If I could vote in the USA.I would vote for Trump.
My reason is that he seems to be the best of the baddies.
Bernie Sanders,has likened himself to Roosevelt in the 1930's.
He tells his audience that Roosevelt was a socialist in that era.
Somewhat curious as Hitler was a Socialist of sorts and did the same as Roosevelt to jump start the economy.
Trump has already supported Putins moves in the middle east and Putin respects Trump.

Hillary Clinton is trouble,Cruz is a Canadian.
No.Only Trump will make America Great Again.

BROCK, you don't seem to have thought this through at all well. You dismiss Hillary Clinton as "trouble", but then throw your support behind a candidate who's an order of magnitude more trouble! You think Trump would make America great but you've no evidence for that. What the evidence does show is that he doesn't understand the importance of individual rights. Someone on another board has pointed out that he meets the original definition of a fascist.

Hitler was a fascist not a socialist. Party names aren't always descriptive of their policies. For example Tony Abbott was not the slightest bit liberal, and Clive Palmer's party didn't remain united for long.

Cruz's Canadian origins probably won't be significant, though I expect the courts will test that very soon.

Meanwhile if you look at actual policies rather than reasons to dismiss them, Trump will not look anywhere near as attractive.

If Putin respects Trump, then I wouldn't vote for him in America even if there were no other candidates.
Obviously, if Trump is a fascist, that is why many on this forum would like the superficial, bigoted, racist , homophobic piece of work that he is.

In my wildest dreams I can't see a....person....like Trump ever winning this race.
Surely Americans will see this before it is too late.

Ah Suze, never miss a chance at getting an anti racist shot away hey!
Perhaps you are getting racism mixed up with realism again there Suze.
At least Trump has the balls to identify what has become a major case of poor judgment by most authorities, but lets just sit back and wait for more terrorist attacks, more suicide bombings and more woman bashing and raping before we open our eyes.

I do not vote for Trump because he is so hard in controlling country. He is just o business man maybe he is good in business but political is another way. It can not like a business problem

IF Trump wins it will be another step down on the US slide from Empire.
They are already well down the slope and accelerating rapidly.
Only Trump will make US great again you say, when was it great?

What seems to have largely escaped Australia's attention is just how much of a total loon Ben Carson is. This became apparent to me recently when I saw someone on OLO drop his name so casually, as if he were a normal and sane person. Some of what he has said actually makes Trump look like a viable option. Google it for a good laugh.

Given the calibre of Republican candidates this time arou… or, anytime really, I would have thought Jeb Bush had this one in the bag, if only for his surname (ignoring the legacy that it’s attached to). He probably thought that too, but Trump has tapped into an ignorance or bigotry in a way that no-one else could get away with.

Oh, this just in...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/19/sarah-palin-endorses-donald-trump-for-president

Need we say any more?

Aidan, Hillary Clinton is a proven failure. She has stuffed up at everything she has done.

Obama is a total catastrophe. There is not a single thing he has done that is not a failure, & he is now trying to destroy the US economy.

Just looking at Rudd, or Turnbull makes thinking people feel dirty, & Clinton is very close to the same. At least Trump has the guts to say what he thinks. We will see if the yanks have enough guts left to go with that, or would prefer to pretend everything is great.

One thing you have to give the lefties, they can sense who is strong enough to give them & their white ant tactics trouble. Anyone who gets up the nose of lefties & the stupid feminists, can't be too bad.

Hasbeen: Trying to destroy the Yank economy?
You must be joking. It has been on borrowed time and money for decades.
It is only a matter of time or when China forecloses to be put out of it's misery.
What they need is a new leader like the UK Labour Jeremy Corbyn.
You must be one of those that believed the scare of "reds under the bed" and are still believing it.

You've got to be joking Robert LePage.

Hell I wouldn't even wish Jeremy Corbyn on my worst enemy, if I had one. He makes even Obama, or Turnbull look sort of intelligent.

Please confirm that you are serious, not delirious

To really understand why Trump (and Sanders) are attracting so much support, you need to look at the effects of globalisation. Most American men are receiving lower real wages than in the 1970s, and most of those who are technically better off have only gotten a few crumbs. Women are somewhat better off, although they still earn less than men on average, and I suspect that for every woman rejoicing in better opportunities, there is an exhausted mother who wishes that she didn't have to do paid work or work such long hours. All of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the folk at the top. The black community has been particularly hard hit. See

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/subjects/wages/?reader

especially Fig. 4D. Also

http://www.nber.org/digest/may07/w12518.html

Free trade (replacing good manufacturing jobs with low wage, insecure service jobs) and mass migration (especially illegal immigration) are among the weapons that the elite use against their fellow citizens. From the point of view of the losers, Hillary Clinton and the mainstream Republican candidates are just offering more of the same.

The American people actually forced their elite to shut down the first era of globalisation after World War I. The war had shut down international trade and mass migration, and wages and conditions improved greatly for ordinary people. After the war, the elite wanted to go back to business as usual. They were confronted with huge, violent labour disputes, where strikers confronted what were effectively private armies. There were bloody race riots that often started with conflict between American blacks and the migrants displacing them from their jobs. Some of those "wonderful hardworking immigrants" were violent Anarchists or Communists, and happy to share their ideology with the locals. Anarchist cells were targeting politicians, high government officials, and business leaders for assassination. There was also the salutary example of what was happening in Russia. It wasn't a question of the triumph of the bigots and economic illiterates. The elite caved because they were afraid of a revolution. See

http://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads

Nothing gets the left whingers in a froth more than an outspoken conservative, and with Trump it is even worse in that Trump is defying all expectations and soaring ahead in the polls.

In a previous thread, I put my view as to why Trump was so popular, and got the a similar reaction. For those that believe that Trump's support will melt away if he gets nominated, perhaps reading the Essential poll in Aus which shows that the greatest support for Trump in Aus is from the Labor voters.

Similarly Bernie Sanders is threatening Clinton on the far left, and while I believe that Clinton would muster the middle ground to beat Trump, I think that Sanders has too much extremist baggage to beat Trump.

Hasbeen; I confirm that you have a worst enemy. Your own worst enemy is yourself for refusing to see what is going to inevitably happen.
I also confirm that if the Western world keeps on the same course it will only be a matter of time before it self implodes.

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-summ-en_0.pdf
Enjoy.

Hi Robert,

Being a bit partial to conspiracy theories, I wouldn't mind betting that Hillary Clinton is secretly funding the campaigns of BOTH Sanders on the Left and trump on the Right, in order to claim the middle ground and pushing its boundaries towards both of them.

Corbyn is an interesting phenomenon, isn't he ? He represents the last gasp of the out-of-time old Left in Britain. If he lasts until the next election (in 2020 ?), the Labour Party will be utterly devastated until 2030. But pressure may build up across the Labour Party to messily dump him and salvage what it can before the next election.

Political rule # 1: It's the centre, stupid.

I hope this helps.

Joe

Trump is no conservative. He's got more in common with the Monster Raving Loonies. Let's just remember some of the things this guy has said:

About Mexicans:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. ... And some, I assume, are good people."

About blacks and jews:
"Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yamakas every day."

About fellow Republican and Vietnam veteran John McCain:
"He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you."

About his daughter:
"I don’t think Ivanka would do that [pose for Playboy], although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her."

He's amusing in a village idiot sort of way, but if he wins his policies will presumably be as racist and bonkers as everything he says. That does not bode well. Remember what happened last time a comical, lunatic racist with a silly haircut got his hands on a sizeable military?

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend, and just because something upsets lefties that doesn't automatically make it a good idea. Fascism upsets lefties too, and you don't think it's a good idea do you?

Toni Lavis,

You and Loudmouth persist in seeing this as a conventional election. Here are some of the poll results for the candidates.

http://www.politico.com/polls/#.VqAXLKO4aUk

Here are the Congressional job approval ratings:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

The American people are overwhelmingly fed up with their political establishment, which includes both major parties, and with good reason (see my previous post). Trump supporters don't care if their chosen candidate is rude about illegal immigrants, who are criminals by definition. I think that Trump was a fool to say rude things about blacks, though, unless he was joking and deliberately quoted out of context. He just needs to campaign on "Black jobs matter", and he might get quite a few votes

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868

Hi Divergence,

Trump may seem like a fool to say such rude things about Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women - the sorts of things that appal most of us. He's enjoying himself. But who do people turn to when he affronts them like that ? Back towards Clinton, and of course towards the gaggle of Republican aspirants - towards the middle. And Sanders will do a Corbyn and drive people from the Left towards the middle. Tell me that's not some sort of conspiracy on Clinton's part.

Just kidding :)

As for 'a conventional election', I can't recall any US presidential election being 'conventional', not that I've paid attention to all of them. But even going back to the Kennedy-Nixon tussle, the dirty tricks on both sides, and the close result, suggest that it wasn't all cut and dried - i.e, conventional.

I love a good circus !

Joe

Loudmouth,

If I had to choose between a candidate who says nice things about women (and I am a woman) or ethnic minorities, while bending over for the 1%, and one who says nasty things, but is promising to protect my economic interests, it would be no contest. I have even seen some comments on US sites where Sanders supporters are saying that they will vote for Trump if Bernie isn't nominated.

Hi Divergence,

Still trying to untangle that one :)

Are you saying that you would vote for (b) one who says nasty things, but is promising to protect my economic interests, rather than (a) a candidate who says nice things about women or ethnic minorities ? Or the reverse ?

Very interesting - people would switch from Sanders to Trump ?! There's nowt so powerful as self-interest, I suppose. We might see something similar in Europe as 'progressives' switch to anti-migration parties. What's the bet, with Corbyn heading Labour, that Farage - even if he were in an induced coma for the next few years - would pull in more votes than Labour in the next British regional elections ?

Wouldn't be dead for quids !

Joe

Trust me! I'm smart enough to make 9 billion dollars, and I'm smart enough to fix what's wrong with the United States. Don't worry about a thing.

That's Trump's message. If you buy it, you'll vote for him.

I watched Sarah Palin sprucing Trumps very dubious virtues on US TV last night.
Luckily, I had a bucket nearby...

A bucket of water Suse?

To put out the fires of envy no doubt!

LOL, 'Buckets' has a certain ring and truth to it.

'Susie Drive By' would have those buckets (of the proverbial) on a conveyor belt and on automatic fire.

Her assault gun so you watch out now.

There 'should be tighter controls' on the [bleep]-stirring, bucketing leftist culture lest Australia end up like the US with Obama and Hilary.

Hi Suse,

I wouldn't worry if I were you, it's all a circus, and there are obviously plenty of people out there with low IQs. Trump might carry the Iowa primary, and that will really put the wind up the Republicans who will scramble to get behind one single candidate; it could be quite a bloodbath, but they surely have the sense to realise that you have to capture the Centre, not just the populist fringe. My bet is on Rubio trumping Trump in a couple of months.

Then it could shape up to be a battle between Clinton and Rubio: where else can supporters of Bernie Sanders go if she starts getting a clear upper hand ?

So my money is on a Clinton vs. Rubio contest in November. Rubio will have to reach out to women, and go slightly left, and Clinton will have to reach out to Hispanics, and go slightly right.

This is better than chess !

Joe

Suze,

I reckon you have the first case of political bulimia. You must lose a lot of meals from seeing politicians you don't like.

I would suggest opening your mind to concepts other than those pushed by left whinge parties, especially since Labor is faring so badly.

Suzeonline and Loudmouth,

You do realise that the sneering mockery people like you indulge in adds to Trump's appeal. This is about class warfare, not IQ. This blog post explains it very well, and I recommend the whole thing.

"Attempts by people in the wage class to mount any kind of effective challenge to the changes that have gutted their economic prospects and consigned them to a third-rate future have done very little so far..."

"There’s a further barrier, though, and that’s the response of the salary class across the board—left, right, middle, you name it—to any attempt by the wage class to bring up the issues that matter to it. On the rare occasions when this happens in the public sphere, the spokespeople of the wage class get shouted down with a double helping of the sneering mockery I discussed toward the beginning of this post. The same thing happens on a different scale on those occasions when the same thing happens in private. If you doubt this—and you probably do, if you belong to the salary class—try this experiment: get a bunch of your salary class friends together in some casual context and get them talking about ordinary American working guys. What you’ll hear will range from crude caricatures and one-dimensional stereotypes right on up to bona fide hate speech. People in the wage class are aware of this; they’ve heard it all; they’ve been called stupid, ignorant, etc., ad nauseam for failing to agree with whatever bit of self-serving dogma some representative of the salary class tried to push on them."

"And that, dear reader, is where Donald Trump comes in."

cont'd

cont'd

"The man is brilliant. I mean that without the smallest trace of mockery. He’s figured out that the most effective way to get the wage class to rally to his banner is to get himself attacked, with the usual sort of shrill mockery, by the salary class. The man’s worth several billion dollars—do you really think he can’t afford to get the kind of hairstyle that the salary class finds acceptable? Of course he can; he’s deliberately chosen otherwise, because he knows that every time some privileged buffoon in the media or on the internet trots out another round of insults directed at his failure to conform to salary class ideas of fashion, another hundred thousand wage class voters recall the endless sneering putdowns they’ve experienced from the salary class and think, “Trump’s one of us.”

"Whether he wins or loses, that pushback is going to be a defining force in American politics for decades to come. Nor is a Trump candidacy anything approaching the worst form that could take. If Trump gets defeated, especially if it’s done by obviously dishonest means, the next leader to take up the cause of the wage class could very well be fond of armbands or, for that matter, of roadside bombs. Once the politics of resentment come into the open, anything can happen—and this is particularly true, it probably needs to be said, when the resentment in question is richly justified by the behavior of many of those against whom it’s directed."

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html

Dear Divergence,

The article you referred to was fascinating - the four classes, investment, salary, wage and welfare. However, if Trump is elected he will appoint his advisers from the investment and salaried classes and serve their interests. He will be clever enough to convince the wage classes that he is serving their interests and so get re-elected.

Sarah Palin endorsing Donald Trump for the Republican nomination on US time January 19, Sarah Palin's long hyperactive comical rhyming address to an applauding audience, while Donald Trump stood close by, wearing several characteristic smiles, I suggest, allows democracy to look what democracy really is when looked at by (what I call myself one of) thinking people.

When 18th century land owners and or tax payers were voting politicians into office, there may have been limited democracies. I have read a Wikipedia reading on American War of Independence, about certain currency figure tax payers and land owners being the only people allowed to vote for politicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Shilling_Freeholders

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/government-and-civics/essays/winning-vote-history-voting-rights

That within a reading, permitting common working class voting rights turned democracy into a joke.

Wealth factor of candidates could buy voting pledges. Religious organisations could convince congregations to vote for politicians of the same faith.

Tony Abbott; Malcolm Turnbull and Mike Baird stating their Catholics, somewhat has Catholics voting for those political parties in future elections.

The: keenest; by believing in democracy, stupidest; most party whistle blowing, colourful balloon going; most excited about democracy are choosing running candidates for political parties nationwide presidential elections.
George W. Bush's last year in office, had David Letterman showing on each night of Letterman's programs, a quick segment, George W. Bush's speech slip ups. Each mistake was new. What allows second term lame duck bad speeches to be really funny is that people believe democracy is real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKmRDBUeBWk

New York around 1870 mayor Boss Tweed, poses an example of real democracies left to govern.

The only reason I can see Tony Abbott coming back as prime minister is that Tony Abbott creates funnier news print cartoons. Once more, ridiculing democracy.

One more example of attracting people's attention for a future sting “we know you know too much so we won't mess you around” messing you around sting. Threatening people to keep quite with Jesus story reminders.

….......................

Realities of life, democracy or not:
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/rise_of_democracy.html

stop reading at: “feudal society” or continue.

Well we have had "our" Tony Abbott moment so I suppose it is inevitable that the Yanks have theirs now.
But do we have to suffer as well?

Trump....no definitely not. I won't go for this. Whatever he speaks is so unrealistic. I think the next president will be a Democrat.

david f writes: "[Trump] will be clever enough to convince the wage classes that he is serving their interests and so get re-elected."

It has always fascinated me how America's governments in the past have managed to do what I'd imagine other Western governments could only dream of doing by convincing the population to vote against their own interests in the hope that maybe, just maybe one day they too can make it rich and share in a piece of the pie.

When you can convince even the poorest in your country that public health would not be a good thing because it will allow communists to infiltrate the government through the health system, you've got it made.

Just don't tell them that the police and fire brigade are publicly funded.

We need a Trump in our own political wasteland.

ttbn, we already have one: Clive Palmer.

You're kidding me Aidan.

From the coverage leading up to the election, I was sure he was the ABCs candidate.

Anything is possible in the United States.
I ruled out Ronald Regan. George W. Bush.
The terminator - Arnold S. who made it to
Governor. So don't rule out Trump. He's a
clever businessman. Americans admire money.
If he can convince them that he'll give them a
slice of the pie. He just may sneak in.
Americans like winners. And they seem to love
his TV show. He already has a celebrity profile.
And he talks tough.
He's the ideal candidate.

Yes, anything usually is possible in the US, however, Trump is really just too 'out there' for the Americans.
Bush, Reagon and Arnie never had mad policies like "We need to stop all Muslim immigration".

I can't ever see Trump getting in. I would bet money on it.

In relation to the US - this might be a terribly cynical thing to say - but people get the governments they deserve.

No, that would be too cruel.

Joe

Dear Suse,

You're probably right perhaps Trump may be
a bridge too far.

I'm trying to remember - did anyone expect
Barack Obama to win at the time?

Trump is a very intelligent and unscrupulous person. He is not a racist or a xenophobe, but he knows that racism and xenophobia appeal to part of the US electorate so he makes his pitch to them. He also gets respected for his ability to make a lot of money. The people who have invested in his schemes wind up fleeced as the schemes go bankrupt, but somehow Trump winds up with a lot of money. If enough people admire his skill at financial finagling and his appeal to primitive emotions of fear, envy and hate he could be the next president of the US.

Dear Joe,

I think sometimes nobody gets the government they deserve. Germany didn't deserve Hitler. Russia didn't deserve Stalin and Lenin. Chinese didn't deserve Mao. Americans didn't deserve Dubya. Scum rise to power by one means or another, and people are stuck with them.

Suse,

What's mad about we need to stop all Muslim immigration?

Seems like self preservation to me.

Dear Is Mise,

How is stopping Muslim immigration a case of self-preservation?

Not all Muslims are violent or fundamentalists.

Will stopping all Christians preserve children from
sexual abuse? Is that also not mad?

The fact is that the US Constitution forbids legislation aimed at a particular religion. I'm sure Trump knows that. I am also sure he knows his statements will appeal to a certain segment of voters whether it is or is not possible under US law. He is an unscrupulous politician.

Foxy,

The Christians don't have a Holy Book that tells them that it's OK to beat their wives, lie to non-Muslims or to kill those who ,once in their power, refuse to convert to Islam or who're homosexuals.

People who are paedophiles are not Christians as they are not trying to follow the teachings of Christ.
They are denying His teachings and are therefore anti-Christian.

Is Mise, just like not all Christians follow the dubious 'teachings' of the bible, so too not all Muslims follow the Koran.
So what is your point, other than your obvious dislike of all Muslims, regardless of whether they are potential terrorists or not?

Trump uses the 'I will save you all from the Muslim terrorist hordes' mantra to appeal to ignorant, unintelligent voters who are looking for anything to take their minds off their otherwise mindless lives.

I feel sorry for all of them, but Trump is not the answer.
He is out for one thing....himself.

Dear Is Mise,

Matthew 7: 16 (KJV) Ye shall know them by their fruits. That’s in the Bible, and, unlike much of the Bible, it makes good sense.

It is more reasonable to judge Christianity by what Christians have done in the name of Christianity than by selecting passages from the Bible.

From my reading of history Christianity has a worse history than Islam.

Christianity is responsible for the Dark Ages. After Christianity became the official religion of Rome the empire made a great effort to extirpate classical culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius_I tells of the official Christian persecution of paganism.

“The Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign as co-emperor in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce anti-pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

Between 389 and 391 he issued the "Theodosian decrees," which established a practical ban on paganism; visits to the temples were forbidden, remaining pagan holidays abolished, the sacred fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcrafting punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as requested by pagan Senators.

In 392 he became emperor of the whole empire (the last one to be so). From this moment until the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration, he authorized or participated in the destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire in actions by Christians against major pagan sites. He issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public pagan ritual, and was particularly oppressive of Manicheans. He is likely to have suppressed the Ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration is from 393.”

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment rescued Europe from the oppressive grasp of Christianity.

Continued

Continued

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

"The Renaissance's intellectual basis was its own invented version of humanism, derived from the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, such as that of Protagoras, who said, that "Man is the measure of all things." This new thinking became manifest in art, architecture, politics, science and literature. Early examples were the development of perspective in oil painting and the recycled knowledge of how to make concrete. Although the invention of metal movable type sped the dissemination of ideas from the later 15th century, the changes of the Renaissance were not uniformly experienced across Europe.

As a cultural movement, it encompassed innovative flowering of Latin and vernacular literatures, beginning with the 14th century resurgence of learning based on classical sources, which contemporaries credited to Petrarch; the development of linear perspective and other techniques of rendering a more natural reality in painting; and gradual but widespread educational reform. In politics, the Renaissance contributed to the development of the customs and conventions of diplomacy, and in science to an increased reliance on observation and inductive reasoning. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term "Renaissance man".

The Enlightenment directly questioned the tyranny of Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

“The Enlightenment, ... was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The principal goals of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, fraternity, and ending the abuses of the church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.

The greatest anti-cultural force in European history was Christianity.

Suzeonline,

Illegal immigrants have been shown to drastically depress wages in the groups that compete with them. The US had very low immigration between 1921 and 1965, when the floodgates were opened again. At that time, the janitors in Los Angeles were mostly black men and legal Latino immigrants. They were unionised and earned $12 an hour, good money in those days. Once big influxes of illegal immigrants were tolerated, the pay for the same job was depressed to $4 an hour.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-18/news/mn-1878_1_illegal-aliens

Why did those black janitors owe the world a living? What about poor foreigners' responsibility to fix up their own countries? Who is really stupid or ignorant? The unskilled worker who welcomes illegal immigrants or the one who objects to them? So far, both major parties have condoned illegal immigration, so that is what working class Americans got, along with stagnant or declining real wages, regardless of which side they voted for. Trump may be lying, as David f thinks and is common for politicians. Remember Obama's hope and change? Remember how Hawke and Keating told us that globalisation was going to "bring home the bacon"? Nevertheless, there is a chance that Trump wants to go into the history books as a champion of the people like FDR. His supporters have nothing to lose by taking that chance.

//What's mad about we need to stop all Muslim immigration?//

It breaches the 1st Amendment. It's a bit sad when a presidential hopeful doesn't know the Constitution. Mind you, it's still not as breath-takingly stupid as the Great Wall of America. The man's either an idiot or he's barking mad.

Tony Lavis,

You are actually wrong that refusing Muslims visas would be unconstitutional, although it might be to block Muslim US citizens from re-entering the US. The First Amendment doesn't apply to people outside US jurisdiction.

"In fact, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell cites this provision of federal law:

" Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/experts-trump-muslim-ban-likely-constitutional/#ccFYZ8QSX1LSYCsg.99

Henry Ergas put it succinctly last weekend about Trump: he quoted the philosopher Groucho Marx, who observed about someone else, "He might look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot - but don't let that fool you - he really IS an idiot !"

I love circuses !

Joe

Whenever I hear left whingers calling someone an idiot and snickering to themselves, it spikes my interest. It usually turns out that this "idiot" is well educated, wildly successful and usually kicking their butts.

Divergence,

It is not the immigrants who are to blame for industrial relations laws that don't protect the interest of the workers. Politicians should ensure jobs are being created as fast as the workforce rises. Reagan did at least have an excuse for his failure to do so (the need to get inflation under control) but there is no valid excuse left now.

Governments have a choice between investing in the future or pursuing short term budgetary outcomes. The people suffer when they opt for the latter, whether immigration is high or low.

Aidan,

Let's suppose that there were really bad industrial relations laws but that illegal immigration wasn't tolerated and that legal immigration was low, near zero net. Market forces would guarantee that workers could capture a larger share of the benefits from rising productivity. You could try exploiting your workers, but there would be plenty of other jobs out there. No one would work for you. In the 1950s, the social classes in the US benefited more or less equally from economic growth. Or you might look at how wages rose after the Black Death killed off around a third of the population of Europe

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/

King Edward III in England tried to stop workers from demanding higher wages and going elsewhere in search of better jobs. It didn't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Labourers_1351

This situation is much like how the price of bananas went up to $13 a kilo after Cyclone Larry wiped out 80-90% of our banana crop in 2006.

Even good laws will be circumvented if there are enough desperate people. Just think of those 7-11 franchisees demanding that their workers hand back half their pay out of sight of the security cameras.

Of course I don't blame the immigrants. I blame the politicians and their Big Business mates for creating this situation. Nor do I suppose that immigration is the only way that the elite oppress ordinary people. See Dean Baker's book "The End of Loser Liberalism" (available as a free ebook) for plenty more.

Divergence,

"You could try exploiting your workers, but there would be plenty of other jobs out there."

And that's the key. If the number of jobs out there were fixed, the immigration rate would be one of the main factors determining wages. But the number of jobs is not fixed - it depends on how expansionary or contractionary the combination of fiscal policy and monetary policy the government runs is.

Aidan,

There clearly aren't enough jobs. The ABS uses a ridiculously restrictive definition of unemployment. Roy Morgan Research just asks people if they are unemployed and, if they have part-time jobs, whether they want more work. As of last December, 9.7% of our working age population was unemployed and 11% were underemployed. Now tell me why we need more workers.

http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/underemployment-estimates

You are like the US libertarians who say that everything would be fine with open borders if we could get rid of the welfare state. You create the jobs first, and then we can talk about more people, although there are other reasons for not wanting a bigger population.

Divergence,

"There clearly aren't enough jobs. The ABS uses a ridiculously restrictive definition of unemployment."
I agree completely. But regardless of our immigration intake, it is a very easy problem to solve: the government just needs to abandon its stupid pursuit of a budgetary surplus and start investing in our future instead.

"You are like the US libertarians who say that everything would be fine with open borders if we could get rid of the welfare state."
Except that I oppose getting rid of the welfare state.

TRUMP WINS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 2016.

Wednesday February 10, 2016 first Australian episode of “The Good Wife” showed the Democratic Party candidate for the president of the US, selection process.
On the day of the caucus selection process, candidate Peter Florrick had to eat a loose meat sandwich at every Iowa district stop over. Peter Florrick was seen in the media spitting out his loose meat sandwich.
By the time candidate Peter Florrick office staff turned up on the caucus floor, old style Athenian democracy. A gathering of neighbours trying to convince each other to join their candidate. Peter Florrick minimum of 30 promised supporters were not anywhere near “Peter Florrick for president” sign. So easy it takes for promised supporters to desert presidential candidates, shows a simplistic voters intelligence. Peter Florrick supporters went over to join Hillary Clinton supporters before the contest even started.

Eventually Peter Florrick won that particular district after a paid supporter walked into the hall, singing to the tune of the US anthem, including Peter Florrick's name into the song. The not very intelligent Iowa caucus voters following the man in the location of Peter Florrick's sign.

The theory is as low numbered voter candidate groups are knocked out, remaining groups convince knocked out voters into joining remaining groups until a winner has been found.

Sounds easy to rig, leaving selection processes to small numbers of people. Iowa has a state population of three million. As to why Iowa has first choice, beginning the influencing process of following candidates. All seems more of a popularity entertainment contest.

At roughly the same time, the 2012 movie “The Campaign” was shown. The movie is funny to me because voters intelligence were being influenced to believe democracy was real. Tactics candidates used to increase polling voters votes towards candidates names, fell within dumb to doubt it will work very dumb, finding that very dumb works as well.
The wealthy men financing candidates so they may sell US property to Chinese business men, high lights corrupt corporate Tammany Hall Boss Tweed blame politicians democracy.

So obvious that democracy cannot exist, under populations choice, whether registered voters need to vote or not vote. Candidates are running a popularity contest to influence the dumbest voters to both select them as party presidential candidates and eventual president.

All gets back to school education's ability to allow students to think.
All that needs to influence elections are controlling media and education.
Any country that forces compulsive education, starting aged five and six years, forcing early education as a must do, are mentally stressing' child abuse onto children.
Candidates wanting to be elected are often elected by what experienced spin doctor campaign managers advise.

Democracies don't work: politicians are merely public relations front men; badly educated emotional deciding populations believe in the media exposing corruption, proves there exists true democracies; that true democracies wouldn't trick citizens out of their accumulated savings. All dream land fantasy.

If people believe praying to god will get people into heaven, people can be convinced to believe almost anything unseen.
I believe the people that truly rule countries are aware of how people can be easily influenced, and maintain control, to stop long term corrupt future outcomes.

The same people control world trade, sharing resources somewhat equally between countries.

The problem is that even dumb people can decide that enough is enough. Conditions haven't been getting better for ordinary people for a very long time, and have gotten getting worse for some, while enormous wealth and all the benefits of economic growth have been siphoned up to the top.

If I were a member of the US elite, I would be hoping that Donald Trump doesn't meet with a mysterious accident and that an establishment candidate wins fair and square. If Trump is elected president, I would hope that he wasn't lying and would do his damnedest to fulfil his election promises. The same goes for Bernie Sanders on the other side.

The reason is that if these conditions aren't met, the alternative may well be violence, as happened after World War I, when the American people forced their elite to shut down the first era of globalisation, with mass rioting, communal violence, bombings, and targeting of members of the elite for assassination, as well as ongoing violent labour disputes, one so bad that the US government actually called out the Air Force (then a branch of the Army) against its own people. See

http://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads

Hi Divergence,

You may be onto something. Until now I've thought of Trump as some sort of circus performer, having a great time shoving a stick up the arse of the establishment (to which he has always belonged), stringing people along, but not really meaning anything substantial. I thought that Trump represented the redneck Right, and Sanders the dreamy Left, leaving the middle unrepresented, and thereby leaving it to the mercies of people like Rubio and Clinton. Or perhaps Bloomberg.

But there was a very revealing article in today's Australian, which described the impoverishment of the middle, the working people, as the elites (including the bureaucrats and intellectual classes) empowered and enriched themselves at one end, and the welfare classes learnt to get by at the other - both at the expense of the middle.

So in a sense, both Trump and Sanders are pitching to the grievances of the middle (one leaning right, one leaning left), effectively shutting out both Rubio and Clinton. All my theories about a Rubio-Clinton, or a Rubio-Bloomberg-Clinton, fight, are down the drain.

This could be a fascinating year. It will still be a circus, but we'll all be hypnotised by the prospect of somebody falling from the high wire.

Joe

My theories to why Iowa is the first presidential candidate selection process, and how the selection process is easily seen as being easily corrupted by many unknown corporate companies and foreign countries.

US American voters have limited number of candidates for the important political office of US president. I assume intelligent people believe all choices available seem less than desirable.

The church blames god for when things go wrong: earth quakes; European centuries on plague; family members deaths. Everything is god's will. The Catholic church blames unforgiven sins, wanting everyone to be Catholic, committing Catholics to often attend confession.

US presidents are partly the new alternative to god media commentators can blame.
The last half of the 1980s: 1988;1989, had a two year investment boom that ended badly for many western capitalist countries.
The second term president Ronald Reagan was said to be suffering from Alzheimer's. Reagan gets the blame for 1980s high inflation, blamed on Reagan's Star Wars technology development was only proven to exist with no more that animated television scenes of diploid satellites firing laser beams at soviet intercontinental nuclear missiles. No actual photographed hardware that I know of was ever seen on television media news or documentaries.

Richard Nixon' Vietnam War and Water Gate scandal distractions. President Ford was depicted as slow. President Carter was also depicted as slow. George Bush gave us a middle east war. George W Bush's second term was depicted as stupid. Several media commentators said “we have to get rib of George W Bush”. Letterman Show had a nightly joke about George W Bush speeches”. Bush seems to be doing speech slip ups on purpose.

My assumption is that bad economic conditions were blamed on poor performing US presidents.

There are many Hollywood movies, television movie and television series that promote ideas that US presidents are real leaders. Yet not most knowledgeable people. All dramas promoting the president as truly in charge.

The “24 hour” television series had new presidents in each yearly series. The series where the president was female, first words heard from the female president actress in a series promotion was “citizens get the president citizens deserve”. Sounds like bad citizens get bad presidents.

The reason Iowa is the first state and why the Democratic Party selection is Athenian democracy selection process.

The candidate for elections are “set up to fail” blame economic collapse high unemployment poor growth on voters selection on elected candidates democracy for corporate regulation laws.
2016 Elementary series, Sherlock saying, Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst of all systems except for all the rest”.

My assumption is that the present presidential selection process was set up to fail after 1968, allowing future poor performing presidential candidates to be voted into office, during planned poor economic growth periods.

Democracy is little more than a replacement for god, adjusting laws to allow future economic collapses. Democracy after capitalist economic booms ending in busts, introducing new laws to stop future booms busts cycles. As populations have short memories, periodic boom bust and a faith in democracy governments allows establishment leaders to get away with depressions and recessions.

Reasons why media are pointing out Iowa and resulting poor party/circus attitude presidential candidates, is because a long period of declining economic growth is coming. Presidents will stand up and take the blame as intended. Media commentators will focus attention towards the elected president's inability to fix high unemployment.

Why are presidential candidates acting dumb? Whoever is finally elected as presidents, will immediately be seen as incapable of running the country. What every happens to the US, happens simultaneously to most other countries.

February 18, Hillary Clinton was supposedly criticised for barking in front of a forum of supporters, imitating a dog barking.
During the day ABC midday news and or TCN 9 4pm news, either one or both, I never bothered to remember. A news reader showed the beginning of the story.
Hillary was talking about politicians who were stating that if politicians were stating the reasons for the “great recession” Australians hearing great recession as the GFC, global financial crises. If politicians blame the great recession on government over regulation, dogs following politicians would bark, as seen by Hillary Clinton.

Evening news left out the reasons why Hillary Clinton was barking, only showing her barking, news readers saying she is been criticised for barking.

News readers should be accused of miss-representing news stories. Which I am always saying news is little more than manipulating propaganda. That people listening to news stories are having judgements simplified. Turning mildly complex information into opportunities to embarrass politicians, reinforcing ideas that media are free from political influence and retaliation, as in many Middle Eastern and Asian counties are not free to criticise anything believed important.

I am accusing politicians as being no more than public relations trickery, having believed free people being able to end up: homeless; on illegal addictive drugs; addicted to alcohol; forced to save 9% of income in superannuation funds that may not be rewarding when most savers retire on mass. If economic collapse doesn't steal savings, and or wage inflation will.

Like priests and religious ministers are selling words, politicians are selling words on saving money to finance economic growth. Seventy years after second world war, many workers in mining resource industries, not of the age of retiring, are losing employment.
Retired people's preferred investments are stocks that provide high percentage dividends. Who knows what market stocks retired investors were guided into by financial advisers?

My suggestion is that if Internet supposedly independent commentators shows confidence in politicians and democracy. Establishment are going to have more confidence in messing with populations, because populations are too dumb to realise everything is a lie. If people showed more back bone, in being more doubtful of lies, recessions may be least tragic.

If people asked more specific questions on why many people suffer from mental illness, mental illness leading to poor behaving societies, wanting believable detailed answers, not putting up with fogy answers: no person knows; studies are under way; no money in budgets; need to employ more police to solve problems.

An elite number of people in control may find getting away with managing populations a little more challenging, attending to fewer entertaining social evening functions.