h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I gave up trying to understand american politics when I was in Philadelphia a few years back and I saw that there was some interview on TV with the candidates and a major pastor of some kind who would then go on to dictate how millions would vote

That *really* showed me a major difference between the UK and the USA. Maybe it's because I'm not religious (I don't think so) but I suspect the last time religion had any major factor in a british election was sometime in the 18th century.

Outside of Norn Ireland of course

In some parts of Texas, they have what are called "yellow dog Democrats," which means that if a yellow dog runs for office, they'll vote for him.

I think that's called a 'safe seat'' in the UK - we have that sort of thing too Hartlepool once (a northern industrial town in England) who told me if a monkey stood they'd vote it in as long as it was Labour.

Hartlepool's football team is nicknamed the monkeyhangers though as they allegedly once hanged a monkey for being a French spy during the Napileonic wars. He might have been mixing his metaphors.

... I once had a friend from Hartlepool ...

I thought Texans shot Democrats incidentally

US politics can be very confusing, especially in the Old South.

Abraham Lincoln was president and leader of the enemy forces during the US Civil War (War between the States, Great Rebellion, or the War of Yankee Aggression - depending on your political leanings), he was a Republican.

For over 150 years there has only been two political parties of any real significance in the U S, the other is the Democratic Party. Through the 1960's registering to vote as a Republican was considered a waste of your vote in the south, as the Democratic candidate was almost sure of getting the majority of the vote in the primary, so a general election would not be held.

The focus of the two parties started to switch in the 1930's with the election of F D R (Franklin Roosevelt and the 'New Deal') and came to climax with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (after the assassination of John F Kennedy)

Many of the disillusioned Southern Democrats tried to form a third party of their own but it failed badly as the support was only in a small section of the country.

Today in the Old South (the part of the country that was part of the Confederacy in the Civil War) is split between those who continue to support the Democratic party because their family have for many generations, and those who have switched their loyalty to the Republicans because they believe more in their policies.

Please do not read this as any kind of a political rant for either side, I am only trying to share the world I live in.



In the South yellow dogs are often considered inferior for hunting, as they usually only retrieve dead game instead of attacking them themselves. That is why a 'Yellow Dog Democrat' is considered an insult. They would prefer a Pit Bull

F S

Hence Old Yeller.

Thanks, that was interesting.

"she likes goldfish and seems mostly harmless"

Unless you're from Iraq, or Syria, or Yemen, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan or, y'know, any of the other places she's been really enthusiastic about invading. Trump says he'd row back on the US's role as world police and be more militarily isolationist. It's Clinton who's the hawk, and she has form. If you want peace - vote Trump.

"which is worse? A wife [Clinton] who is loyal to her womanizing husband in hope that eventually he will reform, or a husband [Trump] who seems to go from wife to wife?"

Hmm... a vindictive harpy who went all out to vilify and attack the women her husband had abused because they represented a threat to her continued access to power and her career... or a man who's been divorced?

Let's see, since it's not 1525, I think divorce is merely an unfortunate fact of life rather than an indication of excommunicable moral failing, whereas attacking women who have been abused by your husband is rape-culture-enabling douchebaggery of the highest order. Clinton's not Myra Hindley or Rose West... but she's on that spectrum.

If only they had the choice to vote for General Haig

"Unless you're from Iraq, or Syria, or Yemen, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan or, y'know, any of the other places she's been really enthusiastic about invading. Trump says he'd row back on the US's role as world police and be more militarily isolationist. It's Clinton who's the hawk, and she has form. If you want peace - vote Trump"

I take what candidates *say* with a grain of salt, especially if, like Trump, their experience with foreign affairs is meager. Not that I won't hope Trump can be a fast learner if he does get to the White House. We only have one president.

I remember the election of 1964, when Barry Goldwater was depicted -- rather crudely -- as the hawkish candidate. Lyndon Johnson was presumably the dovish option, and he escalated the Vietnamese War after he won the election.

The future is a crap shoot. I'll take my chances when I go into that voting booth, and I will have no choice but to live with the results.

One of the problems with Hitler of course was that he said that 'we must solve the Jewish problem' 'we must have living space in the east' 'we must crush the communists' etc. etc.

And people took it with a grain of salt.

Even though'd he'd said it many times and even published it in a best selling book.

He didn't have much experience of foreign affairs either and hence the Nazi 'diplomacy' of bullying countries into submission until everyone (except, Czechoslovakia, Austria...too late for them) had had enough.
Fortunately he was also ignorant enough (along with the other Nazi leaders apparently) to have no regard for the industrial capacity of the USA. - or the USSR.

I doubt Trump is as dangerous as Hitler (potentially he's worse of course but that's a big IF) but taking rhetoric like that with a grain of salt is something to be very wary of.

And I doff my cap to Godwin there - it's not like it was never going to happen in this thread

Trump has generated quite a bit of humor. Someone did a poll to see how many people would rather have head lice than Trump in the White House. Turns out the lice were twice as popular.

But who knows if the poll was at all serious?

"Trump says he'd row back on the US's role as world police and be more militarily isolationist."

Right, 'cause that worked out so well in the past...

But realistically: America currently has both the single largest military on the planet and the single largest economy. By many times its closest competitors.

Even if our military strength were effectively cut in *half* (which, for the record, I'm in favor of) it'd still be way ahead of everyone else. Isolationism would be impossible, even if the populace really wanted it, which I don't think they actually do.



"It's Clinton who's the hawk, and she has form. If you want peace - vote Trump."

You're insane.




"Fortunately [Hitler] was also ignorant enough (along with the other Nazi leaders apparently) to have no regard for the industrial capacity of the USA. - or the USSR."

To be fair, he seemingly never wanted to go to war with the U.S. in the first place. Or with Britain, for that matter.

But, yeah, the Soviet Union.




"Someone did a poll to see how many people would rather have head lice than Trump in the White House. Turns out the lice were twice as popular."

I'd definitely take head lice over Trump. At least it's easy to get rid of *them*.

It's amusing to see responsible leaders like Paul Ryan [Majority leader of the U.S. House] trying to gingerly edge in Trump's direction without angering moderates.