TOPIC:

gtrxuone wrote:

ArkRoyal wrote: sanders is the best of their candidates -- he won't win against trump because of the lack of social democrats in America
biden is completely unelectable for obvious reasons, not even democrat voters will ignore

Agree Ark.Bernies a good man who passionately believes what he saids.He's on the same page as the Donald on American jobs+industries+trade deals.He was a lot better candidate than Hillary last time around .But was bought and sold 10 times over by Soros money.
On Biden he's screwed now the Trump impeachment has failed.The question will be asked about his son and a 20 million comission. From a Ukrainian Oil+Gas company ran by the mob.

Sanders is an old Socialist nut job with a dodgy heart, who's been hanging around Congress for ever and a day pumping the same message for years, Nationalisation of Industry , A Welfare State, Higher Wages, Anti Bank, Anti Wall Street, Anti Military, Anti Business, Pro Illegal Migration et al, he has a following with the under 35 College students but that's about where it ends, he will be towelled up in the battleground states.

All depends on one's point of view of course bazza: what is intersting regarding the iowa results is that the right wing of the party symbolised by -- the bloke of maltese background apparently -- also did very well.

ArkRoyal wrote: All depends on one's point of view of course bazza: what is intersting regarding the iowa results is that the right wing of the party symbolised by -- the bloke of maltese background apparently -- also did very well.

Pete Buttilieg won it, a centrist candidate in someways, but as Gay man has little hope in the red states of becoming president.

Bazz, I remember people were saying similar things in 2008 about a black bloke.

To me (without having looked at the Dem candidates in any detail), he seem the most likely to have widespread appeal amongst those independents who wish to see the back of the Bloated Orange Bullshitter.

Bloated Orange Bullshitter??? That's a bit harsh Jack...there's some days he doesn't look all that bloated...well... a couple anyway.

bazza: yes quite a few of the democrat candidates, will have problems getting votes in WASP land.

jackspratt wrote: Bazz, I remember people were saying similar things in 2008 about a black bloke.

To me (without having looked at the Dem candidates in any detail), he seem the most likely to have widespread appeal amongst those independents who wish to see the back of the Bloated Orange Bullshitter.

Yeah but the Black Vote is huge, the gay vote is not,

ArkRoyal wrote: gtr: I am with you, good post on the similarities between Sanders and trump: the commonality exists in wanting to build a country: trump with his american nationalism and Sanders with his 'socialism in one country'. Both ideologies are completely foreign to the establishments in both the democrats and the republicans.

liberal internationalism has destroyed America, Sanders and Trump understand this in their different ways.

I think the complete lack of oversight of the US finance and banking system allowed by George dubbllya and those who pulled his strings is what nearly destroyed the US and in turn nearly destroyed the worlds economy, people should not forget that all happened on the republicans watch. That being said, the demo's are a basket case, similar to labour at the last election with zero leadership and no focus on the actual issues.

SS: i would agree with you 100 per but financial de-regulation was just one part of the liberal internatioalism which has destroyed the US economy; the other part of the de-regulation was the lowerring of the tariff. There is no point getting rid of tariffs if china and the europeans still have theirs. The strongest supporters of lowerring the tariff have always been the Democrats, particularly since Rossevelt's time.

Free trade made absolute sense to GB when it was the only manufacturing nation in the world in the 19th century; it made sense to the US for the the first two decaades after WWII because every town fron Brest in France to Stalingrad in Russia was bombed out, and the US too, had no competiton until the 1960s at the earliest.

All America has got in return for being 'the free trade warrior' of late has been a shruken manufacturring sector and rubbish consumer goods from China. This has not been a very good bargain and, as an historical dynalmic it is one of the factors which explains the vote for Trump

Have a look at this study by the Economic policy institute in the us -- twenty years before trump

www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_tradetestimony/

ArkRoyal wrote: SS: i would agree with you 100 per but financial de-regulation was just one part of the liberal internatioalism which has destroyed the US economy; the other part of the de-regulation was the lowerring of the tariff. There is no point getting rid of tariffs if china and the europeans still have theirs. The strongest supporters of lowerring the tariff have always been the Democrats, particularly since Rossevelt's time.

Free trade made absolute sense to GB when it was the only manufacturing nation in the world in the 19th century; it made sense to the US for the the first two decaades after WWII because every town fron Brest in France to Stalingrad in Russia was bombed out, and the US too, had no competiton until the 1960s at the earliest.

All America has got in return for being 'the free trade warrior' of late has been a shruken manufacturring sector and rubbish consumer goods from China. This has not been a very good bargain and, as an historical dynalmic it is one of the factors which explains the vote for Trump

Have a look at this study by the Economic policy institute in the us -- twenty years before trump

www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_tradetestimony/

Protectionism is fools gold.

The Yanks introduced the Smoot Hawley Tariffs Act in 1930 and it gave them the Great Depression, Trade collapsed 67 %.

FDR came along repealed it got free trade going again and pulled them out of that.

If you think a wall of tariffs and a tariffs war is good for the economy have a look at the 1930s it doesn't work.