Trump and Corbyn; brothers in unelectability?

I can't decide if the thought of these two sitting along side other world leaders at the UN during a crisis makes me shudder or laugh...might be worth having them there simply for the entertainment opportunity...and then again, maybe not...

Might not be so bad with "Trumbyn".    Think of the knock on effect it'll have on popular culture . In the future there might be a rise in prog rock bands and the concept album.  Also punk could be a viable alternative again, and fashion will leave us all looking dapper.

Silvio berlusconi did alright for a while.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Corbyn looks like a retired geography teacher with a bus pass 

Bruce

Love that analogy, Bruce. Made me laugh.

On your wider point, it's really, really hard to see Corbyn being elected to No.10, whereas, rather frighteningly, I can see Trump getting to the White House e.g. on an anti-Clinton reaction among the American electorate.  I guess he'd make a good match to Putin but the thought of his finger hovering over the 'red button' should scare us all.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

.... and has an ego the size of the moon, and Corbyn looks like a retired geography teacher with a bus pass but you get my point

 

this made me laugh too, so thanks Bruce. When Trump announced he was entering the presidential race, i also laughed, very loudly. I am not laughing anymore now. reminder to me that i know nothing about american politics/electorate -- or perhaps now i do, a little. the chance that he ends up in the whitehouse is actually now far from zero.

should we be scared? dunno.

enjoy

ken

I think that you ae underestimating Jeremy Corbyn - I have warmed to him but you need to ignore the rubbish in the majority of the press.

Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, but Boris Johnson got elected so we should be very scared 

Chris Dolan posted:

I think that you ae underestimating Jeremy Corbyn - I have warmed to him but you need to ignore the rubbish in the majority of the press.

Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, but Boris Johnson got elected so we should be very scared 

As a life long labour supporter and former activist I have to say that this is the least likely opposition to win an election since Michael Foot and I really can't bring myself to vote for them at the moment.  With such a weak Tory government we will lose the chance to oust them with Corbyn in charge

Drumpf is a racist, sexist, lying con man who is thoroughly unfit to be POTUS. 

Fortunately, he faces multiple large obstacles to electability.  His approval ratings with women and minorities are at historic lows. In addition, there are serious issues with him being able to unify even his own party. 

I will not make the mistake of underestimating Drumpf's appeal to angry blue collar voters who have seen factories close, and jobs moved overseas. But isolationism was not the answer in 1914 or 1940, and I am convinced it is not the answer for today.

The other thing that nobody should underestimate is the effort that will be made by Democrats to prevent Drumpf from winning the election. Obama's popularity remains strong, and he will be an active surrogate for Clinton. I am sure he is very much looking forward to repaying Drumpf for all his birther nonsense!

ATB.

Hook

Oh I so hope that you're right, Hook.

I have my doubts about both Trump AND Clinton.

But my doubts about Trump, trump my doubts about Clinton.

Corbyn IMHO, is simply out of his depth. His underlying principles seem to be based on dragging everybody down to a common, very basic level. He also lacks the political drive and charisma to unite his party in any meaningful way to create an effective opposition, never mind an effective Government.

I think Corbyn is a good man with sound principles rooted in real socialist values. The way that he is dealing with antisemitism says a lot. I very much doubt the party will be electable with him in charge, as style seems to triumph over substance these days, which is a great shame.

As for Trump, he seems to have no principles and changes his views from day to day. The only constants seem to be his aggressive, racist, intolerant and obnoxious views. Heaven help us all if he's elected. 

I'm not sure Corbyn has substance Nigel, his politics are from a bygone age which I guess is why the unions used their votes to select him as leader.  He is a man of principle I believe and I woudl agree he seems to be a good man but he is as out of touch with modern voters as Michael Foot was and having him in charge will mean a truly awful Tory government will stay in power for far too long.  As for Trump I'm not sure what is more unreal, that he is a candidate or that people have been voting for him. 

Silvio Berlusconi.

TOBYJUG posted:

Silvio Berlusconi.

Probably had a lot more fun than either of these two?

I too believe Corbyn is a descent valued politician, but I do believe that most politicians across the parties - certainly in the UK - are.. Just because we don't agree with them or they come from a different from us does not change that... I think most have a strong calling for their interpretation of social justice, whether it be from the left, right or middle.

However being descent, valued and principled doesn't make you a good leader.. Or even a good politician.. and I don't get that aura of leadership from Corbyn.. and with friends like Ken I don't think help... and I just  can't see him becoming pm .. And letting the Scottish Conservatives to comfortably become the main opposition to the SNP having been in the wilderness must be painful for him.

With regard to Trump, being the English side of the Atlantic, my view of him is no doubt more distorted and exagerated... However he seems to attract and deserve many of the negative tags that get associated with him... But he appears to be tapping and appealing into a swathe of US population who perhaps not for a long time feel ignored or let down IE many in the middle classes and blue collar classes.. but also alienating himself with many across the population at the same time. It's a reactionary appeal. Possibly akin to the UKIP vote in the UK? 

Therefore I think this does make Trump electable... If so its going to be a very close call... And if he ever comes to power I don't think he will make a great leader, he doesn't appear that principled, and his administration will lack clarity and direction outside his immediate semi populist mandate.

Simon

Simon

I also think Corbyn appears a principled politician but is not a leader. For all his values he has no experience of government, only protest. Despite being a natural liberal/socialist who railed at the Blairite New labour I could not vote for Corbyn. I just don't think he could run and lead a realistic and coherent administration. After a year in his current position he still looks to me to be blinking in surprise and has failed to present a unified opposition narrative against the increasingly disordered Tories. His anaemic support of the Remain campaign is woeful when he leads the most Europhile of the main parties (Lib Dems? Who they?). I think Corbyn may step down in a year or so as I'm not sure he wants the job that much and he seems sensible enough to realise that he is not going to lead the party to victory. Although with the last election results I'd doubt Labour can get in next time under anyone actually.

We get a pretty distorted view of the US election from the UK but Trump is frightening for me in 2 ways. Firstly the risk that he is actually elected but mostly the degree to which the US electoral system can create a situation where that is even possible. Too much emphasis on money, too little media scrutiny, too little genuine challenge and debate of substance-that is how it appears to me anyway. The system looks broken to me. I also find the intermingling of religion and politics in the US very uncomfortable (although Trump/Clinton will perhaps not be the most 'religious' candidates?)

I still love the idea of Trump and his glossy wife stepping off Air Force one in 2020 to be greeted by PM Corbyn in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches and socialist worker lapel buttons before heading off for a fish supper and evening playing Canasta at Chequers.

Bruce

Bruce, I love your imagery... Although extremely unlikely of occurring, just talk to Leicester City about long odds... However if it does come to pass I think the rest of the world could look back at the US and UK and say it was 'fun' whilst it lasted.

Simon

Speaking as a retired teacher with a bus pass whose general views are in the same area of the political spectrum as Corbyn, he fills me with dismay.

His general impression of basic incompetence and lack of ability to handle his leadership and presentation responsibilities leads me to conclude I wouldn't trust him to feed my goldfish, nice guy though he probably is. The Michael Foot analogy definitely applies - I just hope he doesn't condemn us to a similar long dark night of Tory government!

I didn't vote for Corbyn in the leadership elections as I don't see him as a viable election winning leader, and I find it hard to see who the alternative would be. If only Corbyn's principles could be combined with appropriate leadership quailities he'd be making mincemeat of the inept Tory leadership. Normal politics is suspended in until June 23, with nobody wanting to upset potential voters in the Referendum. 

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I still love the idea of Trump and his glossy wife stepping off Air Force one in 2020 to be greeted by PM Corbyn in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches and socialist worker lapel buttons before heading off for a fish supper and evening playing Canasta at Chequers.

...... but Trump could yet be meeting Boris - which would be far far worse - and a battle to see who could out-moron the other 

Yes, quite a thought. A fair competition for worst haircut though

All good points wrt to Trump & I have mentioned (as a thought) him & Boris in #10.   Personally don't see him winning in November & from what I read with the various election surveys, they also predict Clinton will win; & that to me contains more sleep loss than does Trump. Unlike Trump she has a track record in politics that I find a real cause for concern. I am at a loss to list anything that is positively significant in her term as Secretary of State whereas my negative list is extensive; just a quick think about issues that have affected areas outside the US  (& yes much of that list can equally be attributed to Obama,  but she was SoS).     Looking around the mid-east, the lack of coherent plans, policy's & decisive action, failure to support what was left of Iraq, Afghanistan, the so called Arab Spring, Libya, the Benghazi f.u., no political engagement with Syria both before Daesh established & since,  deterioration of relations with Israel. Then thinking Europe, a new cool war with Russia................     Its not so much what she's done, its what she has not done or done & changed or just done badly. She's a scary lady & I'm more inclined to believe Trump will at least have a plan & stick to it.

I cannot speak to the British side so well, but I consider Hillary the most dangerous person on the planet. Trump is an autocratic a-hole and a buffoon, but if he got elected (and I think he will get routed) he would not get to do most of what he bloviates about.

Hillary, on the other hand, with the full backing of the banking cartel (she has gotten there $200K+ speaking fees to address Goldman Sachs in recent times, which nary a transcript of what she said), and the military contractors, will run roughshod.  If she gets elected and appoints Victoria Nuland or Samantha Powers as  SoS, get ready for WW III.  (Which has actually already started as 'WW III Lite', but then it will get serious. And our European 'vassals' will be on the front lines of it all. I would really like to see that stop. Germany is essentially an occupied country, with all the US Military bases and Merkel getting her marching orders from DC.)

Hillary is a neocons' neocon...fully owned, vetted & approved by the established "Deep State" that actually runs this country.

Trump makes me fear for the future of America.  Hillary makes me fear for the future of the world.

And whichever of them gets elected will preside over the biggest financial meltdown ever. The world financial system is coming apart at the seems, and the beneficiaries/perpetrators know it. If Trump is in, he will simply get blamed. If Clinton is in, she will get a free reign to enact even more destructive policies, including major war and serious wealth confiscation. And of course, Trump would enact many of these same wrong-headed policies as well.

I find there’s actually little to distinguish the Democrats and the Republicans, besides their rhetoric and the type of people who join them. In terms of what they do and the direction they steer the country, the differences are surprisingly marginal.

There’s a good chance that, at a minimum, this election will destroy the Republican Party, no matter who they nominate. (An I believe they will still try to derail Trump, and get Paul Ryan in.) And it will take the Democrats even further to the left.

There are essentially two types of freedom. Economic freedom (mainly how you can produce and own things) and social freedom (mainly what you can say and do regarding other people). The principal difference between the parties is that the Reps say they believe in economic freedom—which is a lie—while they definitely, and overtly, don’t believe in social freedom.

The Dems, on the other hand, say they believe in social freedom—which is a lie—while they definitely, and overtly, don’t believe in economic freedom.

Pretty much the difference between Hitler and Stalin.  

The Dems come off as morally superior. They claim to care about people, while the Reps appear to care mostly about corporate interests. The Dems are “progressive,” believing we should move toward collectivism and more State control, which they posit as good and fair and moral. In the end, the 1% sleeps soundly, knowing their interests are well cared for, and we continue our goal of a uni-polar world with the USA calling all the shots on behalf of the elites.

In contrast, the Reps don’t really believe in anything. In fact, they completely accept the Dems underlying premises. Their only real objection is the lefties are going too far too fast. So, of course, they never have the moral and philosophical high ground and always come off looking like the selfish hypocrites that they are. The Republicans are the Stupid Party, and the Democrats are, in fact, the Dangerous Party.

At this point, the Republican Party is religious fundamentalists, social conservatives, and those who feel the government should spend even more on the bloated military congregate. (Although any more, there aren't too many anti-war Democrats any more either...it's all become what I call "the radical center.")  Those who oppose foreign intervention and those who are friendly to free markets hang around its edges because there’s nowhere else for them to go; the Libertarian Party is a bad joke; a nonstarter. There are no viable alternatives parties in the USA.

The Republican Party will likely self-destruct if it doesn’t accept the nomination of Trump if he wins the popular vote.   (Which I believe he will...as I said above, only to get trounced by Killary.)

The popularity of Sanders, who has the youth on his side and has won many of the latest caucuses and primaries, shows where the Democratic Party’s heart, and future, lies. But the Party machine won’t give him the nomination, which will increasingly reveal the Democratic Party as being very non-democratic.

With a little luck, this election would expose both parties as the corrupt machines that they are and destroy them both. But I won't hold my breath - there's a LOT of money invested in the faux 2 party charade.

Gosh. You paint a bleak picture, Dr Mark. Can you no see ray of light? The USA is so important to the rest of the world, economically, militarily and diplomatically. We need a strong, confident and benign United States.  While I would agree that in recent times there have been some poor decisions re military intervention in the Middle East without sufficient thought being given to political and infrastructural rebuilding post-campaign, the longer track-record of the USA has generally been better. For example what the USA did to rebuild war-torn Europe and the Far East showed generous and well-meaning  spirit.  I find it hard to believe that spirit has died, even if it isn't very apparent in current political leaders.

Mike 

Oh no question we have become the most important nation on earth; if we sneeze, the world catches a cold.

Just calling 'em like I see 'em - that "generosity" post WW II came with a LOT of strings attached to begin with (eg, Germany above), and the it set the stage for the US to engage in foreign misadventures, which have repeatedly become more dangerous and costly, both in terms of money and more importantly innocent human lives.  We don't intervene for any reason besides moeny and world hegemony. We used to be a Republic, but now we are striving to be an Empire.

And the world financial system is in very bad shape - I have an article which I will try to find about how TPTB will possibly move to save themselves - it preserves the banks and governments, but will be very destructive to the populace, save for the top 1% or so.