Thread: 2016 Republican US Presidential Candidates

Apopros of fock all other than a random thought that just popped into my head... But who would have ever picked a Clinton v. Trump showdown for the Presidency eh.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

For Americans, Clinton would on balance probably be better but for the rest of the world, it's not so clear. With Clinton, we're going to get just as many (or more) drones turning goat herds into their constituent molecules and just as many trade agreements designed exclusively for the benefit of capital whereas with Trump, it's frankly anyone's guess how things would work out. He might pursue some kind of populist, isolationist policy, which would certainly be better than anything Clinton is likely to do, or he might start World War 3, which might not be, so perhaps it's worth having a punt on the toxic old shitbag after all.

The other advantage a Trump presidency offers is that it might short-circuit the slow drift into totalitarianism which the States has experienced over the last few decades by jumping straight into full-throttle fascism. And pulling the plaster off quicker is almost always the better option.

Originally Posted by blue

The west needs change any change , bernie sanders or donald trump.
Last thing they need is the other cheek of the clinton arse

Trump is truly terrible in every way, an idiot and an absolute joke (a bad one). Nonetheless, I agree with Blue and Passing Through.

Change is needed.

^ And if it does bring on the apocalypse, a Trump presidency seems like a fitting way for humanity to sign off.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Change is needed.

I'm starting to be more that way inclined also.

But there is change and then there's change and Trump is just a big-mouthed demagogue and would be an unmitigated disaster. I don't now and nor will I ever understand the segment (thankfully small) of the US electorate that arse on about 'Freedom & Democracy(TM)' on the one hand yet seem to idolize what they view as unyielding and uncompromising tyranny on the other.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

How many annual deaths is the average post-war American president responsible for, do you think? Do you think that will be more or less than Kaddafi?

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Indeed so. Let's pray for a successful attack on the White House, eh.

When facts fail you just resort to conflating as many issues as possible. A Kaddafi supporter, what a joke.

^If you brits think a Republican president is the answer to your prayers you are either deluding yourselves or in need of some serious lessons in history.

But there is change and then there's change and Trump is just a big-mouthed demagogue and would be an unmitigated disaster.

Of course, but if the choice is him or Clinton then it's the choice between more empire, more neo-liberalism and more violence aimed at the world's poor and....what? A racist misogynist would-be fascist who might, perhaps, pull America back inside its own borders. Well, it's a shit decision to have to make but if you hold a gun to my head...fuck the Americans. They can have Trump and we can take a chance on a few fewer bombs falling on our heads. It may not work out but equally it may be worth the risk.

^ And then there is reality...

Italy had a fling with Berlusconi, why shouldn't US have a fling with Trump?

Imagine Trump as president.

Originally Posted by Humbert

He'll certainly pick up some potential Sander's voters in the blue collar rust belt where his message on trade resonates with predominantly white males but he will not pick up many votes among millenials or women.

Hope you're right. So far I'm surprised by the number of white women I personally know who claim they will vote for Trump.

For anyone reading this thread who isn't one of the lost souls for Shillary brigade, there is no evidence of gaddafi committing genocide in Libya, of course much of the real genocide occurred once Gaddafi was overthrown.

False pretense for war in Libya? - The Boston Globe

But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.

No way could this actor/comedian ever become president...

^ yep Qaddafi's crime was wanting to sell oil in Euros! Which made sense if he was selling to Elf and/or Total

Ronnie was much better looking

^that was Saddam's crime as well...

Originally Posted by longway

For anyone reading this thread who isn't one of the lost souls for Shillary brigade, there is no evidence of gaddafi committing genocide in Libya

Not only did he murder his own people, he ordered the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 killing 270 people over Lockerbie, Scotland. He was a murderous dictator who deserved what happened to him.

Gadhafi accused of genocide against his own people | McClatchy DC

Not only did he murder his own people

How many? I'm not looking for an exact figure but if you're going to sentence someone to death, you presumably have a fairly good handle on this so what's the total?

Originally Posted by Passing Through

if you're going to sentence someone to death

He was not 'sentenced to death' he was murdered by his own people who rose up against him.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

How many?

Google it yourself.

Google it yourself.

I have. I couldn't find a good answer but I presumed that your rock-solid opinions must have been based on an equally firm factual basis. Was I wrong? I'm shocked.

He was not 'sentenced to death' he was murdered by his own people who rose up against him.

Good grief. I hadn't pegged you as quite such a cretin. My question was - quite obviously - about the foundations for your assertions, not the fucking legal process used by the Libyans who killed him.

^Estimated at thousands by various sources. The Libyan government supressed recording and reporting deaths caused by government forces.

And how many died over Lockerbie? 270?

Back on topic ...

I find the list of potential candidates as uninspired choices, including the 2 Republicans who recently dropped out of their parties nominations process.

I can see how Trump has some vague concepts which are popular, but he seems high on spin and low (or absent) on pragmatic detail.

Estimated at thousands by various sources.

Ha ha!. Well, I could have made that up myself but thanks anyway.

So let's call that 5,000 over 40 years which runs to 125 people a year. More Sunday pub team stuff than Champions League, no?

So do you want to fly around the world and reduce to a failed state every country which happens to have a leader which reaches these dizzying heights of evil? That's probably a yes, isn't it. So who's next on the list? Brits? Yanks? However you do the counting, if that's your basis for destroying a state then both you and I have to be top of the list.

Or, maybe, the stuff about Gaddafi being killed and the country being destroyed because of his being a murderous dictator was just complete cock.

I find the list of potential candidates as uninspired choices,

I think it's more 'Do you fancy your chances against alien or against predator?' than uninspired; uninspired would be an election setting John Major against Ed Miliband.