planetf1.com

I’ll bet the democrats are now kicking themselves for not getting behind Sanders.

Seriously though, to me this says more about how unfit for purpose our political systems are.

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

Sshhhh some things are best forgotten about

Biffa wrote:I’ll bet the democrats are now kicking themselves for not getting behind Sanders.

Seriously though, to me this says more about how unfit for purpose our political systems are.

I've also wondered what would have been had they gone for Sanders.

What is starting to seem clear is that there is a movement in western politics at the moment, the vote to leave the EU and this election are both fuelled by similar demographics voting for similar reasons, there are also lesser known examples of "extreme" politics in Europe (rise of far-right parties in France/Germany, strength of Pirate party in Iceland).

IMO it's hard to tell whether the main reason for this is right-wing or anti-establishment sentiment, since you could make the argument for either. If it is mainly about voting for someone who isn't a typical politician and about wanting change perhaps Sanders was the person to lead the Democrats, he fared better in head to head polls with Trump than Hillary did after all.

aice wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is a man who labelled the Scottish government as "small minded and parochial". He declared former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond as "an irrelevant has-been" and has insulted many Scots by calling their native land "a slum" ?

But it didn't stop Trump from investing in Scotland didn't it?

Anyway things are said in jess I think this is good news for Scotland.

Frankly I didn't see that coming.

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is great news because... ?

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Biffa wrote:I’ll bet the democrats are now kicking themselves for not getting behind Sanders.

Seriously though, to me this says more about how unfit for purpose our political systems are.

I've also wondered what would have been had they gone for Sanders.

What is starting to seem clear is that there is a movement in western politics at the moment, the vote to leave the EU and this election are both fuelled by similar demographics voting for similar reasons, there are also lesser known examples of "extreme" politics in Europe (rise of far-right parties in France/Germany, strength of Pirate party in Iceland).

IMO it's hard to tell whether the main reason for this is right-wing or anti-establishment sentiment, since you could make the argument for either. If it is mainly about voting for someone who isn't a typical politician and about wanting change perhaps Sanders was the person to lead the Democrats, he fared better in head to head polls with Trump than Hillary did after all.

Yes I agree there is real movement in Western politics, and IMO there definitely needs to be some sort of movement because I think we have outgrown our political system. We constantly get bad decisions and policies from our governments, but we are so used to this being the way things are done that the system goes unchallenged.

IMO this adversarial system of government both in the US and UK is really damaging. But hey, short of a revolution (or independence for Scotland I don’t know what the answer is.

Just when I thought they couldn't get a more idiotic president than Bush jr...

Well done USA hopefully you will see now how undemocratic your voting system is.

I am sick.... very, very sick with a heavy dose of anger,embarrassment and despair.

nixxxon wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is great news because... ?

There could be more American investment in Scotland as the new President has Scottish roots.

Northern Ireland and the Rep of Ireland do alright out of America because of US politicians from Ulster/Southern Irish descent?

scotlandforever wrote:

aice wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is a man who labelled the Scottish government as "small minded and parochial". He declared former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond as "an irrelevant has-been" and has insulted many Scots by calling their native land "a slum" ?

But it didn't stop Trump from investing in Scotland didn't it?

Anyway things are said in jess I think this is good news for Scotland.

I feel rather embarrassed that this man is from British stock

On a more serious note, looking for the positives, i suppose this could also help Britain as a whole, to get a better and speedier post-Brexit trade deal with the US. Obama & Clinton were both very keen for Britain to stay within the EU. The UK was told it must wait its turn at the back of the queue. Trump on the other hand was more enthusiastic and accepting of a post Brexit UK. Add to this, the UK PM, Theresa May, was one of the few international heads that refused to join in with the name calling and condemnation of Trump.

aice wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:

aice wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is a man who labelled the Scottish government as "small minded and parochial". He declared former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond as "an irrelevant has-been" and has insulted many Scots by calling their native land "a slum" ?

But it didn't stop Trump from investing in Scotland didn't it?

Anyway things are said in jess I think this is good news for Scotland.

I feel rather embarrassed that this man is from British stock

On a more serious note, looking for the positives, i suppose this could also help Britain as a whole, to get a better and speedier post-Brexit trade deal with the US. Obama & Clinton was very keen for Britain to stay within the EU. The UK was told it must wait its turn at the back of the queue. Trump on the other hand was more enthusiastic and accepting of a post Brexit UK. Add to this, the UK PM, Theresa May, was one of the few international heads that refused to join in the with the name calling and condemnation of Trump.

I'm rather embarrassed to be British a lot of the time.

But very proud to BE SCOTTISH all the time though.

Amon wrote:Just when I thought they couldn't get a more idiotic president than Bush jr...

Well done USA hopefully you will see now how undemocratic your voting system is.

Yes. Both candidates were bad, but the system favors 2 big parties. Last time some other candidate to take some state was in 1965...

Blake wrote:I am sick.... very, very sick with a heavy dose of anger,embarrassment and despair.

I understand that. Ferrari is certainly in a bad place right now. But with new rules next season could be a whole lot better. Chin up!

Blake wrote:I am sick.... very, very sick with a heavy dose of anger,embarrassment and despair.

Welcome to our world.
At least you have the opportunity to vote him out in four years though - Brexit could be forever.

I sincerely hope Europe has learnt from Brexit and Trump, and are able to stop this disease from spreading, there's no telling where it will end up if they can't.

Clearly we can't carry on with more of the same, so something needs to be done to address people's concerns, but a sudden sharp lurch to the far right isn't the answer.

Pretty much America's Brexit. A rebuff to the establishment by ordinary people who are sick of seeing their standard and quality of life fall.
The Democratic party (like a lot of centre left parties worldwide) need to take a long hard look at themselves. Clinton was a poor candidate and both her and the party have lost the working class vote.
Clinton had not the grace to face her supporters and sent them home only to hear her concede on radio reports.

scotlandforever wrote:

aice wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:

aice wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is a man who labelled the Scottish government as "small minded and parochial". He declared former Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond as "an irrelevant has-been" and has insulted many Scots by calling their native land "a slum" ?

But it didn't stop Trump from investing in Scotland didn't it?

Anyway things are said in jess I think this is good news for Scotland.

I feel rather embarrassed that this man is from British stock

On a more serious note, looking for the positives, i suppose this could also help Britain as a whole, to get a better and speedier post-Brexit trade deal with the US. Obama & Clinton was very keen for Britain to stay within the EU. The UK was told it must wait its turn at the back of the queue. Trump on the other hand was more enthusiastic and accepting of a post Brexit UK. Add to this, the UK PM, Theresa May, was one of the few international heads that refused to join in the with the name calling and condemnation of Trump.

I'm rather embarrassed to be British a lot of the time.

But very proud to BE SCOTTISH all the time though.

With Scottish maternal ancestry, I’m proud of both. The Brits are not perfect but who is...

Semantics aside, the main point being, in regards to trade and investment, a Trump presidency may not be such a bad thing for the UK as a whole. Merely looking for some positives to “soften the blow”..

Jimbox01 wrote:

Blake wrote:I am sick.... very, very sick with a heavy dose of anger,embarrassment and despair.

Welcome to our world.
At least you have the opportunity to vote him out in four years though - Brexit could be forever.

I sincerely hope Europe has learnt from Brexit and Trump, and are able to stop this disease from spreading, there's no telling where it will end up if they can't.

Clearly we can't carry on with more of the same, so something needs to be done to address people's concerns, but a sudden sharp lurch to the far right isn't the answer.

Marine Le Pen next on the list

I guess it just comes down to the fact that globally, the most recent generation that suffered the direct and indirect effects of isolationism is either gone or on the way out (apologies if that sounds harsh), and the in-betweeners who were used to the riches of post-war industrialization and feel threatened by others staking a claim to part of it, need to feel what isolationism feels like in the real world as against their make-believe ideas of it before they see isolationism no longer works as a social, governmental or economic platform.

Just a cycle and it will hopefully pass as it did before.

Just another sign that feelings are more important than facts to a lot of people. Vote for someone who has no concrete plans but is telling you what you want to hear.

As a tall, fit, white, male who works in the defense industry this will be fine for me in the short term, but terrible for everyone in the long term.

So the conman managed to pull his stunt all the way... and a half of America fell for it.
The healing times ahead, though.

This man is pure class.



That's a leader.

If this result doesn't show how many people dislike/hate the Clintons, I don't know what does. The fact that Hillary didn't win based on her being a woman is unbelievable---she is that disliked in our country. I'm not say that makes it right, I'm just saying people significantly underestimated how poor of a candidate she was compared to Sanders. Or any other democrat, really.

Cold Gin wrote:If this result doesn't show how many people dislike/hate the Clintons, I don't know what does. The fact that Hillary didn't win based on her being a woman is unbelievable---she is that disliked in our country. I'm not say that makes it right, I'm just saying people significantly underestimated how poor of a candidate she was compared to Sanders. Or any other democrat, really.

Do you think she'd have beaten Cruz, Bush, Rubio et al?

I think Drumpf just tapped into the anti- globalisation / agenda 21 / FTA movement who, whether justified or not, are sick of left wing politics supporting everyone at their expense and I don't think the other GOP contenders would have ventured into that territory. In a normal election contest against another politician I think Clinton would have certainly performed better if not won. But this was no normal contest and Drumpf is no politician.

We have the same issue here in Australia. Foreign investment, jobs going o/s, immigration and double standards domestically when it comes to freedom of speech, affirmative action, equality and political correctness. We have a bubbling right wing movement that is slowly winning popularity. It's not as big as in the US but it's there and growing.

They feel the pendulum has been allowed to swing too far to the left and saw a non politician, or a member of the establishment, as the best person to correct it.

Cold Gin wrote:If this result doesn't show how many people dislike/hate the Clintons, I don't know what does. The fact that Hillary didn't win based on her being a woman is unbelievable---she is that disliked in our country. I'm not say that makes it right, I'm just saying people significantly underestimated how poor of a candidate she was compared to Sanders. Or any other democrat, really.

It's not just that she is hated, but that she is hated in all the right states. Trump won on electoral votes alone. Hillary won the popular vote, just like Al Gore in 2000. Also, those controversial voter laws (which so happen to be in battleground states) denied many minorities from voting, which played a part in getting Trump elected, just as the Republicans planned.

Also she was hated by the right people. Trump received fewer votes than Romney in 2012, and McCain in 2008. So ultimately, the problem was low turnout, which could be a combination of Bernie supporters not voting in protest, the voter laws, and people voting for that moron Gary Johnson.

Personally, I wonder how many of these protesters I'm seeing on TV actually voted.

scotlandforever wrote:

nixxxon wrote:

scotlandforever wrote:Great news another American President who is from Scottish descent.

This is great news because... ?

There could be more American investment in Scotland as the new President has Scottish roots.

Northern Ireland and the Rep of Ireland do alright out of America because of US politicians from Ulster/Southern Irish descent?

Oh well so then you could say "good news for scotland" then, to be more precise...

Have the "negotiations" with Mexico started, to make them pay for the wall? Or does the election winner want to party first?

Fiki wrote:Have the "negotiations" with Mexico started, to make them pay for the wall? Or does the election winner want to party first?

After his meeting with the president of Mexico months back, when he didn't bring up the wall (because he choked ), I wonder if he will even try to build the wall like the one he described, let alone get Mexico to pay for it.

Also, there is already a wall, or rather "walls", in sections along the border, so he will most likely just fill in the gaps since it is cheaper since, you know, we will be paying for the wall.

A lot of his promises are either unfeasible, unreasonable, or illegal so most will never happen. The big problem is that for the most part the government will be run by Ryan and McConnell who will act like this is some sort of mandate from the people (even though Trump lost the popular vote) and try to run roughshod over much of the good gains made over the last 8 years.

Although the Dems didn't take back the Senate they did pickup a couple of seats so there's still a bit of a backstop to some of this senselessness that will bubble up over the next couple of years.

RaggedMan wrote:A lot of his promises are either unfeasible, unreasonable, or illegal so most will never happen. The big problem is that for the most part the government will be run by Ryan and McConnell who will act like this is some sort of mandate from the people (even though Trump lost the popular vote) and try to run roughshod over much of the good gains made over the last 8 years.

Although the Dems didn't take back the Senate they did pickup a couple of seats so there's still a bit of a backstop to some of this senselessness that will bubble up over the next couple of years.

True. This article points it out.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.html

The best bit is that the Republicans have nowhere to hide if they fail since they will have control over all branches of government.

I wonder if the Mexican wall will match the success of the 350 million a week for the NHS?

Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

j man wrote:Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

You mean, you surprised she's not calling for the 2nd referendum on the Scotland's secession from the USA...

And he's already failing. The folks are protesting around against him, and he goes his stupid tweeting how it is but the media behind it. He can't recognize that it is actually real people who actually have genuine issues with him. Typical for a narcissistic ruler.

The irony, he himself called for riots and revolution and marching on Washington to overturn Obama 4 years ago when Romney won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

The successful candidate claimed the election was rigged... Does this mean they can start the impeachment process before the inauguration, or do they have to wait until the official appointment?

Some clever comments here, I wish I could find the ability to laugh with you. I also wish I could figure out how so many could have voted for this jerk. Amazingly, now that it has happened, I have found many asking how did this happen, and I know full well that they voted for Trump. Maybe they just thought it was a "protest" vote and that Clinton would still win.

j man wrote:Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

Prima facie, it is full of irony - she's calling for Americans to accept and respect the outcome of their general election, while simultaneously showing a reluctance to accept the decision of the British people to leave the EU. She’s also been making noises about a 2nd Scottish independence vote.

In all fairness to Sturgeon, the SNP was elected on a manifesto that contained an option to call a 2nd Scottish independence referendum under such circumstances as Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people. The Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU. In refusing to "embrace" the Brexit vote & with her “threats” of further Scottish independence, I see Sturgeon as simply doing the job she was elected for- exploring all options to give effect to the will of the Scottish people and how they voted.

aice wrote:

j man wrote:Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

Prima facie, it is full of irony - she's calling for Americans to accept and respect the outcome of their general election, while simultaneously showing a reluctance to accept the decision of the British people to leave the EU. She’s also been making noises about a 2nd Scottish independence vote.

In all fairness to Sturgeon, the SNP was elected on a manifesto that contained an option to call a 2nd Scottish independence referendum under such circumstances as Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people. The Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU. In refusing to "embrace" the Brexit vote & with her “threats” of further Scottish independence, I see Sturgeon as simply doing the job she was elected for- exploring all options to give effect to the will of the Scottish people and how they voted.

She did accept the outcome of the UK referendum on Brexit. And she fully respected it too. I watched her give the speech hours after the Brexit happened, she clearly stated that. Has she really flip-flopped and is calling now for the rejection of the result and the repetition of the same referendum? Her calls for the renewed referendum on the Scottish exit, is indeed based on the very acknowledgment and the acceptance of the result of the Brexit.

Of course, she was obviously not happy about the outcome of the referendum, but that would be in the full rights of her, just as so with anybody else for that matter. She does not have to pull a "Theresa May" now - unlike May, she is not building up her political career on the embracement of the Brexit.
(Actually, I find that she and her government took the cheep way out of avoiding all the responsibility by putting it all on the advisory referendum and bypassing the legal process of the parliamentary democracy, as it it would be but a popular democracy. So if it goes well, she will share the credit for it and boost the future career, and if it goes south then she will say "I was but a deliverer of the people's will".)

Now, if the majority of the Scotts voted for the stay in EU, that is also to be accepted and respected. And she has the right to call for the second referendum on the Scotland exiting from the GB under the drastically changed circumstances. And shall it happen, and if the Scotts vote this time around for it, then such should be accepted and respected too. See, it is still the fully legit democracy that works in different directions.

I do not understand how can you hold her for a kind of a hypocrite on one hand, while at the same time understanding and even explaining her doing the job that she was elected for.

Blake wrote:Some clever comments here, I wish I could find the ability to laugh with you. I also wish I could figure out how so many could have voted for this jerk. Amazingly, now that it has happened, I have found many asking how did this happen, and I know full well that they voted for Trump. Maybe they just thought it was a "protest" vote and that Clinton would still win.

We had exactly the same thing in the UK after the Brexit vote. Nobody seemed to know how the leave side won and took everyone by surprise and we had people who voted for leave for reasons not related to leaving the EU at all! Some of the dumb reasons were similar to Trump supporters such as 'because of the Muslim's' - not related to us leaving the EU or anything to do with the office of the president. Like you said 'it was a protest vote against the other side, but I didn't think they'd win'!!!! I mean what the actual flip is that thinking about?! Or the best one being 'I want Britain to be British / America to be American again and have control of our boarders' from 2 countries with a massive history of immigrants being part of our societies' (America especially is basically a country built on probably 95% immigrants, it's just most of the Trump voters probably don't see themselves as something like 10th generation immigrants - guess what you can still be american/British and an immigrant, and a lot of us are).

Prema wrote:

aice wrote:

j man wrote:Nicola Sturgeon:
"While this is not the outcome I hoped for, it is the verdict of the American people and we must respect it"

Oh the irony. Surprised she's not calling for a 2nd election...

Prima facie, it is full of irony - she's calling for Americans to accept and respect the outcome of their general election, while simultaneously showing a reluctance to accept the decision of the British people to leave the EU. She’s also been making noises about a 2nd Scottish independence vote.

In all fairness to Sturgeon, the SNP was elected on a manifesto that contained an option to call a 2nd Scottish independence referendum under such circumstances as Scotland being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people. The Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain within the EU. In refusing to "embrace" the Brexit vote & with her “threats” of further Scottish independence, I see Sturgeon as simply doing the job she was elected for- exploring all options to give effect to the will of the Scottish people and how they voted.

She did accept the outcome of the UK referendum on Brexit. And she fully respected it too. I watched her give the speech hours after the Brexit happened, she clearly stated that. Has she really flip-flopped and is calling now for the rejection of the result and the repetition of the same referendum? Her calls for the renewed referendum on the Scottish exit, is indeed based on the very acknowledgment and the acceptance of the result of the Brexit.

Of course, she was obviously not happy about the outcome of the referendum, but that would be in the full rights of her, just as so with anybody else for that matter. She does not have to pull a "Theresa May" now - unlike May, she is not building up her political career on the embracement of the Brexit.
(Actually, I find that she and her government took the cheep way out of avoiding all the responsibility by putting it all on the advisory referendum and bypassing the legal process of the parliamentary democracy, as it it would be but a popular democracy. So if it goes well, she will share the credit for it and boost the future career, and if it goes south then she will say "I was but a deliverer of the people's will".)

Now, if the majority of the Scotts voted for the stay in EU, that is also to be accepted and respected. And she has the right to call for the second referendum on the Scotland exiting from the GB under the drastically changed circumstances. And shall it happen, and if the Scotts vote this time around for it, then such should be accepted and respected too. See, it is still the fully legit democracy that works in different directions.

I do not understand how can you hold her for a kind of a hypocrite on one hand, while at the same time understanding and even explaining her doing the job that she was elected for.

You have completely misinterpreted my post. I am actually defending her from calls of hypocrisy. I have clearly stated that prima facie, at first glance—it would be easy to construe double standards/irony on her part (as per J man's comment). I then go onto argue, that if you dig deeper, she has justifiable reasons for her stance. I clearly state that I see her reluctance to fully embrace the general EU results (as they pertain to Scotland) as her merely doing her job. She's trying to give effect to how people in Scotland voted. I don’t see her actions as hypocritical or ironical in the slightest.