I'm afraid I don't understand your reply Chippy.
Is this going to be the end of the orange man?
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,875
- Reaction score
- 7,083
Even if you have private health cover here you still need to have private funds to pay for surgery which can be very expensive. Our private health costs rise every year, people not signing up and others dropping out. USA the private health is often covered by the employer, even after retirement. Not sure if theirs covers surgery, but speaking to some Americans their PHC seemed slightly cheaper than ours.
One of the things I don't think the media covered very well last time (over here in the UK I mean) was how unpopular Hillary was with a lot of moderate voters, who stayed at home as a result. I'm not an expert on US politics, but from what I gather , Biden doesn't have that problem so should have a better chance of winning.I’m absolutely certain Biden is going to win. Just like how in 2016 I was absolutely certain Clinton was going to win. Make of that what you will
Ajhutch
Landlord.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 1,256
I agree with that, in that Clinton took traditional D voters in the likes of Pennsylvania and Michigan for granted and instead campaigned in less likely areas. She tried to run up the score in the electoral college and ended up losing stares she didn’t expect to.
While Biden probably won’t lose those states, I have a slight fear that he takes non-white voters as a whole for granted, which can have implications across the electoral map. Partly it’s a “well I was Obama’s VP and we’re buddies” thing and partly it’s a “but look at the other guy” thing. But what makes Trump such a successful campaigner is his ability to tell any audience what they want to hear. That’s why his speeches are often inconsistent with one another. A lot of people will only take in a little bit of campaigning and news before they vote and Biden should have a more positive message for those communities in my view.
While Biden probably won’t lose those states, I have a slight fear that he takes non-white voters as a whole for granted, which can have implications across the electoral map. Partly it’s a “well I was Obama’s VP and we’re buddies” thing and partly it’s a “but look at the other guy” thing. But what makes Trump such a successful campaigner is his ability to tell any audience what they want to hear. That’s why his speeches are often inconsistent with one another. A lot of people will only take in a little bit of campaigning and news before they vote and Biden should have a more positive message for those communities in my view.
To be fair, I wouldn't vote for either of them. But that sums up how I feel about most UK elections as well, so at least I'm consistent. 
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
dwhite60
Landlord.
This about sums up Joe's state of mind.
Cheshire Cat
Landlord.
What a choice you guys have between two of the oldest and most stupid candidates in your history. Either the devil or the dupe. Mind you we've got Boris so maybe I'm in a glass house throwing stones, but at least I didn't vote for him.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,875
- Reaction score
- 7,083
If a party wants to get into power they have to field a stronger candidate, neither the democrats, nor the Labor party in the UK have that.
Its the party which have a plan for the economy coming out of the Corona crisis which will win elections.
Its the party which have a plan for the economy coming out of the Corona crisis which will win elections.
If I may, I'll correct that to 'Should win elections'
Unfortunately being more cynically realistic, the candidate who can blame "somebody else caused this, vote for me and I'll get them for you " the most and make it stick will come out on top.
It worked for Trump, Cummings (sorry I meant Boris), Bolsonaro, Putin et al.
It's called populism, and the risk is you sometimes end up with someone like Hitler. And as wished for above, they could all be as called a " stronger candidate".
Be careful what you wish for - you may get it!
It's lowest common factor politics.
It has a parallel in the quote by H. K. Menken in The Evening Sun in the USA,
"
No one in this world, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. "
And I must confess, yes I am a confirmed 'Guardianista' as also presaged above.
Deep sigh.
Robin.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,875
- Reaction score
- 7,083
I prefer will rather than should. As for Hitler, different story altogether eliminate any one who opposes you and you will win. Starmer doesn't look the goods he looks like he is either about to burst into tears or take out the worry beads. I would put money on Boris winning the next election. Trump not so confident but would give him better oddsthan evens if I was bookie.
Trump's supporters get their news from Fox, social media and right-wing sources plus Evangelical ones. So they are in an information bubble. I think the election will be very close. If the economy picks up or if Covid numbers start to drop statewide, then Trump might get re-elected.
Populism is on the rise and mostly caused by social media 'noise'. The responsible print media used to be very influential but less so today. They had experienced journalist chasing truth and holding our leaders to account. Shame that's on the wane everywhere.
Populism is on the rise and mostly caused by social media 'noise'. The responsible print media used to be very influential but less so today. They had experienced journalist chasing truth and holding our leaders to account. Shame that's on the wane everywhere.
dwhite60
Landlord.
My wife read a book some years ago with an interesting turn on how politicians are placed in office. This was a work of fiction but, in a way it made some sense.
On the premise that anyone that WANTS to be president, senator, whatever, is obviously insane for wanting to be, the society in this book ran a lottery on everyone's citizen ID number. If you were over 21 years old your number went in the pool. When it was time for an election they pulled a new number and the job was YOURS for four years if pulled for president, six for senator, two for representative. No refusing. Your number came up, you got the job.
You most likely got a new person every election cycle so you didn't end up with a few, like Pelosi, Schumer, Mitchell wielding most of the power in the government. Really don't think we would end up with worse than what we have now.
On the premise that anyone that WANTS to be president, senator, whatever, is obviously insane for wanting to be, the society in this book ran a lottery on everyone's citizen ID number. If you were over 21 years old your number went in the pool. When it was time for an election they pulled a new number and the job was YOURS for four years if pulled for president, six for senator, two for representative. No refusing. Your number came up, you got the job.
You most likely got a new person every election cycle so you didn't end up with a few, like Pelosi, Schumer, Mitchell wielding most of the power in the government. Really don't think we would end up with worse than what we have now.
Last edited:
dwhite60
Landlord.
You're absolutely right. There were morals and ethics in news reporting. News outlets really served the people and did help hold politicians accountable.
Now, you have a CNN reporter on television covering the "peaceful protests" in St. Louis while, in the background, the rioting mobs and burning buildings tell a completely different, and honest, story.
Have you used the NHS in recent times? I have. Some of the services it provides are lamentable, some world class.
So chucking ever increasing amounts of money it at to fund existing inefficiencies and people in non jobs should not be the answer.
We should be looking at the NHS to make it efficient, then decide how best to fund it. Perhaps it does need more money, perhaps it could actually be run on less to give the existing level of service if that's what the UK wants.
But that is not going to happen because its not a vote seeker to bash the NHS, so politicians do the easy thing and just increase funding which salves the public's perception of what they believe is right.
Old Geezer
Active Member
But whose pockets does it end up in?
If you ask most people if we should increase the NHS budget, they say yes, but when you ask them what it costs us now they don't know! Those svwhy we need elected politicians to make these decisions based on INFORMED concensus.
I read that. I think it was a science fiction author.
MyQul
Chairman of the Bored
Boris wont be their by the next election. He'll be the fall guy to take the blame for the possible second C-19 spike in winter plus any predicted negative effects of of Brexit
Old Geezer
Active Member
Agree I doubt Boris will still be there if there's one thing you can count on the Tory's for it's their ability for backstabbing they are the undisputed ruthless masters of it. If their popularity wanes and it looks like they will lose an election out comes the long knives, power at any cost is their motto.
All this virus has done is given them a scapegoat for Brexit.
- Status
