American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems
Discussion
unrepentant said:
durbster said:
I think the most disturbing thing is how many attended the same school.
That's nothing. McMillan had 35 members of his own extended family in his government including 7 cabinet members!35 members of his own extended family, 7 who were in the cabinet? Can you name them?
Perhaps I have a dodgy memory ...I was a tad young then.
Nonetheless, disturbing aspects of government has always gone on. In that time period, the 1950s, there had been a long running and controversial scheme to build a inner-relief road across Christ Church Meadow, Oxford.
This was seemingly of far more importance to the 1956 Government, 5 members of the Cabinet, including Supermac and Prime Minister Eden, were all Christ Church men:
The Cabinet meeting agenda order was
(i) Oxford Roads
(ii) Seizure of the Suez Canal.
Politicians and governments. Can you trust them?
Mind you, Eden paid for his controversial (inept?) handling of the Suez crisis.
unrepentant said:
Countdown said:
unrepentant said:
It was nip and tuck in the Iowa dem race right up to the wire. Sanders will win NH so it would have been bad for Hillary to lose Iowa. As it is she'll be pretty happy with the result. Once they get into the southern states Sanders will find the going a bit tougher.
Hypothetical question - if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination and Cruz (or Trump) got the Rep nomination who do you think would win?Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 2nd February 22:21
hidetheelephants said:
unrepentant said:
Countdown said:
unrepentant said:
It was nip and tuck in the Iowa dem race right up to the wire. Sanders will win NH so it would have been bad for Hillary to lose Iowa. As it is she'll be pretty happy with the result. Once they get into the southern states Sanders will find the going a bit tougher.
Hypothetical question - if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination and Cruz (or Trump) got the Rep nomination who do you think would win?dandarez said:
unrepentant said:
durbster said:
I think the most disturbing thing is how many attended the same school.
That's nothing. McMillan had 35 members of his own extended family in his government including 7 cabinet members!35 members of his own extended family, 7 who were in the cabinet? Can you name them?
Perhaps I have a dodgy memory ...I was a tad young then.
Nonetheless, disturbing aspects of government has always gone on. In that time period, the 1950s, there had been a long running and controversial scheme to build a inner-relief road across Christ Church Meadow, Oxford.
This was seemingly of far more importance to the 1956 Government, 5 members of the Cabinet, including Supermac and Prime Minister Eden, were all Christ Church men:
The Cabinet meeting agenda order was
(i) Oxford Roads
(ii) Seizure of the Suez Canal.
This is from new World Encyclopedia but there are lots of references to it. Alan Clark also mentions it in his diaries.
unrepentant said:
dandarez said:
unrepentant said:
durbster said:
I think the most disturbing thing is how many attended the same school.
That's nothing. McMillan had 35 members of his own extended family in his government including 7 cabinet members!35 members of his own extended family, 7 who were in the cabinet? Can you name them?
Perhaps I have a dodgy memory ...I was a tad young then.
Nonetheless, disturbing aspects of government has always gone on. In that time period, the 1950s, there had been a long running and controversial scheme to build a inner-relief road across Christ Church Meadow, Oxford.
This was seemingly of far more importance to the 1956 Government, 5 members of the Cabinet, including Supermac and Prime Minister Eden, were all Christ Church men:
The Cabinet meeting agenda order was
(i) Oxford Roads
(ii) Seizure of the Suez Canal.
This is from new World Encyclopedia but there are lots of references to it. Alan Clark also mentions it in his diaries.
ks.Prove it.
ash73 said:
Not paid any attention until now but Clinton/Sanders 50:50 got my attention. My first impression of Sanders is he comes across as a consistent socialist, Clinton seems harder to pin down, she obviously cares about women's rights but other than that I'm not really sure what she stands for, which presumably means she's more middle of the road. Trump and Cruz both seem to me to be complete nutters for different reasons, and their policies look almost identical, if anything Trump looks less scary on paper.
For those closer to the details what are the actual differences, in terms of policy not personality, within each party?
Neither Sanders or Clinton will change anything. Both are owned by their corporate donor masters, Hillary (much) more so, but Bernie plays within the "safe" zone, which is why he he is still here. The Republican candidates are just off the charts, though I do enjoy the fact that Trump occasionally speaks the naked truth about this entire sham process. He would make a terrible president however. Ted Cruz is the latest closet homosexual to take the spotlight on a "family values platform."For those closer to the details what are the actual differences, in terms of policy not personality, within each party?
I have not voted in years, it is pointless.
unrepentant said:
Cruz won't be the nominee because his appeal is exclusively amongst the ultra conservative. I still think it was a good victory in Iowa though because Trump was expected to win given the polls. Trump was noticeably subdued last night, I watched his speech live and it was barely 2 minutes and no bluster. He expected to win. He's still favorite to win NH but I think if he fails to do so you will see his support start to ebb away. Rubio is still the GOP's one chance and I think you'll see establishment money flowing his way now. If he does well in NH and Bush, Christie and Kasich don't I think they will all come under extreme pressure to move aside for him.
Exactly.Cruz knows that if you give a potential supporter a lift to the polling station that they will probably vote for you and he basically out-organized Trump in Iowa.
Realistically Cruz is less likely than Rubio to attract swing voters because he's just not a compromise type of person.
That said with Bernie Sanders being as strong as he is with his 'tax the rich and give free stuff to everybody else' message and Hillary Clinton trying to out socialist him, Mr and Mrs Average might find voting Democratic too personally expensive for their liking and vote for whoever seems to be better able to help them maintain or improve their standard of living.
From today's Herald:
A reader sends us a Trump drinking game from America. The rules are: "Whenever Trump says anything racist or sexist, put a dollar in a jar. When full, donate the money to the Bernie Sanders campaign and have a drink. Please do not take a drink every time Trump says something racist or sexist. You will die of alcohol poisoning."
A reader sends us a Trump drinking game from America. The rules are: "Whenever Trump says anything racist or sexist, put a dollar in a jar. When full, donate the money to the Bernie Sanders campaign and have a drink. Please do not take a drink every time Trump says something racist or sexist. You will die of alcohol poisoning."
Our process in action. This is so absurd, it could be from The Onion:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-r...
And Hillary won all the coin tosses so far to boot. What a coincidence. It was just too close to call folks, too close to call.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-r...
And Hillary won all the coin tosses so far to boot. What a coincidence. It was just too close to call folks, too close to call.
Vocal Minority said:
I reckon Rubio could gain some momentum now - he was way more in the race than anyone thought he would be, so the candidates who are already adrift will all cash their chips and throw their wait behind him.
Bernie will do well in NH but after that it gets tough. Southerners supporting someone who doesn't worship the baby Jesus. Hmmm...
Whoa: Iowa might not be over after all
http://canadafreepress.com/article/whoa-iowa-might...
Iowa Election Manipulation
"If you lived in Soviet Union and tried to run for the Supreme Soviet (an elective body with powers similar to those of the U.S. Congress) with a political program different from the one advertised by the Soviet ruling clique, you would have everybody against you: the establishment, the press (and its propaganda), the political organizations, and for obvious reasons. But suppose you managed to politically survive until elections, and all your name ended up on the ballot. Obviously, you would lose, badly, on election day. But it would take extreme naiveté to conclude that the citizens of the Soviet Union rejected you and your program. The Soviet “elections” system was controlled by the ruling clique to assure the continuity of their monopoly on power."
http://canadafreepress.com/article/iowa-election-m...
http://canadafreepress.com/article/whoa-iowa-might...
Iowa Election Manipulation
"If you lived in Soviet Union and tried to run for the Supreme Soviet (an elective body with powers similar to those of the U.S. Congress) with a political program different from the one advertised by the Soviet ruling clique, you would have everybody against you: the establishment, the press (and its propaganda), the political organizations, and for obvious reasons. But suppose you managed to politically survive until elections, and all your name ended up on the ballot. Obviously, you would lose, badly, on election day. But it would take extreme naiveté to conclude that the citizens of the Soviet Union rejected you and your program. The Soviet “elections” system was controlled by the ruling clique to assure the continuity of their monopoly on power."
http://canadafreepress.com/article/iowa-election-m...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff