You yanks have a poor choice come November.

[Tigers!]

(Even in Australia your presidential debates are shown on TV. No wonder our ABC has such poor ratings. )

After watching of the first 2 debates I am really sorry for the poor choices you must make.
I cannot believe that you have two such appalling candidates. How did that happen? Why could you not find more suitable candidates?
Both are appalling in their own unique way.
I could not in conscience waste my precious vote on either of them.
Both give me plenty of reasons to not vote for the other but no reasons to vote for them.

If they were standing in Australia I would deliberately vote informal as a protest at such poor quality.

Whoever is voted in will have grave effects for the rest of the world. More's the pity.

 

[untermensche]

How do you view Obama?

How exactly is Hillary much different?

I agree that Trump is insane and the Republicans who nominated him and people who support him are idiots.

While Hillary does not represent a movement in a direction I like, she is a run-of-the-mill middle of the road candidate not far from Obama who is not far from Bill Clinton.

 

[Tigers!]

Since we knew next to nothing about Obama (in Australia) before he was elected I was prepared to wait to see results.
Not being all that familiar with US ways of doing things it seems to me that Obama is quite prepared to bypass your Congress/ House of reps to get what he wants without any regard to the future. i cannot see how that can be good in the future.
Based upon that Clinton would not be much different but she lacks Obama smoothness and seeming affability.
The only road of which Clinton is middle of the road is the freeway marked Clinton.

Both candidates strike me as vain, egocentric, egotistical and only interested in themselves. Neither can handle criticism and seem to be surrounded by toadies.

Churchill once remarked that Clement Attlee was a proud, little man with little to be proud of. Fits both those yobos perfectly.

 

[untermensche]

Since we knew next to nothing about Obama (in Australia) before he was elected I was prepared to wait to see results.
Not being all that familiar with US ways of doing things it seems to me that Obama is quite prepared to bypass your Congress/ House of reps to get what he wants without any regard to the future. i cannot see how that can be good in the future.
Based upon that Clinton would not be much different but she lacks Obama smoothness and seeming affability.
The only road of which Clinton is middle of the road is the freeway marked Clinton.

Both candidates strike me as vain, egocentric, egotistical and only interested in themselves. Neither can handle criticism and seem to be surrounded by toadies.

Churchill once remarked that Clement Attlee was a proud, little man with little to be proud of. Fits both those yobos perfectly.

Clinton is actually very intelligent and understands how to work within the political system as well as anybody.

Trump is incredibly ignorant. His father taught him how to make money in real estate and gave him a couple hundred million.

Trump has been a petty dictator his entire working life. He knows nothing but giving orders.

From your view they may appear similar.

From mine, one is not so good but pretty much business as usual and one is a horrific nightmare.

 

[Tigers!]

Since we knew next to nothing about Obama (in Australia) before he was elected I was prepared to wait to see results.
Not being all that familiar with US ways of doing things it seems to me that Obama is quite prepared to bypass your Congress/ House of reps to get what he wants without any regard to the future. i cannot see how that can be good in the future.
Based upon that Clinton would not be much different but she lacks Obama smoothness and seeming affability.
The only road of which Clinton is middle of the road is the freeway marked Clinton.

Both candidates strike me as vain, egocentric, egotistical and only interested in themselves. Neither can handle criticism and seem to be surrounded by toadies.

Churchill once remarked that Clement Attlee was a proud, little man with little to be proud of. Fits both those yobos perfectly.

Clinton is actually very intelligent and understands how to work within the political system as well as anybody.

Trump is incredibly ignorant. His father taught him how to make money in real estate and gave him a couple hundred million.

Trump has been a petty dictator his entire working life. He knows nothing but giving orders.

From your view they may appear similar.

From mine, one is not so good but pretty much business as usual and one is a horrific nightmare.

I have been following US politics with varying degrees of nausea since Reagan. Even since Bill appeared on the scene (such promise but his lust brought him down) Hillary has given me the impression that she will do anything to push the family forward and get themselves in the limelight. Its all about them.

Your comment "Clinton is actually very intelligent and understands how to work within the political system as well as anybody." is part of the problem. You need someone who can look beyond themselves and neither she nor Trump can do that.

 

[Hickdive]

Clinton is far from squeaky-clean and her election would just be a victory for the corporations that sponsor her. She is Washington politics through and through and any 'vision' she might have held has long since evaporated.

But, and this is the huge BUT! Trump is a certifiable moron who would certainly lead the world to conflict on a huge scale. He's pally enough with Putin at the moment (pally to the extent that he presents a far greater threat to the national security of the USA than anything Clinton ever did with emails) but he has a track record of falling out with people and allowing petty vindictiveness rule his subsequent dealings with them. Putin is pushing very hard at the moment because he knows he has a lame-duck in the Whitehouse.

Electing Trump would be a tragedy for the world.

 

[untermensche]

You need someone who can look beyond themselves and neither she nor Trump can do that.

That is an entirely different issue.

The choice is between business as usual and total batshit crazy.

 

[whichphilosophy]

(Even in Australia your presidential debates are shown on TV. No wonder our ABC has such poor ratings. )

After watching of the first 2 debates I am really sorry for the poor choices you must make.
I cannot believe that you have two such appalling candidates. How did that happen? Why could you not find more suitable candidates?
Both are appalling in their own unique way.
I could not in conscience waste my precious vote on either of them.
Both give me plenty of reasons to not vote for the other but no reasons to vote for them.

If they were standing in Australia I would deliberately vote informal as a protest at such poor quality.

Whoever is voted in will have grave effects for the rest of the world. More's the pity.

Unfortunately their parties chose them. The voters could vote for an alternative candidate but the US voters like UK voters tend to vote for one to keep another out.
Its a matter of the one considered the least desirable as winning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How do you view Obama?

How exactly is Hillary much different?

I agree that Trump is insane and the Republicans who nominated him and people who support him are idiots.

While Hillary does not represent a movement in a direction I like, she is a run-of-the-mill middle of the road candidate not far from Obama who is not far from Bill Clinton.

There you have it, in a nut shell. Clinton is a vote for the general political establishment that will put very good people on SCOTUS. Trump is a seriously sick and was infected by the alt-right virus that is his base.

- - - Updated - - -

Clinton is actually very intelligent and understands how to work within the political system as well as anybody.

Trump is incredibly ignorant. His father taught him how to make money in real estate and gave him a couple hundred million.

Trump has been a petty dictator his entire working life. He knows nothing but giving orders.

From your view they may appear similar.

From mine, one is not so good but pretty much business as usual and one is a horrific nightmare.

I have been following US politics with varying degrees of nausea since Reagan. Even since Bill appeared on the scene (such promise but his lust brought him down) Hillary has given me the impression that she will do anything to push the family forward and get themselves in the limelight. Its all about them.

Your comment "Clinton is actually very intelligent and understands how to work within the political system as well as anybody." is part of the problem. You need someone who can look beyond themselves and neither she nor Trump can do that.

Except Clinton is qualified for the job in several ways where as Trump is disqualifiable in almost all ways but the birth and age requirements.

 

[Terrell]

(Even in Australia your presidential debates are shown on TV. No wonder our ABC has such poor ratings. )

After watching of the first 2 debates I am really sorry for the poor choices you must make.
I cannot believe that you have two such appalling candidates. How did that happen? Why could you not find more suitable candidates?
Both are appalling in their own unique way.
I could not in conscience waste my precious vote on either of them.
Both give me plenty of reasons to not vote for the other but no reasons to vote for them.

If they were standing in Australia I would deliberately vote informal as a protest at such poor quality.

Whoever is voted in will have grave effects for the rest of the world. More's the pity.

Unfortunately their parties chose them. The voters could vote for an alternative candidate but the US voters like UK voters tend to vote for one to keep another out.
Its a matter of the one considered the least desirable as winning.

There are primaries for both the Democratic & Republican parties, so they were voted on by the people that bothered to show up for said primaries. Trump got the most votes in the Republican primary; Clinton got the most votes in the Democratic primary.

It would have been nice to see some better competition fielded against her in the primary, but blue no matter who is my view on this. Democrats have the opportunity to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court if they win the presidency. It would move SCOTUS leftward to have a Democrat appoint his replacement. If they can win the Senate as well it would be better.

 

[iolo]

Unfortunately their parties chose them. The voters could vote for an alternative candidate but the US voters like UK voters tend to vote for one to keep another out.
Its a matter of the one considered the least desirable as winning.

There are primaries for both the Democratic & Republican parties, so they were voted on by the people that bothered to show up for said primaries. Trump got the most votes in the Republican primary; Clinton got the most votes in the Democratic primary.

It would have been nice to see some better competition fielded against her in the primary, but blue no matter who is my view on this. Democrats have the opportunity to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court if they win the presidency. It would move SCOTUS leftward to have a Democrat appoint his replacement. If they can win the Senate as well it would be better.

Well, fair play to America, it looks as if Mr Sanders would not only have been a better but a more successful Candidate. Like the Parliamentary Labour Party here, the Democratic officials had their careers to look after.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unfortunately their parties chose them. The voters could vote for an alternative candidate but the US voters like UK voters tend to vote for one to keep another out.
Its a matter of the one considered the least desirable as winning.

There are primaries for both the Democratic & Republican parties, so they were voted on by the people that bothered to show up for said primaries. Trump got the most votes in the Republican primary; Clinton got the most votes in the Democratic primary.

It would have been nice to see some better competition fielded against her in the primary, but blue no matter who is my view on this. Democrats have the opportunity to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court if they win the presidency. It would move SCOTUS leftward to have a Democrat appoint his replacement. If they can win the Senate as well it would be better.

Thanks to Jeff "What is sexual assault?" Sessions, maybe super-majority may be slightly feasible again.

 

[Terrell]

There are primaries for both the Democratic & Republican parties, so they were voted on by the people that bothered to show up for said primaries. Trump got the most votes in the Republican primary; Clinton got the most votes in the Democratic primary.

It would have been nice to see some better competition fielded against her in the primary, but blue no matter who is my view on this. Democrats have the opportunity to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court if they win the presidency. It would move SCOTUS leftward to have a Democrat appoint his replacement. If they can win the Senate as well it would be better.

Well, fair play to America, it looks as if Mr Sanders would not only have been a better but a more successful Candidate. Like the Parliamentary Labour Party here, the Democratic officials had their careers to look after.

I have my doubts on that. The Republicans hadn't bothered to go after Sanders so we don't know how he would have actually done in the general election. I suspect that they would have focused on him being a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist.

 

[Terrell]

There are primaries for both the Democratic & Republican parties, so they were voted on by the people that bothered to show up for said primaries. Trump got the most votes in the Republican primary; Clinton got the most votes in the Democratic primary.

It would have been nice to see some better competition fielded against her in the primary, but blue no matter who is my view on this. Democrats have the opportunity to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court if they win the presidency. It would move SCOTUS leftward to have a Democrat appoint his replacement. If they can win the Senate as well it would be better.

Thanks to Jeff "What is sexual assault?" Sessions, maybe super-majority may be slightly feasible again.

I'd be happy with 51 if Charles Schumer is willing end the filibuster, and any other procedures that the Republicans would use to obstruct judicial appointments. I doubt that the Democrats will retake the House of Representatives due to gerrymandering and most support for the Democrats concentrated in cities.

IMO HRC's biggest thing, if she's elected and the Democrats take the Senate, will be judicial appointments & choosing who to lead the various federal agencies. Federal judges have their seats for life, unless they retire or are impeached in the House & convicted in the Senate.

 

[iolo]

Well, fair play to America, it looks as if Mr Sanders would not only have been a better but a more successful Candidate. Like the Parliamentary Labour Party here, the Democratic officials had their careers to look after.

I have my doubts on that. The Republicans hadn't bothered to go after Sanders so we don't know how he would have actually done in the general election. I suspect that they would have focused on him being a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist.

Dunno, but it would have been wonderful if the huge American discontent with the system were given a rational form. The Murdochscum are certainly currently doing quite well at constant lying about Mr Corbyn here, but I'd have thought the American media were out of practice with McCarthyism. To hear normal Labour thinking perpetually described as 'hard left' certainly reminds you that Goebbels didn't live in vain!

 

[Treedbear]

...
Whoever is voted in will have grave effects for the rest of the world. More's the pity.

Two weevils crept from the crumbs. 'You see those weevils, Stephen?' said Jack solemnly.

'I do.'

'Which would you choose?'

'There is not a scrap of difference. Arcades ambo. They are the same species of curculio, and there is nothing to choose between them.'

'But suppose you had to choose?'

'Then I should choose the right-hand weevil; it has a perceptible advantage in both length and breadth.'

'There I have you, ' cried Jack. 'You are bit -- you are completely dished. Don't you know that in the Navy you must always choose the lesser of two weevils? Oh ha, ha, ha, ha!'

From Master and Commander.

 

[Terrell]

I have my doubts on that. The Republicans hadn't bothered to go after Sanders so we don't know how he would have actually done in the general election. I suspect that they would have focused on him being a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist.

Dunno, but it would have been wonderful if the huge American discontent with the system were given a rational form. The Murdochscum are certainly currently doing quite well at constant lying about Mr Corbyn here, but I'd have thought the American media were out of practice with McCarthyism. To hear normal Labour thinking perpetually described as 'hard left' certainly reminds you that Goebbels didn't live in vain!

Our Democratic party is probably comparable to the conservative parties in other countries. I don't think that a candidate comparable to Sanders would have won; I have my doubts about Elizabeth Warren as well. Corporations would be buying ads like crazy to stop Warren had she run. Campaign contributions, if they're done through superpacs, are unlimited & anonymous. I also think that Trump showed the true face of at least a subset of the Republican party's base.

 

[SLD]

Since we knew next to nothing about Obama (in Australia) before he was elected I was prepared to wait to see results.
Not being all that familiar with US ways of doing things it seems to me that Obama is quite prepared to bypass your Congress/ House of reps to get what he wants without any regard to the future. i cannot see how that can be good in the future.
Based upon that Clinton would not be much different but she lacks Obama smoothness and seeming affability.
The only road of which Clinton is middle of the road is the freeway marked Clinton.

Both candidates strike me as vain, egocentric, egotistical and only interested in themselves. Neither can handle criticism and seem to be surrounded by toadies.

Churchill once remarked that Clement Attlee was a proud, little man with little to be proud of. Fits both those yobos perfectly.

Clinton is actually very intelligent and understands how to work within the political system as well as anybody.

Trump is incredibly ignorant. His father taught him how to make money in real estate and gave him a couple hundred million.

Trump has been a petty dictator his entire working life. He knows nothing but giving orders.

From your view they may appear similar.

From mine, one is not so good but pretty much business as usual and one is a horrific nightmare.

Amen. I would only add, that as a middle of the road progressive, I think HRC is a damn fine choice. I pretty much agree with her on most all issues, and I think she's experienced, intelligent, honest, and tough. Maybe she's too establishment type. Maybe she's not as inspirational as Sanders. But so what? Sanders was never likely to accomplish a tenth of what he wanted to do. Clinton has proven herself a basic competent leader who can manage the affairs of state. I for one have no problem voting FOR her, and not merely against Trump.

SLD

 

[Elixir]

Whoever is voted in will have grave effects for the rest of the world. More's the pity.

I will regard that comment as an expression of genuine concern when you Aussies volunteer to take back Ken Ham, and pressure the Kiwis to do the same with Ray Comfort.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There are primaries for both the Democratic & Republican parties, so they were voted on by the people that bothered to show up for said primaries. Trump got the most votes in the Republican primary; Clinton got the most votes in the Democratic primary.

It would have been nice to see some better competition fielded against her in the primary, but blue no matter who is my view on this. Democrats have the opportunity to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court if they win the presidency. It would move SCOTUS leftward to have a Democrat appoint his replacement. If they can win the Senate as well it would be better.

Well, fair play to America, it looks as if Mr Sanders would not only have been a better but a more successful Candidate. Like the Parliamentary Labour Party here, the Democratic officials had their careers to look after.

The UK labour party can sack or suspend members for being socialists or speaking the truth; Ken Livingstone re Zionists meeting with Nazis, George Galloway for telling the truth about Iraq.