Potential break-down and new low US-UK relationship on the horizon?

Well, if he were elected president the whole world would have significantly bigger problems than small details like the UK-US relationships.

That said, I have not kept much attentions on who and for what the British have been banning people for coming to their country but I'm very much in favour of seriously checking whether that clown's statements fall into a similar enough vein to warrant a ban.
I'm not a big fan of banning people for their opinions and statement (no matter how moronic or hateful) but if it is done at all it should be done evenly to everyone regardless of wealth, connections and/or political fallout.

This only means they will debate it. Nothing will come of the debate it never does. We have had several debates on cannabis decriminalisation, banning airlines and travel companies from changing there price during peak season and abolishing the TV licence and even voting a debate of no confidence in the current Prime Minister David Cameron.

Also don't forget that we also have a petition that currently has over 200,000 signatures to debate banning Muslims into the UK which is exactly the reason people want to ban Donald Trump.

If opinion polls are to be believed then he WILL BE nominated as the GOP candidate and hence has a 50/50 chance of becoming the US president.

I don't think so. I believe the opinion polls are (mostly, more or less) accurate, but that by no means indicate that he will get the GOP nomination (or even that he's at all likely to). It's not impossible, but I don't know of anyone who performs serious evidence-based analysis of these polls who claims that Trump is likely to be nominated. Nor does anyone say it's impossible, it's just very difficult to say based on what's actually out there.

I'd also take issue with the notion that getting the GOP nomination means you have a 50/50 chance of becoming president. It's certainly tough to say now, but Trump doesn't seem to be doing great in general election polls (although this is not something I've really followed up on, so this may have changed or I may not be aware of what data is out there).

I suppose the British have no clue what they are letting themselves into. If opinion polls are to be believed then he WILL BE nominated as the GOP candidate and hence has a 50/50 chance of becoming the US president.

Opinion polls (and, really, most other polls) aren't to be taken at face value. As a concrete example, last election the polls (as well as most news outlets) said that Mitt Romney had a 50/50 shot at president, but Obama proceeded to take him in a *landslide*, to the consternation of many republican pundits.

It's the typical magnifying effect of (a) the internet, where the person who yells the loudest is heard, regardless of whether they represent a majority, and (b) the media, which has a vested interest in amplifying whoever yells the loudest to sell newspapers/shows/advertising.

It is worth pointing out that polls of actual voters paint a very different picture about Trump's popularity.

DT should be banned from being DT.

I suppose the British have no clue what they are letting themselves into. If opinion polls are to be believed then he WILL BE nominated as the GOP candidate and hence has a 50/50 chance of becoming the US president.

Or maybe we simply don't want a hate mongering idiot allowed on to our lands, regardless of his potential future status?

To suggest we have 'no clue' what we are letting ourselves in for is frankly insulting - and given that Americans take great joy is telling everyone to keep their noses out of their elections over the years highly hypocritical.

If America elects this racist/xenophobic idiot in to high office then I for one welcome any reduction in the UK-US 'special relationship'; I'd want very little to do with such a country as his view point is out of step with not only the majority UK view but also the view of many people in the world.

We have had several debates on [...] and even voting a debate of no confidence in the current Prime Minister David Cameron.

Minor correction; this debate didn't happen.
The petition only means something will be 'considered for debate' (in the case of this thread it apparently will be) not that it has to be debated - despite what many people who share/retweet links to these petitions think/believe/wish.

In the 'vote of no confidence' case it was never going to happen, a no confidence vote can only be called under certain conditions so it was utterly and laughably non-constutional, and even if it did happen Cameron would win as he hold a majority.

Honestly, at this point I'd support revoking the voting rights of everyone who signed this until they could demonstrate even a slight understanding of the contutional setup in the UK. We'd just have a vote on things, it was the election, and regardless of the result someone wasn't going to be happy - I'm no fan of the government but still it was poorly though out nonsense; "We don't like the election result! We demand you hold another so we get a result we like!", even if that did happen I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find the required numbers who disliked the new result and around we go again.

Rarely do you get something you can point at to prove that people are idiots, but this is one of those cases...
And people wonder why I think democracy is a broken mess and we need a new system...
*sigh*

We have had several debates on [...] and even voting a debate of no confidence in the current Prime Minister David Cameron.

Minor correction; this debate didn't happen.
The petition only means something will be 'considered for debate' (in the case of this thread it apparently will be) not that it has to be debated - despite what many people who share/retweet links to these petitions think/believe/wish.

In the 'vote of no confidence' case it was never going to happen, a no confidence vote can only be called under certain conditions so it was utterly and laughably non-constutional, and even if it did happen Cameron would win as he hold a majority.

Honestly, at this point I'd support revoking the voting rights of everyone who signed this until they could demonstrate even a slight understanding of the contutional setup in the UK. We'd just have a vote on things, it was the election, and regardless of the result someone wasn't going to be happy - I'm no fan of the government but still it was poorly though out nonsense; "We don't like the election result! We demand you hold another so we get a result we like!", even if that did happen I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find the required numbers who disliked the new result and around we go again.

Rarely do you get something you can point at to prove that people are idiots, but this is one of those cases...
And people wonder why I think democracy is a broken mess and we need a new system...
*sigh*

When I said voting a debate of no confidence, I meant petitioning a debate of no confidence. I know that his never made it to the debate for obvious reasons.

If Trump makes it to the general elections I'd probably vote for him. He'd basically be on par with Hillary/Sanders anyway, so might as well make the executive branch entertaining. If the UK actually carries through with a ban on him entering the UK, that just makes it more entertaining, I don't think it would impact anyone's voting, or impact the US-UK relationship in the long term.

The past elections I voted for Obama and Mike Gravel, so I'd be one of the democrats switching parties for this election. Out of my friends who are democrats (Who actually follow politics and vote), 4/5 would vote for him over either Hillary or Sanders, and 1/5 would do a write-in. The real issue is that us democrats don't like our choices. Hillary's an awful candidate, who lost for good reason in 2008. Sanders isn't much better.

Small sample, but I think it pretty much matches up with what the polls are saying, which is basically that people find Hillary untrustworthy/unlikable.

Recent years have been pretty amazing. It's like watching a nuclear meltdown.

Everyone is testing the limits of what they can get away with - Trump, NSA, CIA, news outlets, bloggers, Tweeters, terrorists. The concept that Trump could even *remotely* become president leads me to believe that it's only a matter of time before someone says "You know what? Fuck the constitution and fuck checks-and-balances." and goes full Hitler with the backing of the entire country.

History is doomed to repeat itself, not because we forget history, but because people who seek power find it, and do so with nobody's best interests in mind.

If America elects this racist/xenophobic idiot in to high office then I for one welcome any reduction in the UK-US 'special relationship'; I'd want very little to do with such a country as his view point is out of step with not only the majority UK view but also the view of many people in the world.

Everyone is testing the limits of what they can get away with - Trump, NSA, CIA, news outlets, bloggers, Tweeters, terrorists. The concept that Trump could even *remotely* become president leads me to believe that it's only a matter of time before someone says "You know what? Fuck the constitution and fuck checks-and-balances." and goes full Hitler with the backing of the entire country.

History is doomed to repeat itself, not because we forget history, but because people who seek power find it, and do so with nobody's best interests in mind.

And for others who felt the opinion polls are not representative of reality.... You'd all be surprised because i think....

....I think its a backlash voters reaction

Bill Clinton was pretty moderate so the backlash started after George W Bush. Voters lurched to a relative left wing candidate because George Bush's right winged war mongering attitude almost crippled the US

Now there is a backlash lurch back to the right by some voters who felt like Obama is moving the US towards a socialist country particularly because of the so-called Obamacare

So after Donald Trump gets in the white house and destroys the US in eight years there will be lurch back to a proper left wing candidate (except if majority of US voters are wise enough to vote for moderate Hillary Clinton... then these backlashes would end)

Bill Clinton was pretty moderate so the backlash started after George W Bush. Voters lurched to a relative left wing candidate because George Bush's right winged war mongering attitude almost crippled the US
Now there is a backlash lurch back to the right by some voters who felt like Obama is moving the US towards a socialist country particularly because of the so-called Obamacare

Only in the US would a centre right candidate like Obama be considered even remotely socialist.

If Trump makes it to the general elections I'd probably vote for him. He'd basically be on par with Hillary/Sanders anyway, so might as well make the executive branch entertaining.

Please tell me you're joking. Trump is a fucking moron who shouldn't be in charge of anything.

Only in the US would a centre right candidate like Obama be considered even remotely socialist.

QFE. Sanders isn't even a socialist by anywhere else's standards. At best he's moderately leftist (and both Obama and Hillary are to the right of center).

If Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate, then the only way he might win is if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate.

A Hillary nomination basically means a Republican victory. A Trump nomination basically means a Democratic victory, unless running against Hillary (in which we'll have an interesting race).

In either of those situations, we basically don't even need to do the general election.

A non-Hillary non-Trump nomination means the vote is up in the air, leaning towards Democratic victory (especially if Sanders is the Democratic candidate).

That's how I see the odds.

Had Joe Biden actually ran, I think the Democrats would be in a much better place. And if Sanders chooses Biden as VP, and then Biden runs for president in 2024, the Democrats would be in a very good place, perhaps even sustaining three successive presidencies. Hillary was a smart choice until the whole email debacle became an albatross about her neck.

Recent Republican campaigns have always ran the worst candidates.

Given the impact American presidents have on the rest of the world I feel that at the very least American allies (and perhaps just the top-most—the UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Djibouti) should have a small influence in the election. Say 5%.
If Trump wins by 4%, they can add 5% to Bernie Sanders and let him win.

Anyway, no need to put too much thought into it.

Bernie has significantly more voter support than any other candidate. Only a small percent of America is Republican, and Trump only holds the lead on the republican side.

As an overall candidate, Bernie is winning.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-bernie-has-bigger-lead-over-trump-than-hillary/article/2572738

L. Spiro

If Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate, then the only way he might win is if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate.

A Hillary nomination basically means a Republican victory. A Trump nomination basically means a Democratic victory, unless running against Hillary (in which we'll have an interesting race).
In either of those situations, we basically don't even need to do the general election.

is this because the US is resisting a woman president??

If so that would be a missed opportunity and a shame. It would be many generations before America gets another intelligent, principled and politically talented woman on the correct side of politics, again. She has a tough lion-heart, which takes a lot to develop in a political world dominated by men. oops!!!! i can as well be her campaign manager!!!

If so there will be no double fairy tale ending of first black president followed by first woman president (not saying this should be the reason for choosing your president - but when that woman happens to be Hillary Clinton, then its a missed opportunity)

As an overall candidate, Bernie is winning.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-bernie-has-bigger-lead-over-trump-than-hillary/article/2572738

BTW that link referenced is dated - back in September probably when the effects of the email (artificial) scandal was at its peak

is this because the US is resisting a woman president??

If so that would be a missed opportunity and a shame. It would be many generations before America gets another intelligent, principled and politically talented woman on the correct side of politics, again. She has a tough lion-heart, which takes a lot to develop in a political world dominated by men. oops!!!! i can as well be her campaign manager!!!

If so there will be no double fairy tale ending of first black president followed by first woman president (not saying this should be the reason for choosing your president - but when that woman happens to be Hillary Clinton, then its a missed opportunity)

I'm from the UK so probably not aware of the all reasons US voters dislike her but, I think we can safely say that it has nothing to do with her gender.
The main reasons I see cropping up in online forums are:
1. She is only in the position she is in because of her husband (this is complete BS).

2. She is a pathological lier and thinks she is personally above the law.
3. She is too far in bed with Wall Street (is there a presidential candidate who isn't?).

4. She seems to be very self serving and only out for herself.

From my own observations she just seems to come across as a very unlikeable person. Even when she is doing something right or good she is just one of those people whose appearance offends you for no reason.

Donald Trump on the other hand whilst making some of the most despicable and unreasonable comments still seems to come across as a likeable buffoon a bit like we have with Boris Johnson in the UK.

When Obama was first running for election in 2008, a great many of us would rather have seen Hilary win that election. But Obama won it fair and square, and while he's never been as far left as we had hoped, he hasn't done a bad job by any means - despite a Republican-controlled congress which was out to fuck him from day one.

Nowadays, my view hasn't changed with regards to Hilary, I think she's still a fantastically strong candidate. But this time we also have Bernie in the running, who represents the first left-of-center candidate in decades, and one of the only politicians to openly defy Wall St (along with Elizabeth Warren).

We really should elect him. Real change is a possibility. But if we don't, Hilary is still in a great position to wipe the floor with any of the half-assed Republican candidates out there right now.

I really don't understand why it isn't considered a conflict of interest to have presidential candidates who are multi billionaire business owners.

Surely making people like trump president just encourages more rampant abuse of the world and it's people by big business, laws being massaged by politics to ensure that the company always has priority over the individual?

All politicians have proven to be self serving no matter what party and what country,so this is a big red flag for me.

Also what's with the two party system anyway... At least here in the UK anyone stands some chance of being in power, without having to resort to being in one of the three main parties. Admittedly you do stand much more chance of being noticed but the point remains...