Re: US strike options on TSP

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9151
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Mort Walker » 25 May 2016 09:47

^^^Trump is indeed the better candidate for those who have Indian interests in heart, but at the end of the day, US policy changes little. Hillary Clinton is the last person Indians would want as president as she has clearly demonstrated the pro-Sunni Islamic extremist agenda. Anybody, but Clinton or #NeverHillary.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 25 May 2016 12:05

RajeshA wrote:And Bernie Sanders too would have to renege on that pledge, if he becomes Hillary Clinton's VP pick.

So there are no good guys on "self-financing"!

Two things -

1. Sanders has nothing to lose. He's not going to get the nomination and at this point, I think he knows that.

2. His core base would rather have him influencing policy through the VP's position than retiring into obscurity (even though it'll take time and some teeth gnashing for them to come around).

Moreover Clinton's image would remain far more "connected" to Wall Street and Trump's image would remain that of a Builder. So it would also depend on from whom the candidate is taking the money. If Hillary takes from Wall Street and Pharma, he has a problem as compared to Trump.

True. Then again, this matters to those voters who're making their decision solely on the basis of anti-corporatism. However, most real voters have a span of political, economic & social views influencing their political choices. The fact that Trump has been able to generate fewer funds (from the same sources) will be scant comfort.

Also, Trump is relying on the Republican party machinery which means funding comes from the usual sources which includes Wall Street and similar big donors. The head of his fundraising campaign, as I mentioned before, is a Goldman Sachs alum.

Social Media wasn't really there in 2008. At that time, these allegations were put away as part of the "Republican dirty tricks" department. Now it is an outsider coming full throttle with them. So dirty or not, these are not "Republican dirty tricks", which looked that time like the poor Clinton's were fighting off against the big bad Empire, now it is only against a "foul-mouthed" lone ranger, who may be saying the truth.

Of course social media was there in 2008. It played a critical role in Obama's election campaign. But more importantly, even before 2008 you still had 24 hour news channels looking for a big scoop, the next Chappaquiddick incident. Coming from the same 'lone ranger' that accused Ted Cruz's father of being in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald and claimed massive street celebrations broke out in New Jersey after the collapse of WTC towers, commentary on Bill Clinton's past is going to get less traction not more.

If all that had sufficed, she wouldn't be having problems putting Bernie Sanders away, because even now she has the support of these groups.

Popular vote in primaries as of May 3 (de facto end of Rep primary):


Republican

Trump: 10.56 mil
Cruz: 7.26 mil

Diff: 3.30 mil (-3.7 mil if you include Kasich & Rubio)


Democrat

Clinton: 12.44 mil
Sanders: 9.30 mil

Diff: 3.14 mil


She's had trouble 'putting Bernie Sanders away' because Bernie Sanders has chosen to stick around, waiting either for a miracle or a VP ticket. And unlike Cruz & Kasich, he's got a genuinely inspirational platform (unsaddled by a Trumpish personality, history or policy-vacuum). He's weak with African Americans (I don't know why) but generally strong with a huge cross-section of progressives and left-leaning moderates (that will still vote Democrat in the general election).

However, none of this changes the demographic realities of the general election b/w Clinton and Trump.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 25 May 2016 12:10

Arjun wrote:
RajeshA wrote:perhaps one can jot down all the reasons why Indian Americans with Indian interests at heart, should vote for Clinton over Trump, that is apart from the pure joy of being a 'Progressive' and thus more enlightened than the rest of mankind. I am still trying to get my head around why you seem to support Hillary Clinton!


"Progressives" have been on the wrong side of history regarding Modi, anti-Semetism / Israel, the Dynasty in India and a whole bunch of global issues...So it is perhaps a good sign that the same 'progressives' including those on this thread - seem to on the anti-Trump bandwagon.


All over the world, including in India, one finds the epithet "progressives" being used for one or two idealistic-issue parties, who on a variety of other issues as well as their political behavior act as the worst kind of scum. The one-issue parties, be it "Greens", be it "Socialists", be it "Seculars", be it "Liberals" or whatever, they all like to package an issue in such a way, that putting themselves as its most ardent advocates, acquire or demand a halo around themselves. This halo is then used to do whatever else they want to screw up society and world. But drawn by this one most-important issue facing mankind, these parties are able to draw many more people to their platform as well as increase their media presence as dogooders.

Arjun wrote:But I do agree that it has been somewhat difficult to read Trump so far...So far he appears to be the better candidate especially in comparison with Hillary - but I do need a more informed perspective before I go across to the embassy and place my vote.


When Trump speaks of a temporary ban on Muslims entering USA until "they have figured what is going on", he is clearly pushing for a global discussion on Islam, its merits and demerits. He is pushing for a discussion on where to draw the line between the good and the bad Muslim and on Islam itself.

That open discussion is one thing the entrenched Islam-friendly West and Secular India does not intend to allow. At every step, there has been a counter-attack of Islamophobia allegations and segregation of those who have raised their voices or as much as squeaked at being victimized by Islam, anywhere in the world.

Trump wants to bring down that wall of "political correctness" silence and censorship that had gone up in the name of "freedom of religion".

As President of America he would get a unique "pulpit" to bring down this wall of "Silence of the Lambs". The debate has to go mainstream and the axis between "progressive" Western voices and "fascist" Islamism has to be laid bare.

The thing is that after this debate has taken place, there is simply no going back. The genie is out of the bottle, and all non-Muslim governments, parties and organizations would be forced to take a position on that.

The debate is going to be on high the temperature is of the water in which we as frogs are slowly being cooked. Political elite are scared of this debate.

The second debate one expects is really on globalism itself, the free movement of capital, production, safe havens, etc. - read China, WTO, NAFTA, TPP, Globalist Elite does not want this debate.

The third debate is going to revolve around taking stock of the post-Cold War world order and what new adjustments are long overdue - read Russia, UN. Neocons do not want this debate.
Last edited by RajeshA on 25 May 2016 12:12, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 25 May 2016 12:10

RajeshA wrote:Viv S ji,

perhaps you can jot down all the reasons why Indian Americans with Indian interests at heart, should vote for Clinton over Trump, that is apart from the pure joy of being a 'Progressive' and thus more enlightened than the rest of mankind. I am still trying to get my head around why you seem to support Hillary Clinton!

RajeshAji,

As far as I know Indian Americans don't tend to be 'progressive'. Of course, I'm only an Indian and I don't get a vote in the matter, so I'll defer to your judgement in that respect.

As for why I 'support' Hillary Clinton (again, I don't have a vote)... its mostly because I despise Donald Trump.

Whoever came up with the term 'The Ugly American' probably had someone like Trump in his mind.

This is Serge Kovaleski, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, he has arthrogryposis which causes a contracture of his joints and limits the movement of his limbs. He questioned Trump's claims about thousands of people celebrating the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey streets.

Image

This is Trump mocking Serge Kovaleski's disability:-



I always thought not mocking people's disabilities was just basic human decency that should come easily to people regardless of their political affiliation. I don't know, maybe I've been straitjacketed by 'political correctness'.

Trump later denied doing an impression of the reporter, saying he didn't even know the guy was disabled, having never met him. Unsurprisingly, turns out that was a lie as Kovaleski had covered Trump extensively in late 80s & early 90s including several face-to-face meetings.

On the subject of lies, many politicians lie, most tell half-truths at some point, very very few are scrupulously honest. And Hillary Clinton sure as hell isn't one of the honest ones. Yet I have never seen anyone lie with the frequency and ease with which Trump does. It comes naturally to him, one after the other. And a falsehood being pointed out doesn't faze him in the least, he simply follows it up with a new one.

Of course all this is simply an explanation of what shaped my personal opinion and why I cringe whenever the Trump Mouth opens.



That aside, if we look at it objectively, there are very clear reasons why the world cannot afford to risk a Trump Presidency -


1. The combination of over-confidence and ignorance is dangerous when that person wields power. I'd wouldn't particularly have cared if it only affected the US, but unfortunately the nature of the world is such that the outcome will affect India. The fate of hundreds of millions of Indians, particularly the poorest segment is closely linked to the country's economic growth, which in turn is closely linked to the state of the global economy.

Trump's idea of exploiting low interest rates to run up the US debt and then strong-arming creditors into accepting write-downs under the threat of default, would never get past the US Congress, but is ample evidence of how the Trump Brain works. Someone that ignorant in US President's office still has the power to some major damage to world economy and, by extension, the Indian one.

Same applies to the geo-political front (which again impacts the global economy). Trump has a huge ego and an erratic personality (history of which long precedes his run for office). Aside from that fact that a man like that really shouldn't be in control of 4,500 nuclear weapons (which BTW he's not ruled out using against ISIS), he's likely to create further instability.


2. Ordinarily I'd have also pointed out his trade protectionist & isolationist policies being an issue of concern for India, which is a net exporter to the US and shares a burgeoning China-focused strategic relationship with it. But seeing as he's taken both sides on practically every debate, there's nothing to say his positions here will be any more durable. And that makes him unpredictable and that is a very serious concern.

He's been pro-gun control & anti-gun control, pro-choice & pro-life, for gay marriage & against gay marriage, for lower taxes & for higher taxes, for higher govt spending & for govt spending cuts and the list goes on and on and on.

Although I think nothing sums it up better than this -

_______________________________________________________________________

Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her. - Donald Trump, 2012


Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of state in the history of the United States. Hillary was the worst in the history of the United States, there’s never been a secretary of state so bad as Hillary. ... I think Hillary would be a terrible president. She was the worst secretary of state in the history of our nation. Why would she be a good president? I think she’d be a terrible president. - Donald Trump, 2015

_______________________________________________________________________


As for Clinton, I think she's mostly a continuation of Obama. Uninspiring but generally stable, predictable & safe. Ideally, one would have a preferred a right-of-centre moderate like Kasich but given the alternative Clinton is easily the better choice.
Last edited by Viv S on 25 May 2016 13:41, edited 2 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 25 May 2016 12:17

Gus wrote:Nobody knows trumps position on important things. Not even himself. Thus, arguing that I like trump because he will do this, or that - is pointless. What is more important is - who is going to be his advisors as clearly they are the ones going to be running many things as trump doesn't know much about many things and will be relying heavily on advisors feeding info and "guiding" him to decisions. And we know nothing about what his team will be either. Just a bunch of bs about making murrica great again. Yeah I believe that alright.


^ This precisely. +1

He's taken all positions on all things, so his supporters simply label the ones they like as authentic and dismiss the rest as political fluff.

John Oliver's done an absolutely brilliant, incisive and non-partisan piece on Trump that's an absolute MUST WATCH (first half's a little weak) -





Seriously, everybody should watch the whole piece at least once!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 25 May 2016 13:38

Viv S wrote:I always thought not mocking people's disabilities was just basic human decency that should come easily to people regardless of their political affiliation. I don't know, maybe I've been straitjacketed by 'political correctness'.


On the topic of "disabilities" and "people in need", Trump has in the past shown his caring, even affectionate side. I've read and seen videos of him going out of his way and helping people who needed help, or being kind to somebody who had lost his arms.

He has got his decency and humaneness, at least as much can be expected from anybody on an average.

But there is also the other side of Trump. Trump describes himself as a "Counter-Puncher". He is also more of a "Shoot first, think afterwards" kind of guy. But this mode of Trump is seen ONLY when he is under attack. When he is under-attack, all his holding-back goes out of the window and he lashes out, at least verbally.

The incidence with the disabled journalist also shows something else, other than the suspicion that he lacks human decency. It is that unlike most other groomed politicos, especially in the art of "political correctness", Trump just reacts the way he feels like. You hurt him, and he would hurt you back. But this is not using the back-stabbing, in the darkness of an alley, kind of way. He just does it like a kid on the school play-ground. If kids on the school play-ground are evil and lacking human decency, then yes, Donald Trump also is evil. But if this impromptu reaction shows that a person is genuine, then Donald Trump is genuine and I guess that is why he has got such a huge fan-base and following.

If some politico had responded to an attack by that disabled journalist in a reserved respectable way, that would have definitely been "political correct", it would have shown that the politico has a thick skin, that the politico is used to such attacks, that the politico is calculating. But does that in itself reveal to anybody how that politico feels about disabled people? Would the politico go out or have intimate relationships with a disabled person? Being "political correct" also helps in hiding a lot of "real personality".

Sure, what Donald Trump did in his imitation of the disabled guy was wrong. But may be Donald Trump felt he was being wrongly attacked by this journalist, and that gave him the right to retaliate in whatever way he can.

Does Donald Trump however go around and make fun of disabled people without any provocation, I don't think so. That would truly be lacking human decency. Though, it needs to be said, Trump has an eccentric sense and awareness of aesthetics and social perceptions of aesthetics. But despite that, he would not be unkind to a disabled person, with the rider "unless provoked", as far as I feel.

Viv S wrote:On the subject of lies, many politicians lie, most tell half-truths at some point, very very few are scrupulously honest. And Hillary Clinton sure as hell isn't one of the honest ones. Yet I have never seen anyone lie with the frequency and ease with which Trump does. It comes naturally to him, one after the one. And a falsehood being pointed out doesn't faze him in the least, he simply follows it up with a new one.

Of course all this is simply an explanation of what shaped my personal opinion and why I cringe whenever the Trump Mouth opens.


Let's put it another way. Trump always says the truth about something as he feels about it at that very moment. The truth lies in his mood, but the mood is often defined by the situation and others.

Those who are fans of Trump at some level are aware of this and basically they don't grudge him to have different moods, or being in different situations, and thus to have different perceptions of the immediate reality.

So what is genuine about Trump? I guess, his followers have made a decision that his patriotism and his general empathy for the dire economic situation of American people are genuine. His followers believe that Trump believes he can fix the situation. His aversion to Islam seems to be genuine.

To them that is what counts. The rest is policy riffraff or appeasing some social constituency and it does not matter for the people. If the intentions are good and the person is capable, then the right policies come on by themselves in due time.

Viv S wrote:That aside, if we look at it objectively, there are very clear reasons why the world cannot afford to risk a Trump Presidency -


1. The combination of over-confidence and ignorance is dangerous when that person wields power. I'd wouldn't particularly have cared if it only affected the US, but unfortunately the nature of the world is such that the outcome will affect India. The fate of hundreds of millions of Indians, particularly the poorest segment is closely linked to the country's economic growth, which in turn is closely linked to the state of the global economy.

Trump's idea of exploiting low interest rates to run up the US debt and then strong-arming creditors into accepting write-downs under the threat of default, would never get past the US Congress, but is ample evidence of how the Trump Brain works. Someone that ignorant in President's office still has the power to some major damage to world economy and, by extension, the Indian one.


Trump often looks for immediate verbal gratification when he lashes out at provocations, and so his words often lack the finesse of being well-thought out or reserved. He completely lacks a coating of "political correctness" which can moderate his choice of words and reaction. That is how his brain works.

But that doesn't mean he is dangerous per se. When he acts on anything, there would be a range of voices who would push him to second thoughts after the wave of initial reactiveness has passed over. "Political Correctness" wasn't really a hallmark of western leaders for centuries as it has become today, and yet many knew how to act with responsibility, nonetheless, at least considering the interests of their constituency.

Viv S wrote:Same applies to the geo-political front (which again impacts the global economy). Trump has a huge ego and an erratic personality (history of which long precedes his run for office). Aside from that fact that a man like that really shouldn't be in control of 4,500 nuclear weapons (which BTW he's <b>not</b> ruled out using against ISIS), he's likely to create further instability.


Even if his instincts are correct on many fronts - Islam, unchecked illegal immigration, neoconservative international interventions, jobs, etc., he obviously does not have much experience in how to get those views formulated as a government policy in an executable form. For that he would have plenty of advice and help, once he is President.

Even as far as going to war is concerned, including with ISIS, he would be getting advice. What is clear is that he would pursue Islamic Jihad differently than his predecessors, who were invested in sleeping in the same bed of dollars as those funding Jihad.

Viv S wrote:2. Ordinarily I'd have also pointed out his trade protectionist & isolationist policies being as issue of concern for India, which is a net exporter to the US and shares a China-focused burgeoning strategic relationship with it. But seeing as he's taken both sides on practically every debate, there's nothing to say his positions here will be any more durable. And that makes him unpredictable and that is concern.

He's been pro-gun control & anti-gun control, pro-choice & pro-life, for gay marriage & against gay marriage, for lower taxes & for higher taxes, for higher govt spending & for govt spending cuts and the list goes on and on.


It is the trade-deficits that he doesn't like and will not want to tolerate. In principle he doesn't have much against trade.

His main targets are China and Mexico and not really India.

Viv S wrote:As for Clinton, I think she's mostly a continuation of Obama. Uninspiring but stable, predictable & safe. Ideally, one would have a preferred a right-of-centre moderate like Kasich, but given the alternative Clinton will have to do.


Clintons are very much in bed with both China and Islamic Gulf. Her policies would be pro-Islam, pro-China and anti-Hindu (USCIRF, NGOs, Missionaries, Religious Freedom, Press Freedom, Intolerance) and there would be still more of criticism against India on treatment of Kashmiris and minorities. It is also unclear what more color revolutions she may like to pursue.

Apart from the pro-Pakistani (Kashmir Azaadi) policies her husband pursued when he was President, Hillary Clinton has:

- sent investigative teams to find mass graves in Gujarat of "Muslim genocide" in 2002 and to "fix" Modi when he was Gujarat CM

- Clinton-founded group sponsors U.S. premiere of banned Indian rape film, whose purpose was to defame all Indian men as rapists

Clinton is poison pure. Clinton is predictable, but there is nothing about her which is "safe".

____

I am not an American, and from an American PoV, I don't care if Trump becomes US President or not or whether he can save America or not or bring back jobs to America or not. Trump is not going to be my President and I don't care if he is nice to disabled people or women or Mexicans.

I even don't care if Trump is good for the world, though I am sure he would be.

But I do care if the next US President is good for India or not. But I guess, I do somewhat understand from where you are coming.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 25 May 2016 16:11

I heard that Ashely J. Tellis may join a Trump administration. His name may be familiar to those who keep a watch on think-tanks and from the day of nuclear deal between India and USA.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 25 May 2016 16:57

Published on May 25, 2016
By Josh Zeitz
Why Bernie’s Bros Might Go for Trump: Politico.com

But what if 20 percent of Sanders voters in key states defect to Trump, as they did have in previous years? Could it be enough to swing an election?
The historical lesson for Hillary Clinton is clear: Watch the left flank, because it could very well swing to the right.


___________

Trump is also a bully. New Mexico's Hispanic Republican Governor did not endorse Donald Trump and in fact made some noise about not in favor of him, so in his rally yesterday at Albuquerque, New Mexico, he started to criticize a Republican Governor on the increase of people on food stamps.

What he is saying to all those holdouts in the Republican Party who think they do not want to fall in line is that, they may think they have their own base of support, but if they don't give in, he would ask his supporters among the Republicans to withdraw their support to the Republican leader, and despite having their own base of support, they would lose the next elections.

Indians need to know what kind of man Donald Trump is. There are good parts of his candidacy for India, but any relationship with him would still need to be managed.

___________

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3976
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby arshyam » 25 May 2016 21:08

Time for some gaze-reversing. Good to see at least one media outlet talking about these things.

Voting Rights Of Minorities Under Threat In America - Swarajya Mag

It seems the world’s self-proclaimed oldest democracy is not doing a great job in protecting the full citizenship rights of its minorities.

The Washington Post report tells us that “17 states will have voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. 11 of those states will require their residents to show a photo ID. They include swing states such as Wisconsin and states with large African American and Latino populations, such as North Carolina and Texas.”

11 States, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, North Carolina, have strict laws and they do not allow their residents to cast votes unless they show a government issued identity card with their photo on them.

These are mostly Republican-controlled states. Their legislators (mostly Conservatives) believe that having a strict identification in place is necessary to stop possible vote fraud.

US Democrats and liberals allege that Republican controlled states are systematically disenfranchising voters, mostly minorities. They reason that “the burden of obtaining a photo voter Id falls disproportionately” on Blacks, Latinos, old people and the poor. Besides voter fraud is not substantial enough to warrant such strict criteria.

The courts in some states have tried to strike down these laws but to no avail. State Governors have repeatedly vetoed any such attempts.

As it turns out, in Texas alone, more than 6 lakh people don’t have the form of identification required to vote, according to a federal court. In other parts of the country the figure is quite disturbing: 11 per cent of Americans risk losing their voting rights for they don’t possess government issued identification certificate such as driving license or passport.

No one explains how the strict identification process affects the voting privileges of minorities and poor better than Jeff Daniels’ character, news anchor Will McAvoy, in the TV Show The Newsroom. He highlights the plight of a poor black woman Dorothy Cooper (a real woman whose story was woven in the fictional show)

Dorothy Cooper is a 96 year old resident of Chattanooga Tennessee and has been voting for the last 75 years. This year, she has been told she can’t. A new law in Tennessee requires residents to show a government issued photo ID in order to vote. Dorothy Cooper doesn’t have a driver’s license, because Dorothy Cooper doesn’t have a car. Dorothy Cooper doesn’t have a passport; a vacation abroad was never in her future.

Video


He busts the myth of voter fraud, a statistically proven non-problem, in his quintessential sarcastic manner:

Voter fraud is such a huge problem that during a five year period in the Bush Administration, when 196 million votes were cast, the number of cases of voter fraud reached 86. Not 86,000. 86. Here’s what that number looks like as a percentage of votes cast. 0.00004%. Four one hundred thousandths of a percent. This would be called a solution without a problem.

It is pretty clear that these US states are effectively disenfranchising voters belonging to poor and minority communities. They’re not doing this because of the voter fraud problem. They’re doing this just for the sake of barring them from voting.

How can the United States go around lecturing to the world on human rights with a straight face when 11 per cent of its population stands at a risk of being disenfranchised?

It’s time America stopped throwing proverbial stones at others’ glass houses and righted its own wrongs.


John Oliver also had a show on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

He mentions an ID office that opens for a few hours only on the 5th Wednesday (or some other weekday) of a month, which by itself means it will be open only for a few days in a year, if at all. And poor people don't get time off from work to get it done during those specific days. The extent to which their system goes to do this legally :rotfl:

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6890
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby habal » 25 May 2016 21:52

minorities on rampage in USA


look at number of mexican flags

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2802
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby prahaar » 26 May 2016 01:43

We can see a tactic of using women as front line troops in such protests. This causes the perimeter security to avoid any pushing. These guys are doing exactly the things are JNU gangs do. Probably both these groups have the same teachers. Attack on Sanders rally looks like an intra-party mischief.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby vishvak » 26 May 2016 02:04

Read somewhere long ago that Sanders is prolly the only straight forward guy in the US Senate. Or something along those lines. He looks a gentleman through and through, wonder how he could rise up in otherwise most powerful center in the world.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6890
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby habal » 26 May 2016 05:50

the Sanders video is old, I posted it for it's entertainment value. BLM didn't know then Bernie Sanders credentials, they were just jumping around doing hitjobs for Hillary.


sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1522
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby sooraj » 26 May 2016 12:38

Trump, Sanders seemingly agree to debate

Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.

Within minutes of the statement airing, Sanders had agreed to the idea.

"Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary," he tweeted early Thursday morning.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6890
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby habal » 26 May 2016 13:53

lots of entertainment from USA.

Anaheim, California


Trump events are like a goldmine.

here trump protestors squabble with each other ..


RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 27 May 2016 02:17

sooraj wrote:Trump, Sanders seemingly agree to debate

Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.

Within minutes of the statement airing, Sanders had agreed to the idea.

"Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California [b]before the June 7 primary
," he tweeted early Thursday morning.
[/b]


This is a masterstroke, sort of shunting Hillary out of the debate, raising Bernie Sanders almost to the level of a presumptive Presidential nominee.

Trump knows that the debate would not help Bernie Sanders win the Democratic ticket, so Trump is basically creating a third alternative. The debate would give Bernie Sanders one last hurrah before he leaves the field.

If Trump lets Bernie Sanders "win" the debate, it would make it all the more difficult for Bernie Sanders and his people later on to throw the towel in front of Hillary, and makes it all the more likely that he could choose to run as an Independent.

If Trump shows respect or friendliness or deference to Bernie Sanders in the debate, all the more reason for Bernie Sanders supporters to cross-over to Trump.

Through the debate, Bernie Sanders supporters would be able to fathom what are the real policy overlap that Trump has with the Sanders platform.

Just genius!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Singha » 27 May 2016 09:48

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/735985606250004480

video - armed group in texas preparing to repel the arab jihad. bullets are being coated with pigs fat.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Singha » 27 May 2016 09:52

in every gold rush the people selling picks and shovels are the ones making money, not the miners ... here a chinese company making trump and hillary masks is raking it in

Image

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 30 May 2016 18:33

RajeshA wrote:The incidence with the disabled journalist also shows something else, other than the suspicion that he lacks human decency. It is that unlike most other groomed politicos, especially in the art of "political correctness", Trump just reacts the way he feels like. You hurt him, and he would hurt you back. But this is not using the back-stabbing, in the darkness of an alley, kind of way. He just does it like a kid on the school play-ground. If kids on the school play-ground are evil and lacking human decency, then yes, Donald Trump also is evil. But if this impromptu reaction shows that a person is genuine, then Donald Trump is genuine and I guess that is why he has got such a huge fan-base and following.

This is exactly my point. The school yard attitude, childish outbursts and act-first-think-later philosophy is a very big liability. That unpredictability is what makes him dangerous.

But there is also the other side of Trump. Trump describes himself as a "Counter-Puncher". He is also more of a "Shoot first, think afterwards" kind of guy. But this mode of Trump is seen ONLY when he is under attack. When he is under-attack, all his holding-back goes out of the window and he lashes out, at least verbally.

Sure, what Donald Trump did in his imitation of the disabled guy was wrong. But may be Donald Trump felt he was being wrongly attacked by this journalist, and that gave him the right to retaliate in whatever way he can.

Does Donald Trump however go around and make fun of disabled people without any provocation, I don't think so. That would truly be lacking human decency. Though, it needs to be said, Trump has an eccentric sense and awareness of aesthetics and social perceptions of aesthetics. But despite that, he would not be unkind to a disabled person, with the rider "unless provoked", as far as I feel.

Here's the sequence of events -

1. Trump claimed that 'thousands and thousands' of people celebrated the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey.

2. When pressed for evidence he pointed to a WSJ story by Serge Kovaleski which said "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops".

3. Kovaleski when asked about the events of the day said - “I certainly do not remember anyone saying that thousands or even hundreds of people were celebrating. That was not the case, as best as I can remember."

4. Donald Trump responded by doing a public impression of Kovaleski's flailing disabled arms.


Was he 'provoked'? Was he 'counter punching'? To me it just looked like Trump being himself. His sense of decency aside, it was just one more in long long list of examples of him acting without thinking.

Those who are fans of Trump at some level are aware of this and basically they don't grudge him to have different moods, or being in different situations, and thus to have different perceptions of the immediate reality.

So what is genuine about Trump? I guess, his followers have made a decision that his patriotism and his general empathy for the dire economic situation of American people are genuine. His followers believe that Trump believes he can fix the situation. His aversion to Islam seems to be genuine.

This is the basic point. The element of genuineness (authentic or not) is something that is prized in a friend, family member or perhaps even in a colleague. But NOT when a professional is required. When you need a lawyer, you have to get somebody who can be professional and keep a straight face in court. When you need a financial advisor, its needs to be somebody who doesn't have a couple of bookies on speed dial. Similarly, the US president is his country's chief diplomat - and the ability to be diplomatic is rather essential. And this is where Trump is quite capable of (if not likely to) doing damage that may take years to heal/fix. In other spheres (financial, military, domestic), hopefully the Congress will be able to block potentially rash actions.

But that doesn't mean he is dangerous per se. When he acts on anything, there would be a range of voices who would push him to second thoughts after the wave of initial reactiveness has passed over. "Political Correctness" wasn't really a hallmark of western leaders for centuries as it has become today, and yet many knew how to act with responsibility, nonetheless, at least considering the interests of their constituency.

Thing is we don't know what are the range of voices that would influence and how far he would heed them, especially if it becomes an ego problem.

Even if his instincts are correct on many fronts - Islam, unchecked illegal immigration, neoconservative international interventions, jobs, etc., he obviously does not have much experience in how to get those views formulated as a government policy in an executable form. For that he would have plenty of advice and help, once he is President.

Even as far as going to war is concerned, including with ISIS, he would be getting advice. What is clear is that he would pursue Islamic Jihad differently than his predecessors, who were invested in sleeping in the same bed of dollars as those funding Jihad.

In all honesty I don't know if I can attack him on policy issues because he doesn't seem to have any. On practically every issues he's taken both sides of the issue, contradicted himself or walked back on his claim. His commitment to stopping Muslims from entering the US are an apt example - first presented as a firm commitment, then a temporary measure and the finally just a 'suggestion'. He's been happy to do business with the sheikhs in the Middle East before, who's to say he wouldn't be happy to do business with them as President.

Image


It is the trade-deficits that he doesn't like and will not want to tolerate. In principle he doesn't have much against trade.

His main targets are China and Mexico and not really India.

Protectionist trade policies cannot be country specific. If he does manage to get legislation passed (unlikely) for tariff barriers on manufacturing exports from China & Mexico, there's no way India's service exports will get a pass (even though the India-focused rhetoric has been relatively light).

Clintons are very much in bed with both China and Islamic Gulf. Her policies would be pro-Islam, pro-China and anti-Hindu (USCIRF, NGOs, Missionaries, Religious Freedom, Press Freedom, Intolerance) and there would be still more of criticism against India on treatment of Kashmiris and minorities. It is also unclear what more color revolutions she may like to pursue.

She was Secretary of State for 4 years and showed absolutely zero interest in rocking the boat. She wasn't pro/anti- anything and as President will simply govern as a less idealistic Obama.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 30 May 2016 19:30

RajeshA wrote:
sooraj wrote:Trump, Sanders seemingly agree to debate

Appearing on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in a show that aired Wednesday night, Trump said he would be willing to debate Sanders if proceeds from such an event went to charity.

Within minutes of the statement airing, Sanders had agreed to the idea.

"Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California [b]before the June 7 primary
," he tweeted early Thursday morning.
[/b]

This is a masterstroke, sort of shunting Hillary out of the debate, raising Bernie Sanders almost to the level of a presumptive Presidential nominee.

Trump knows that the debate would not help Bernie Sanders win the Democratic ticket, so Trump is basically creating a third alternative. The debate would give Bernie Sanders one last hurrah before he leaves the field.

If Trump lets Bernie Sanders "win" the debate, it would make it all the more difficult for Bernie Sanders and his people later on to throw the towel in front of Hillary, and makes it all the more likely that he could choose to run as an Independent.

If Trump shows respect or friendliness or deference to Bernie Sanders in the debate, all the more reason for Bernie Sanders supporters to cross-over to Trump.

Through the debate, Bernie Sanders supporters would be able to fathom what are the real policy overlap that Trump has with the Sanders platform.

Just genius!

Far from genius, this was a major error for Trump.

19 individuals ran for party nomination this cycle - 3 Democrats & 16 Republicans. Trump with no external pressure whatsoever, volunteered to debate the one person he was sure to lose against for obvious reasons - Bernie Sanders has an actual and (mostly) uncompromised set of ideals and ideas that he believes and hasn't budged from, while Trump is a policy vacuum that's brawled his way to the top (and I have to admit, an impressive brawl it was).

There could only have been one of two results -

a) A proper debate leading to a Sanders win: Bernie isn't getting the Democratic nomination (that would be a disaster for the Trump campaign) and he's also not going to go back on his pledge to support Clinton in the general election. A loss would however hurt both Trump's credibility as well as the 'natural winner' image he's projected.

b) Trump takes off the gloves and fights dirty Trump-style: Sanders is a irascible old man who can be as rude as the next chap. Both would have gone hammer-and-tongs at each making for great press. But in the end, all it would do is convince furious Bernie supporters to accept Clinton's candidacy (post-convention) to stave off Trump.


Of course true to form, Trump didn't stop to think before he acted. He committed himself to a debate and then once the light dawned he spent the next two days trying to weasel out of it.

First he said he was willing to do it, but wanted the money from the tv rights to go to charity. Done. Then he said it must generate at least $10 million in funds for charity. Done. Then he expressed doubts over whether that money would be properly accounted for. They were willing to meet his terms. And finally he says that the Democratic process is rigged, Sanders is No.2 so it would be 'inappropriate' to debate him despite it being an 'easy payday'.

_____________________________________________________________________

I’d love to debate Bernie – he’s a dream. If I debated him, we would have such high ratings, and I think we should take that money and give it to some worthy charity. - Trump (May 25)

Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Sanders (May 25)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was only kidding. There's going to be no debate. - Trump Campaign (May 25)

We are ready to debate Donald Trump. We hope he will not chicken out. - Sanders campaign (May 25)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd love to debate him...Maybe if we can raise for women's health issues or something-- if we can raise 10 or $15 million for charity....I think it would get very high ratings. The biggest problem I have is that Bernie's not going to win. I'd debate him anyway if they want to put up the money. We've actually had a couple of calls from the networks already. - Trump (May 26)

I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let’s do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Sanders (May 26)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. - Trump (May 27)

In recent days, Donald Trump has said he wants to debate, he doesn’t want to debate, he wants to debate and, now, he doesn’t want to debate. Given that there are several television networks prepared to carry this debate and donate funds to charity, I hope that he changes his mind once again and comes on board. - Sanders (May 27)

_____________________________________________________________________

And predictably, the #ChickenTrump and Colonel Sanders memes began -

Image

_____________________________________________________________________


The salient point here isn't that Trump is unwilling or afraid to debate Sanders, it was that he was willing to commit himself to something without first stopping to think about the consequences.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 30 May 2016 20:47

Viv S wrote:There could only have been one of two results -

a) A proper debate leading to a Sanders win: Bernie isn't getting the Democratic nomination (that would be a disaster for the Trump campaign) and he's also not going to go back on his pledge to support Clinton in the general election. A loss would however hurt both Trump's credibility as well as the 'natural winner' image he's projected.

b) Trump takes off the gloves and fights dirty Trump-style: Sanders is a irascible old man who can be as rude as the next chap. Both would have gone hammer-and-tongs at each making for great press. But in the end, all it would do is convince furious Bernie supporters to accept Clinton's candidacy (post-convention) to stave off Trump.


Actually it would have been a relatively civil debate, so (b) would have been unlikely. Why should Trump spend his ammunition on a man who gives him nothing. If he had gone into the debate, then it would have been only for the purpose of exacerbating the divisions in the Democratic camp and to reach out to the Bernie Sanders voters. Otherwise Trump has absolutely no interest in Bernie Sanders.

Probably like you said, Trump was in the end not convinced that Bernie Sanders would strike out on his own and not support Clinton, so he let it be. There is no chicken about this. Trump proposed a debate with Bernie since he was playing around with the possibility of division. When he felt that it is only a 50-50 thing and not worth it, he backed out. It was a risky business proposition.

#ChickenTrump etc. is just some rhetoric from an otherwise frustrated and losing camp, that of Bernie Sanders. It matters little.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9941
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Yagnasri » 31 May 2016 11:50

While DT is like a crazy fox - unpredictable, cunning and aggressive, I think he may be civil to Burnee. The reason is to win his supporters to GOP and away from HC. At least make them sit at home on the election day.

Anyway, any publicity is good publicity for political leaders.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 31 May 2016 13:17

Image

Hillary will probably lose California to Bernie Sanders, but she will reach the finishing line crawling and pulling and gasping and panting, and clinch the nomination. But she would be a dead (wo)man walking.

It is possible that many of Bernie Sanders voters would simply vote Libertarian or Green. Some would opt for Trump, and some would stay at home. All Hillary has going for her are the African-Americans, pissed off Latinos, and some old-time white Democrats. Possibly half of Bernie Sanders supporters may still opt for Hillary.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9941
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Yagnasri » 31 May 2016 13:33

The enthusiasm gap is glaring between DT and HC. Burnee exposed HC on policies and ensured her defeat.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11211
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Gagan » 07 Jun 2016 07:01

Guys, who do u think is going to win hain ji?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RoyG » 07 Jun 2016 15:32

Dt will win the election.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby JE Menon » 07 Jun 2016 15:39

I made my prediction a long while ago, early on or just before the primaries, and I'm sticking to it.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 07 Jun 2016 18:22

Donald Trump wants to show sometimes that he is a good communicator, but he does have trouble sometimes making his point.

For example, Donald Trump has been having a difficult time making his case against the Mexican-origin judge on the Trump University case and everybody is pounding on him that he is a racist.

All he has to do is speak out that he is calling out the judge for being a racist and thus acting discriminatory against Trump, especially as the judge is a member of a group called "La Raza". Is calling out racism of others by whites, also racism? But Donald Trump can't seem to make the case!

The average Joe would probably get Trump's message intuitively but anybody who has drunk from the well of "progressive intellectual righteousness" won't get the message, and that is because Trump can't explain to those people in a language they understand.

From my perspective, I don't really care who is racist here, but as a student of rhetoric, it is amusing.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6890
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby habal » 07 Jun 2016 18:52

he seems to be trickle-funding his campaign. his campaign budget is on a shoestring.

seems to have lost his edge lately, has not capitalized on the attack on his supporters in New Mexico, San Jose & Albuquerque. IN fact has not even mumbled a single word in media against it.

strange campaign.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 07 Jun 2016 19:41

RajeshA wrote:Donald Trump wants to show sometimes that he is a good communicator, but he does have trouble sometimes making his point.

For example, Donald Trump has been having a difficult time making his case against the Mexican-origin judge on the Trump University case and everybody is pounding on him that he is a racist.

All he has to do is speak out that he is calling out the judge for being a racist and thus acting discriminatory against Trump, especially as the judge is a member of a group called "La Raza". Is calling out racism of others by whites, also racism? But Donald Trump can't seem to make the case!

Except that all of that is wrong (not that such a thing ever stopped Trump).


1. Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which is affiliated with Hispanic National Bar Association. It is independent from the National Council of La Raza which has been staging all those anti-Trump protests. The judge's membership is no more racist than an Indian judge being associated with the Indian American Bar Association of Chicago.

2. The judge in question has a long record of meritorious service including prosecuting Mexican drug cartels, spending seven years serving as the deputy chief and later chief of the Narcotics Enforcement Division of the AG SC office. And his efforts were vigorous enough for him to be marked for assassination by the Arellano Felix cartel.

3. The judge was appointed to the case well before Trump declared his presidential ambitions and none of his decisions or judgments are considered biased by most legal experts.

4. Mostly importantly, if Trump actually felt he was been victimized, instead of just being a blowhard in public he could have directed his lawyers to filed a formal motion to have the judge recuse himself. They have NOT.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16954
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby NRao » 07 Jun 2016 20:52

FYI on the topic of India-Clinton:

As India’s Prime Minister Modi Visits President Obama, Both Leaders Look to Cement a Legacy

Despite the flourishing of the U.S.-India relationship under Modi and Obama, the fact remains that come next year, the former will be interacting with a new President. And depending on who assumes office next, whether it is the likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, bilateral ties between the two countries will be affected to varying degrees.

“If Clinton were to be the next President, I think we could expect a lot more of the same and I think the Indians would be perfectly happy with that,” Vaishnav says.


As I have stated not much will/should change, if Hillary is elected.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Gus » 07 Jun 2016 22:10

Viv S wrote:4. Mostly importantly, if Trump actually felt he was been victimized, instead of just being a blowhard in public he could have directed his lawyers to filed a formal motion to have the judge recuse himself. They have NOT.


you are assuming drumpf :lol: has reasoning and logic etc behind this seemingly bizarre 'mexican judge' rants. it is just plain old dog whistle and code word stuff targeted at his voting groups.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Arjun » 07 Jun 2016 22:35

NRao wrote:As I have stated not much will/should change, if Hillary is elected.

Yeah...same old. Like bounty-hunting for mass graves in Gujarat for example. Run-of-the-mill stuff.

Btw, these US-based leftist rags like NYT, WaPo, Huffington Post are way worse any day than the Chindu...don't know why folks on this thread give attention to these low-IQ turds' opinion pieces.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 07 Jun 2016 23:56

To those unaware of what the whole business is about -


Trump was running a scam business i.e Trump University that was so predatory that it makes Arindham Chaudhary's IIPM look highly principled in comparison.

Trump University offered applicants an "education" in real estate with training provided by instructors that had been 'hand-picked' by Trump himself (a complete lie). In practice is operated like a casino with its salespeople tasked with one simple & direct objective - to take as much money off the suckers coming through the door as they can. I mean that literally not figuratively.


Trump's 'instructors' were given a sales manual, later released by the court.

Some excerpts -


BEFORE SALE

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


DURING SALE

Image

Image

Image

Image


AFTER SALE

Image


_______________________________________________________________________


The punchline line is many of Trump's 'experts' had little to no experience in real estate.


All in all Trump University lined up about 5,000 poor clueless saps and took off between $1,500 and $60,000 from each through mostly worthless seminars and training modules, sometimes utterly destroying their lives.

Netted Donald Trump a cool $40 million (minus expenses) before he was forced to close shop.

Of course when he was finally hauled up in court and slapped with a class action lawsuit, his Trump Mouth started issuing notices that the Trump Brain had only partially processed, and he decided to publicly attack the judge. Of course the judge decided that since Trump wanted a public trial ("having brought integrity of these proceedings into question") he (rightly so) released the evidence for public consumption too.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Viv S » 08 Jun 2016 00:21

Some Trump University employees later testified under oath such as this chap -

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3642
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Rudradev » 08 Jun 2016 00:26

This is what Trump needs to do to win:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5kzBQ

Dominate the rust-belt states of PA, OH, MI and WI.

Other states have been allotted based mostly on typical voting patterns. Dems will get the West Coast, most of the Northeast, potentially Virginia. Because of the Latino (anti-Trump) factor, they have a good chance of bagging Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico as well.

Republicans will get the rest of the south, the prairie and upper mountain states as always.

The key is the 64 electoral college seats in PA, WI, OH, and MI. These states have large numbers of white voters who are working class and lower-middle-class: those feeling most threatened, and angriest, by how both Republican and Democrat establishments have outsourced production, imported immigrant labour, and connived with Wall Street while sidelining them economically and marginalizing them socially. They are make-or-break for Trump, and at present, the caste demographics :mrgreen: favour him there.
Last edited by Rudradev on 08 Jun 2016 00:28, edited 1 time in total.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Gus » 08 Jun 2016 00:27

Hilary hate should not blind folks from who trump is - a fraud and a bully and whose actual policies and to be advisors are unknown other than 'make murrica great again' as if that's all we need to know.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3299
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby vera_k » 08 Jun 2016 06:15

At this point though, Trump only has to "appear" reasonable to win. And Yellen is likely to hand him the election with a ham handed rate hike.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby RajeshA » 08 Jun 2016 17:50

Viv S wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Donald Trump wants to show sometimes that he is a good communicator, but he does have trouble sometimes making his point.

For example, Donald Trump has been having a difficult time making his case against the Mexican-origin judge on the Trump University case and everybody is pounding on him that he is a racist.

All he has to do is speak out that he is calling out the judge for being a racist and thus acting discriminatory against Trump, especially as the judge is a member of a group called "La Raza". Is calling out racism of others by whites, also racism? But Donald Trump can't seem to make the case!

Except that all of that is wrong (not that such a thing ever stopped Trump).


1. Judge Gonzalo Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which is affiliated with Hispanic National Bar Association. It is independent from the National Council of La Raza which has been staging all those anti-Trump protests. The judge's membership is no more racist than an Indian judge being associated with the Indian American Bar Association of Chicago.

2. The judge in question has a long record of meritorious service including prosecuting Mexican drug cartels, spending seven years serving as the deputy chief and later chief of the Narcotics Enforcement Division of the AG SC office. And his efforts were vigorous enough for him to be marked for assassination by the Arellano Felix cartel.

3. The judge was appointed to the case well before Trump declared his presidential ambitions and none of his decisions or judgments are considered biased by most legal experts.

4. Mostly importantly, if Trump actually felt he was been victimized, instead of just being a blowhard in public he could have directed his lawyers to filed a formal motion to have the judge recuse himself. They have NOT.


The difference between La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and National Council of La Raza sound like "People's Liberation Front of Judea" and "The Judean People's Front" - two different organizations peddling the same thing.

"La Raza" means "The Race". So is a member of "La Raza" a Racist? Kyon ji?

Nothing wrong with "good old nationalism" or "good old Mexican nationalism", only that Donald Trump is saying or rather wants to say, only doesn't seem to be able to, is that "good old Mexican nationalism" is a political ideology which would see Donald Trump's candidacy as totally contrary to its ideology and interests, and since the judge happens to have a political bias against Trump, he should recuse himself, especially with his history of showing discrimination towards Trump in the case.

Problem with Trump is that instead of making out a case that the judge is racist or biased, having a strong political bias against him, Trump has ended up being called the racist. In order to make his point, he would have had to show some eloquence and precision far above his usual rhetoric, which he has not managed. Bad!!!

It doesn't mean Trump is wrong or racist. All it means is Trump lacks the rhetorical skills required of a politician.

What the Trump U case is or not is, who scammed who, is really not important.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anandsgh, Ashok Sarraff, vijayk and 67 guests