Is Hilary to blame or the Democrats for choosing her

mrginge

stator wrote: »

Hilary won the popular vote. It was the rigged election system that chose Donald J Trump

That's an interesting view.

Everything I've heard about the US electoral system says that the process is biased towards the democrats.

Seemed like trump only had one route to victory whereas Clinton had various. Just turned out that the one route came off.

hildosaver

I think that if the Democrats had picked anybody other than Clinton they would likely have won the presidency.


Clinton had the democratic establishment behind her and worked against the likes of Sanders and essentially shot themselves in the foot. They completely misjudged the mood of the nation and favoured the establishment over what the average person in American actually wanted, which was change and specifically a change from the establishment figures who they believe have offered them nothing for decades.

stator

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And striking a conciliatory tone with other world powers rather than being despised and despising another world nuclear power (Russia), probably a good thing Hillary lost. We might see co-operation in Ukraine and Syria now, as someone with first person experience (not much) of what's going on in Ukraine I see the election of Trump as a positive for the world in terms of conflict.

By 'co-operation' I pressume you mean the west sitting by and allowing Russia to invade/interfere with any country it likes?

Trump may not be a fascist but Putin certainly is. He's been trying to recreate Russian power abroad and resurrect the Soviet Union. He's willing to work with any dictator/genocidal maniac/war criminal, as long as they are allied to Russia. This includes the current regimes in Syria and Turkey and most of caucasia. He cares nothing for human lives, democracy or freedom. All he cares about it making "Russian Great Again". If Trump adopts the policy of 'let Russia do what it wants, it doesn't affect us' you will start to see Russia interfering in all the former Soviet states and some more. Expect lots of corruption, extra judicial killings, media manipulation etc etc
If I lived in Eastern Europe or Caucasia I would be seriously looking at moving.

CLAPTON

nice to see support for Trump from our every own labour party

The shadow foreign secretary has compared the wave of popular support for Donald Trump’s anti-establishment message to the similarly unexpected rise of Jeremy Corbyn, energised for similar reasons.

Emily Thornberry said although the values of the Labour leader and the Republican president-elect were very different, both had a message about the political system that resonated.

“I think it’s right there are hundreds and thousands energised by Jeremy Corbyn being the leader of the Labour party so there are some similarities,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, adding that it was clear their principles did not align.

What do Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump have in common?
David Shariatmadari
David Shariatmadari Read more
Trump’s message on job creation and industry also resonated, Thornberry said. “To give him his credit, I never thought I’d say this, but Donald Trump was talking about the importance of investing in jobs and infrastructure and in the economies across the country, not just the main cities, and that’s right.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/10/support-donald-trump-similar-rise-jeremy-corbyn-emily-thornberry

kabayiri

stator wrote: »

By 'co-operation' I pressume you mean the west sitting by and allowing Russia to invade/interfere with any country it likes?
...

A quarter of a century of American intervention in the Middle East has fixed precisely nothing.

Voters in Syria/ Latvia / Poland/ etc; they didn't vote in their politicians in the past who campaigned to defend American interests did they?

American voters are employing the exact same sentiments of self interest.

Russia is achieving much more effective disruption through it's media operations.

Somerset

gfplux wrote: »

So Trump won and Hilary lost.
As the winner we have to say that the Republicans chose a winning candidate who ran a winning campaign..
The Democrats chose a loosing candidate who ran a loosing campaign.

So who should we blame for Trump winning?

Slightly disagree with that. Republicans didn't choose Trump, he forced his way through giving them no choose. The other candidates were insipid. The Republicans are still divided by Trump.


Democrats engineered the nomination for Clinton to win. She was absolutely their preferred candidate.


Blame ? Obama. In as much as the US had eight continuous years of progressive democrat politics. Public take on that, half were happy, half were very unhappy. Voting system meant the unhappy half won.

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

You think so?

http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-win-shakes-ukraine/

Apart from the Ukraine, I imagine the Baltic states will be rather nervous also. Wouldn't be too surprised if Putin starts stirring in the interest of various 'Russian minorities'.

It shakes the current political establishment in Ukraine, which is hated by the people I know for actually ramping up the violence in the East. If the support for the war is withdrawn then hopefully people will stop dying, so I couldn't care less how the government of Ukraine feels, it's better for the poor people who live there.

martinthebandit

stator wrote: »

Hilary won the popular vote. It was the rigged election system that chose Donald J Trump

Nonsense, the US system was designed from the beginning so as to ensure that cities (with greater population density) did not gain (what was seen at the time) unfair advantag.

It is no more 'rigged' than any other democratic system.

Herzlos

For reasons I don't quite understand, a lot of the US electorate are dead set against Hilary - so many will have voted Trump as "at least he's not Hilary", with many others thinking they are equally bad - she's a toxic candidate and had a huge uphill struggle to even become neutral. So yeah, I think letting her run was a mistake.

JP08

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It shakes the current political establishment in Ukraine, which is hated by the people I know for actually ramping up the violence in the East. If the support for the war is withdrawn then hopefully people will stop dying, so I couldn't care less how the government of Ukraine feels, it's better for the poor people who live there.

That sounds awfully like General Flashman's ("Mr American" by George MacDonald Frazer) comments on Belgium before the 1st World War.

"‘Anyway, imagine yourself a Belgian — in Liege, say. Along come the Prussians, and invade you. What about it? — a few cars commandeered, a shop or two looted, half a dozen girls knocked up, a provost marshal installed, and the storm’s passed. Fierce fighting with the Frogs, who squeal like hell because Britain refuses to help, the Germans reach Paris, peace concluded, and that’s that. And there you are, getting on with your garden in Liege. But — ‘ the General waved his bony finger. ‘Suppose Britain helps — sends forces to aid little Belgium — and the Frogs — against the Teuton horde? what then? Belgian resistance is stiffened, the Frogs manage to stop the invaders, a hell of a war is waged all over Belgium and north-east France, and after God knows how much slaughter and destruction the the Germans are beat — or not, as the case may be. How’s Liege doing? I’ll tell you — it’s a bloody shambles. You’re lying mangled in your cabbage patch, your wife’s had her legs blown off, your daughters have been raped, and your house is a mass of rubble. You’re a lot better off for British intervention, ain’t you?’ He sat back grinning sardonically."