrational about it. Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democratic discourse. As someone else alluded to in this thread, at many colleges (especially in the US) there are students who believe they have a 'right to not be offended' and that this made-up right takes priority over the right to freedom of speech. Saddening to say the least.

The electoral (vote) math is getting pretty challenging for Republicans these days. Rubio will be able to pick up swing states that Obama won in 2012, but it's hard to see him making up the 60 odd votes needed to win. Plus, he's largely an untested commodity, recall what happened when a virtual unknown was dropped into a Presidential ticket in 2008...

This map is, in my opinion the worst case scenario for a Democratic candidate. It's certainly very close, but it still (narrowly) gets them over the line. I'd probably say that VA would go blue as well, FL would go red if Rubio's the nominee, OH, who knows.

I think this map is very favourable for the Democrats. Based on polling and historical trends I think the Republicans are seriously in contention in places like Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Even if they win none of these, the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia should be easily within reach.

Democrats often like to say they have the demographic advantage which is *partially* true. But if you really think about it, the Republicans have not 'really' won an election since 1988.
- 1992: "Read my lips: no new taxes" - As if they could have won with this broken promise.
- 1996: Hugely popular Bill Clinton VS age-old establishment candidate Bob Dole. No surprise they lost.
- 2000 and 2004: So close that most of these swing states  you wouldn't really expect to turn red anyway (Iowa and New Mexico did of course although at the cost of New Hampshire)

If the Republicans can actually convince a healthy majority of Americans to support conservative policies again and therefore win a comfortable victory this time then I think the rest will follow.

[heart]

https://soundcloud.com/scottisbell/trumpified lmao

[ShortBlackChick]

Really interesting doco about the Trump phenomenon on 9 just before called 'The mad world of Donald Trump'.

As if it wasnt hard enough to understand why the support for him is only increasing.

[Maz]

Really interesting doco about the Trump phenomenon on 9 just before called 'The mad world of Donald Trump'.

As if it wasnt hard enough to understand why the support for him is only increasing.

yeah it was (is)...I'm watching it right now...tbh i agree with the statement of not being able to understand how any woman can vote for him...

[Maz]

straight out claiming that he is unstable...
who thinks he would get the President position?

[ShortBlackChick]

Yeah I also get that he would have difficulty in getting the Evangelic vote. He's conservative, but not Christian Evangelic conservative and traditionally that has been a large influence of the Republican vote.

Didnt you find it fascinating that the doco was talking about how he appeals to 'the losers', the uneducated men of America. It makes sense though, like the only two policies he goes on about are building the wall paid for by Mexico, and keeping the Muslims out. You'd have to be quite uneducated to a. think that those ideas arent fucking crazy af and b. not realise those are they only things of substance he's said in 45 mins of rallying besides 'making America great again'.

This is worth a watch for short lolz if you havent seen it. It's John Oliver if this hasnt been linked already

[Glasses]

I'm legitimately terrified that Trump will win. And I find it equally concerning that so many people support him.
Even the whole "making America great again" campaign doesn't make sense to me? The only reasons why I would perceive the US as 'not great' is because of their ridiculous gun laws, and because of their healthcare and tertiary education systems.
- Which are of course the three things which Obama wanted to, and was fixing (e.g. - ObamaCare), and which Trump wants to promote (e.g. - the gun laws) or rid of.

[uoiea]

He'll win the Republican nomination, especially if Kasich stays in to the detriment of Cruz. However most polls, even the conservative ones like fox news, show him losing to Clinton (who is likely to win the Democratic nomination).

I very highly doubt that Trump will ban all Muslims or erect a wall. If he is elected I feel he'd be the most anticlimactic president in history. He says a lot of dumb shit to appeal to dumb people but I'd gamble on him not actually delivering. It's also worth noting that he has been called out by quite a few Republican figures for not really being conservative.

^Also, you shouldn't expect gun restrictions if a Republican becomes President, Trump or not. I personally don't get why people are so insistent that strict gun control is the best policy for the US. Sure guns are a problem, but good luck finding out a way to confiscate the insanely high amount of guns that Americans possess without a major uproar.

[chasej]

The outrage at Trump isn't because of anything Trump has said, it is because he cannot be bought by corporations and PACs. Ideas like building a wall in the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigration and kicking out illegal immigrants is very standard and non-radical in the non-libertarian part of the Republican party.

All of the media outlets criticising Trump don't care about his policies, they care about the fact they will lose their influence.

Most US policies are formed and created by beurecracy, the leader has some differences and effect but policies that will effect Australia, Asia and the Pacific won't change under Trump or any other president. The major change would be with middle east relations but the middle east is in turmoil enough that it wouldn't actually change much there.

[Glasses]

The outrage at Trump isn't because of anything Trump has said, it is because he cannot be bought by corporations and PACs. Ideas like building a wall in the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigration and kicking out illegal immigrants is very standard and non-radical in the non-libertarian part of the Republican party.

All of the media outlets criticising Trump don't care about his policies, they care about the fact they will lose their influence.

Most US policies are formed and created by beurecracy, the leader has some differences and effect but policies that will effect Australia, Asia and the Pacific won't change under Trump or any other president. The major change would be with middle east relations but the middle east is in turmoil enough that it wouldn't actually change much there.

I think that he tries to say things that will relate to the everyday or more lower-class Americans - because the upper-class tend to back the Republicans anyway, so Trump is trying to say things (that to those whom are educated, are quite outrageous), but to the more middle/lower-class Americans, seem to make sense. (E.g. - "We will make our military so big and bad, that no one will mess with us." - This doesn't really give any direction, but to a lot of people, they figure that "oh yeah, that's good. I want that too." Similarly to the "we'll build a wall" and "stop Muslim immigration" comments - many uneducated people automatically associate Islam with terrorism, so they figure this is a good thing; and again, by using those stereotypes which those people are familiar with [e.g. - with regards to Mexico], he gets those unknowledgeable people on side.
That being said, I think he realised that he couldn't say things like "when I was younger, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars", if he wants to empathise with the underprivileged.

^Also, you shouldn't expect gun restrictions if a Republican becomes President, Trump or not. I personally don't get why people are so insistent that strict gun control is the best policy for the US. Sure guns are a problem, but good luck finding out a way to confiscate the insanely high amount of guns that Americans possess without a major uproar.

There will be a bit of uproar, but if they implement it properly, I think the end result will absolutely be worth it. Australia is a perfect example - many people seriously cracked it when Howard brought in the gun control laws, but it was possibly (in my opinion), one of the best policies ever implemented. I understand that many Americans want to cling on to their second amendment right, but the only reason they established that was because Britain wanted to disarm the Americans yearssss ago. -- So it's not really necessary anymore.
(On that topic, what really annoyed me was one of the pro-gun advocates in the US saying that when we brought in our gun control laws, the sexual assault of women went up 'because women couldn't protect themselves.')

[chasej]

I think that he tries to say things that will relate to the everyday or more lower-class Americans - because the upper-class tend to back the Republicans anyway, so Trump is trying to say things (that to those whom are educated, are quite outrageous), but to the more middle/lower-class Americans, seem to make sense. (E.g. - "We will make our military so big and bad, that no one will mess with us." - This doesn't really give any direction, but to a lot of people, they figure that "oh yeah, that's good. I want that too." Similarly to the "we'll build a wall" and "stop Muslim immigration" comments - many uneducated people automatically associate Islam with terrorism, so they figure this is a good thing; and again, by using those stereotypes which those people are familiar with [e.g. - with regards to Mexico], he gets those unknowledgeable people on side.
That being said, I think he realised that he couldn't say things like "when I was younger, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars", if he wants to empathise with the underprivileged.

That and there's a counter-culture against increasing controls and limitations brought on by so called 'social justice warriors' because don't like being [and should not be] told what they can or cannot say or do. People are resisting restrictions by supporting a leader which seems to portray himself as above it all.

In regards to your words on gun culture. It won't work. Just like banning drugs 'war on drugs' didn't work, a 'war on guns' won't either. There have been mass shootings and terorrist attacks in Australia since gun control, it's ineffective and creates a culture of repression where the government has say on what individuals can or cannot own.  Australians are vulnerable and defenceless if they are attacked, you can't even have pepper spray or a taser legally in Victoria which is absurd because they are so easy to obtain if you want to so those willing to break the law [and then commit worse crimes] have them but people going about lawful business don't. And many women [and men] would feel safer if they could obtain at least non-lethal defensive womens.

The US system should combat loneliness and mental illness instead of banning guns - a key place to start would be moving to smaller, diverse and private high schools with subsidies for low income families so children don't become lost in the system.

[Glasses]

In regards to your words on gun culture. It won't work. Just like banning drugs 'war on drugs' didn't work, a 'war on guns' won't either. There have been mass shootings and terorrist attacks in Australia since gun control, it's ineffective and creates a culture of repression where the government has say on what individuals can or cannot own.  Australians are vulnerable and defenceless if they are attacked, you can't even have pepper spray or a taser legally in Victoria which is absurd because they are so easy to obtain if you want to so those willing to break the law [and then commit worse crimes] have them but people going about lawful business don't. And many women [and men] would feel safer if they could obtain at least non-lethal defensive womens.

I disagree - I'm honestly not aware of any mass shootings that have occurred in Australia since Port Arthur? Obviously there have been some, but nothing compared to the United States and 1996.
And I understand that some people would feel safer with some form of weapon, but I'd personally rather few people have guns, then anyone and everyone. Like, for instance, if people were allowed to have guns in Australia, at the anti-mosque protests last year, I think that would have gotten extremely ugly and violent if those 'patriots' were able to have guns.

I just figure that if they implement the controls properly, the ends will certainly be worth it. The number of shootings that occur in the US is absurd.

(This is just my opinion on the matter anyway)

[uoiea]

. And many women [and men] would feel safer if they could obtain at least non-lethal defensive womens.

Sign me up, where do I get these non-lethal defensive womens? 

[Empathy]

Le my opinion:

Welp I guess we should get our salutation technique on point for when Mr. Trump becomes President Trumpler. However, if democratic voters are less self-centric then they have been in past elections and actually decide to vote even though their candidate of choice *cough sanders* doesnt win the primaries, Clinton can probably win 60/40. And she's married to one of the better US ex-presidents on top of her own above-par political skills, so she's definitely the lesser of all evils, despite her being, in my opinion, a corporate slave.

[mahler004]

Le my opinion:

Welp I guess we should get our salutation technique on point for when Mr. Trump becomes President Trumpler. However, if democratic voters are less self-centric then they have been in past elections and actually decide to vote even though their candidate of choice *cough sanders* doesnt win the primaries, Clinton can probably win 60/40. And she's married to one of the better US ex-presidents on top of her own above-par political skills, so she's definitely the lesser of all evils, despite her being, in my opinion, a corporate slave.

It's worth remembering that heaps of Clinton voters said that they wouldn't vote Obama in 2008, but by time time the election rolled around nearly all did. I suspect it will be the same with many in the 'bernie or bust' crowd. That said, it's a small crowd - exit polls generally show that a large majority of Democrats would be perfectly happy to vote for either candidate. On top of that, it's always worth remembering that Clinton is winning by every metric (national polls, total number of votes, total delegates, etc).

That said, if Sanders is serious about stopping Trump, he needs to drop out of the race immediately and give Clinton the space she needs to take on Trump (or, at the very least, stop attacking Clinton personally).

At this point it's really important to remember that the general election (and general electorate) is vastly different to the primary election (and electorate.) Trump was in a 17-person free for all at the start of the Republican race, and was very effectively able to use the media to rise above this, get attention, and get momentum early on. He got it to the point where it was effectively Trump vs. Cruz, and plenty of Republicans couldn't stomach Cruz. In the general election he won't be able to do this. It will be 1v1 Trump v Clinton. He's also lacking the backing of his party establishment (Republicans on Twitter have been coming out in droves to support Clinton) and he'll have trouble raising money. General election campaigns are very expensive, and it's not something that Trump will be able to bankroll personally. Many Republican super-PACs are abandoning Trump (remember plenty of them were running anti-Trump ads), so he'll have trouble getting the money he needs. Clinton, meanwhile, will have no problems.

Anyway, hold onto your hats. This will be a fascinating election - down with the elections of 1860, 1912 and 1980 as great elections in the United States. I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't get to see a contested convention, though.