You need to remember that most gun deaths in the US are gang related and involve handguns. I think it's in the vicinity of 90%.

How many of those were black on black gangs compared to law abiding owners ?

Americans didn't even flinch over sandy hook and instead got a hard on for a good old "Muh Freedom" crusade. If they don't care about tiny kids being shot to shit then there is no helping them.

There's no helping you.

Because everyone should strive for emotional knee jerk policy. The Domain of the Left

With the amount of shootings they have had each year, it is hardly a knee jerk. The situation is so pathetic that they couldn't even get close to anything resembling that. Sandy Hook should have been a final tipping point (as awful as that sounds), an atrocity of such awful scale where normal people would have finally said that this wasn't ok and it shouldn't happen again.

As usual, bunch of rednecks, conspiracy theorists and man children who are so hung up playing backyard soldier would rather let nothing happen than allow anything meaningful to change. The response of NRA minded shrills shows that they won't even allow sensible very basic gun ownership reform such as removal of large capacity magazines or basic background checks, let alone emotional "Knee jerk" policy.

Reactionism is typically the result of lack of effortful thought and dichotomous thinking.
Considering right wingers have, on average, lower intelligence which results in lower complexity of thinking, knee jerk policy would be the domain of the right wing, not left.
The lack of changes to gun policy in the face of a ridiculously high gun death rate by western standards, for decades, suggests there are no knees and there is no jerking.

Conservatism is the antithesis of"knee-jerking"

Considering Conservatives are, on average, more racist (research suggests it is because they are more simplistic thinkers) it's no surprise to see the knee jerk policies responding to perceived terrorism, as more simplistic thinkers more easily gobble up fear mongering.

Can you please do this whole forum a favour and **** off

Getting back on topic - in my opinion, Trump's popularity is analogous to Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.

I am in favour of free trade and globalisation, but there are always winners and losers. The US govt for ages has done little to nothing to help the people that have lost out from globalisation.

And because free trade policy has been bipartisan for ages, there has been no effort to defend free trade and explain the benefits either.

The underclass in the USA has been ignored and isolated for decades. With extremely expensive healthcare, extremely expensive education etc, people have got to a point where they reject the political class in its entirety.

Make no mistake, a large proportion of republican supporters are saying "f*ck you!" to the republican establishment by voting for Trump.

That is why he can be so outlandish and brash, and say/do things that other candidates can't. People vote for him BECAUSE he embodies a rejection of the political establishment, not necessarily because of his political philosophy, such as it is.

Having said all that, even within the republican race, he is the most hated as well as the most popular candidate - he is polarising.

Now Jeb has dropped out, you assume his votes will go to Rubio. When Kasich drops out, you would also assume his votes go to Rubio.

So I think it is definitely still an open question as to who gets the nomination. But, the fact that it has stayed a large race for so long means Trump has the momentum, and is still a strong chance to win. I'll be first to put my hand up to say I thought Trump would have burnt out by now, and that was clearly incorrect.

The real question will be how long Cruz stays running, and if he did drop out whether his voters would go to Trump. They are both anti-establishment, so I see that could happen.

As far as the Democrat side goes - Sanders is not picking up black voters at the level he needs. Hillary will grind out victory, but it is going to be closer than what people expected.

I still believe that, even if Trump got the Republican nomination, he will struggle in a general election. His alienation of blacks and latinos will mean he would struggle in key swing states like Florida.

The demography of the general election voters is far more diverse than that of the republican primary voters.

The core constituency of anger that drives Trump - blue collar, white, no college education - is not big enough to win a general election, if he can't pick up some other voter segments.

Same goes for Sanders - young white people are not enough to win the demographic war.

Sorry, but I don't endorse echo chambers.....

Jeb Bush is dropping out!

#cantstumpthetrump

-PB

so Trumps base are the people that drive the economy

The core constituency of Hillary Clinton is blacks and old women.
What are you trying to say?

Edited by TheFactOfTheMatter: 22/2/2016 12:22:26 PM

Also suicides IIRC.

All deaths less likely to occur without the presence of guns

Well no - blue collar whites with no college education are not driving the economy, that's the point. These are the people who have lost out on globalisation - the loss of the manufacturing base, and single industry towns that fell apart when the one main employer left.

It is white collar professionals who drive the economy largely, as well as the underclass who work in the service industry/retail and don't earn enough money due to low minimal wages.

People with university education do not vote for trump. If they are right wing then Rubio is likely their man. Whereas for the Dems it will be Sanders if they are young, and Hillary if they are older.

My whole point is that Trump's popularity is due to anti-establishment rage by those left behind by globalisation. high unemployment, expensive healthcare/education, loss of economic position due to globalisation and the GFC, no prospects for the future because they have low education levels.

Arent these the people the Dems are supposed to appeal to? When did they become the elitist party?
Expensive healthcare and education - wasnt Obama supposed to fix this?

No - the old class divisions have fallen apart in the US in terms of voting blocs since the Dems embraced civil rights in the 1960s. Union membership has always been smaller in the US than in other comparable countries too.

The Dems have union support, but these people are no longer in any unions since their jobs were lost. They call it the rustbelt for a reason.

The division between Democrat and Republican is cultural, rather than economic. The ability for the rightwing in America to get poor whites to vote against their own hip-pocket due to the fear of blacks and the paranoia of having their guns taken away is a good explanation of why their healthcare and education system is so expensive and poor.

In general, the Dems win the coasts, and the Republicans the middle. It comes down to the swing states like Florida.

Obama has made a dent in healthcare, but he has not brought in a universal healthcare system like the rest of the rich world has. He modified the existing system to make it more efficient and fair. It has worked to some extent. But it will take decades to change the underlying inefficiencies of their system without a complete overhaul.

He also has done a lot to try and reduce college debt. But again, for both issues you need congress to pass laws. The President can't snap his fingers. Obama has had a republican controlled congress for the last 6 years of his 8 year presidency.

The KKK were Dems. The Dems are the elitists using jujitsu against the underclasses to keep them underclasses.
You think poor whites who are afraid of blacks are the ones voting for Trump? Where do you get your info from? What insight do you have to make these generalisations?

Do you think Trump has based his campaign around gun rights? All the republicans support the 2nd amendment. Trump hasnt run stronger on this than anyone else. You think Trump has been anti black? Where is your evidence of this?

Obama has made a dent in healthcare? He sure has. Its a wreck.
Do you realise that Obamacare is monopolised public-private insurance? Its not health care. ITS INSURANCE. and its not affordable.

Its one of the reasons Sanders is doing well despite being a 74 year old socialist, even he sees how fucked up this model is.

The old blaming congress for Obama's failings line rears its head. The reason the republicans control congress is because of how diabolical Obama's first two years in office were.



Edited by TheFactOfTheMatter: 22/2/2016 05:49:49 PM

Jeb Bush spent $150 million on his campaign and a lot of that was Koch Bros money.
So much for Koch Bros controlling the world as the dopey lefties all seem to believe.

Fun run
Army intelligence

Any other oxymorons, forumites?

Yep. Would well & truly keep the armament industry's wheels greased for decades.
The type of American that The Chasers could also ask 'who should USA bomb next'...:lol: :lol: :lol:

It was George Bush who got America out of Afghanistan & Iraq.
Since Republicans are so much better at lying, like they do with global warming crapology, I'm not sure why they aren't running with this.....

I know history - the Dems became the party of civil rights in the 1960s. That is why Texas went from being a safe Democratic state to being safe Republican state within a short period.

I'm basing my commentary on the wealth of polling information and analysis that is out there. I'm not saying anything controversial. If you bother to look at the analysis out there, you will find I'm right.

My favourite source of this info is the website run by Nate Silver - you may remember him when he became famous for picking almost every state correctly in the 2012 Presidential race - http://fivethirtyeight.com/

I don't know why you are saying that I think Trump is anti-black? I am merely commenting on who his voters are.

Regarding healthcare - I am not commenting on the efficacy of Obama's reforms, merely commenting that he made changes. You cannot judge healthcare reforms in the short term. You need to give it 10-15 years before judging.

Healthcare is already unaffordable in the US, Obama hasn't made it suddenly unaffordable. The system was already broken.

I don't really like the structure of it either. But universal healthcare is a non-starter in the USA. What he brought in was flawed, but it was better than what existed previously. Millions of people with no health insurance now have it.

Regarding The mid-term elections in 2010 - this is something that commonly occurs. Happened to Clinton, happened to Bush.

My point was that the Republicans have controlled Congress the last 6 years. They aren't willing to negotiate anything. That limits Obama's capacity to implement legislation.

You seem to be driven by some real hostility about Obama, and feel the need to defend Trump against accusations that weren't even made!

Take a step back, have a deep breath, and realise that it is possible to have a rational discussion without hysterics.

Azza, I like what you're doing because I don't have a huge interest in US domestic politics outside of elections (I guess I'm a bit of a hobby psephologist) but your posts are pretty insightful.

I think you may already know this but the joker you're dealing with was pretending to be a Sanders supporting SJW only a few weeks ago. He has no interest in doing anything but make hysterical comments and draw people into long winded thread battles.

You dont know history. The Jim Crow Laws were implemented by a Democrat President. The KKK were Democrats.
Lincoln was a republican.

The Democrats use division as a strategy for winning votes and getting elected. They havent changed and never will. Now they're using LGBTQQI to create yet further division. They are the racist party of the USA and they successfully court minority votes whilst doing absolutely nothing for them other than profiting from their outrage (which they inflame).

Your polls are bullshit. Polls also said Cruz was leading Trump and how did that turn out?
They are nothing but political tools for special interests that are utilized to sway weak willed, follow the herd voters to vote for the perceived winner so they can feel good about themselves.

Case in point you're believing these polls thinking they indicate facts about uneducated racist voters voting for Trump.
This is not an insight, this is parroting political propaganda. For a real insight you would need to be living in the USA and actually speaking to people in these states. I'm not going to tell you what they think and believe, however you seem so sure because of these bullshit polls.

You speak about insurance like its a right. Its not a right, its just insurance and in many cases its a rort.
More people with insurance, great, that means more people are being rorted by the system whilst the quality of the service if they choose to make a claim has never been worse. I'll repeat again. Its not health care, its insurance.
You need 10-15 years before judging? Where do you get this rule from? The Brookings institute? The DNC? You made it up? Which is it?



1 for 2 flip a coin

Obama was always going to win 2012. Anyone could've predicted that with the weak candidates he faced.
The media only pretended it was close so they could rake in more campaign advertising money.

Such gullibility to be conned by this trickster "Nate Silver".

Edited by TheFactOfTheMatter: 23/2/2016 04:39:58 PM

Thanks for the tip McJules!

:) :) :)

I just worked that out from his response to my last post hahaha

Run away.