We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
US Mid term elections
Comments
-
You can't ignore the fact that historically America usually likes to give its Presidents/parties 2 terms in the White House
The person in power (particularly if they have the house and/or senate) has a great deal of advantage over a challenger for the second year, particularly if the losing party doesn't learn from their mistakes and picks another suspect candidate. Look at how the Tories were miles ahead of Labour in 2017 and it took Corbyn splashing the cash like it was going out of fashion to get people to come over.I know that, but Hillary's unpopularity was key to Trump winning. Obama would have won easily.
That's a distortion of the reality, Hilary was massively popular, she got 3m more votes than Trump, Trump won because of the US electoral college system meaning you don't need to win the popular vote, just win the right votes. Perhaps the fact Trump spent the whole election campaign against her by spreading false claims about her motivated Republicans to come out and vote but to say she was unpopular causing Trump to win is wrong.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I know that, but Hillary's unpopularity was key to Trump winning. Obama would have won easily.
Trump tapped into a huge vein of discontent. The rust belt of the USA is very real. Watch "Miriam's Big American Adventure " series if you get a chance. Was an enlghtening insight into middle state USA. The reasoning of ordinary people behind their support, and equally dislike of Trump. Like Brexit divisions run deep.
Obama actually achieved very little of what he promised. Great speaker but received little support implementing his vision. Reminds me of Tony Blair in many ways.
My personal experience of Americans. Is that while the language is similar. We differ in many many ways. With a polarisation of views on many topics.0 -
Roesener, who said he leans conservative, is also skeptical of the idea that the Expo Center could be difficult to reach.
“There are a ton of events that happen there year round that people never seem to have trouble getting to,” Roesener said.
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
There are when you're a well off person with a car and can easily get there to vote and go off to work. When you're having to travel some distance and potentially losing work time/money then you're more likely to just skip voting.
Not sure why the need to argue the toss here, it's well documented that the Republican controlled states particularly those with a risk of losing the seat have actively worked to stop minorities voting, making it harder to vote and gerrymandering the areas to ensure certain votes are effectively wasted
Michigan
USA Today report
NY Times reportSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Trump tapped into a huge vein of discontent. The rust belt of the USA is very real. Watch "Miriam's Big American Adventure " series if you get a chance. Was an enlghtening insight into middle state USA. The reasoning of ordinary people behind their support, and equally dislike of Trump. Like Brexit divisions run deep.
Obama actually achieved very little of what he promised. Great speaker but received little support implementing his vision. Reminds me of Tony Blair in many ways.
My personal experience of Americans. Is that while the language is similar. We differ in many many ways. With a polarisation of views on many topics.
I agree but you have a setup where Obama was effectively hamstrung by the GOP controlling the houses and blocking everything that wasn't about helping the rich, particularly rich white men, get richer e.g. Obamacare or even the Supreme Court nomination. Trump was in a party who had spent 6 years running the country and promised a lot but has delivered very little - he promised to drain the swamp yet hired loads of establishment people for his staff; his wall isn't built (and the cost grew 10 fold during his campaign, let alone the reality); he's got into a trade war with China and others which even the more moderate Republicans think will be bad for US business as well as destabilising world peace with his stuff on Russia and Iran. With no third party candidate they drift from extreme to extreme with half the country unhappy for 4 or 8 years. I find it sad that for example, during Bush vs Kerry the GOP dragged out Vietnam vets to attack Kerry's service (the man was wounded 2 or 3 times and won a Silver Star) while supporting a draft dodger who used his family connections to avoid his service - bonkers, they wouldn't even think about voting for Bush if he'd have been a DemocratSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Edit: happy to be proved wrong but just like here there seems to be a polarisation with Bernie Sunders being the US equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn and very likely to get the presidential nomination.
If that stands Trump can start openly transferring the Federal Reserve into his personal piggy bank and biting the heads off kittens in the Oval Office, knowing that a second term is guaranteed. The USA has never elected a socialist. Too many of its inhabitants came to America to escape socialism, or their parents and grandparents did.Nasqueron wrote:In reality the amount of voter fraud is so low it's non-existent - a study runded by Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation found 56 non-citizens voting in the 11 years 2000-2011
I think you meant to say that 56 non-citizens were caught voting in 2000-2011. How else did they count them? Did a lot of people queue up to tell the Carnegie Corporation that they'd voted illegally and got away with it?0 -
he's got into a trade war with China and others which even the more moderate Republicans think will be bad for US business
The trade war (tariffs) is in relation to the stealing of IP. To operate in China you need to form a Joint Venture. Chinese care little for anything but their own long term interests.
If I was American I'd support a policy of getting companies to relocate back on shore. Similar to the off shoring debate of call centres etc from the UK to overseas. End of the day. It's jobs.
Uproar though when the UK Chancellor suggested a digital tax on Tech companies.Anything which is bad for US companies is met with an aggressive response. While a business might have a US listing. The company is frequently run for benefit of owners and shareholders. There's little sentiment for communities and wider social impacts.0 -
Malthusian wrote: »
I think you meant to say that 56 non-citizens were caught voting in 2000-2011. How else did they count them? Did a lot of people queue up to tell the Carnegie Corporation that they'd voted illegally and got away with it?
No I didn't mean to say that, that was the result of investigations. If you have evidence that the scale is much larger feel free to support your claims? To help you look into it, Justin Levitt, professor a Loyola Law School, an expert on voter fraud, painted it as 31 credible instances from more than 1 billion votes cast 2000-2014. More than that, the implication is that people are deliberately committing fraud. One case example was a man who was a permanent resident, but not a citizen who was told by the DMV, when renewing his license, that he was eligible to vote and give the registration form (that was one of 5 between 2000-2004)
Trump claimed "substantial" voter fraud but has massively misunderstood (or deliberately misinterpreted) all the stuff he's quoted. As an example he claims he won the popular vote as 3m were illegal, a claim fully debunked on the link below. Trump of course presented no evidence to support his claim like normal.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »The trade war (tariffs) is in relation to the stealing of IP. To operate in China you need to form a Joint Venture. Chinese care little for anything but their own long term interests.
If I was American I'd support a policy of getting companies to relocate back on shore. Similar to the off shoring debate of call centres etc from the UK to overseas. End of the day. It's jobs.
Uproar though when the UK Chancellor suggested a digital tax on Tech companies.Anything which is bad for US companies is met with an aggressive response. While a business might have a US listing. The company is frequently run for benefit of owners and shareholders. There's little sentiment for communities and wider social impacts.
I know why he said he did it but his reaction since then have gone on and on like imposing tariffs then saying he'll put more on if they put tariffs on back - he's also doing it to other countries, not just China. A trade war and protectionism will do nothing for the world economy - ironically he's going to cost jobs as even American firms have told him e.g. saying they buy foreign steel as US doesn't make enough so higher prices will impact their sell price and lower sales!Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »....
Uproar though when the UK Chancellor suggested a digital tax on Tech companies.Anything which is bad for US companies is met with an aggressive response. While a business might have a US listing. The company is frequently run for benefit of owners and shareholders. There's little sentiment for communities and wider social impacts.
Hmm, this you mean.
"US lobbyists have hit back at the UK government’s plan to impose a 2% levy on the revenues of tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. The new tax, said Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce, would “improperly target large American technology companies” and “set a dangerous precedent.” The Treasury says that the new levy will apply to search engines, online marketplaces and social media firms and be based on advertising revenue earned from UK users."
I don't believe Mr Hammond suggested it was purely US tech companies? The criteria would catch any tech company, wherever they hail from.
If Facebook and Amazon don't find the UK market appealing, they are most welcome to try elsewhere.
They won't dump the UK of course, so it's all hot air.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards