US Presidential Election 2016

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/10/support-donald-trump-similar-rise-jeremy-corbyn-emily-thornberry

yep, I mentioned I'd seen similar yesterday.

The reality is that Corbyn is more like Clinton - but MUCH less supported - while it's May that's more like Trump, telling 'the people' what they want to hear.

Jezza wants to talk to you and me about trident and how he wants to keep current immigration levels, not how he might get jobs to the valleys or sort out housing. 

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

is this an end of the road thing? Im not a fan of scientology at all. Ive never seen anything at EOTR which would make me think they were connected.

It's not unrelated.

Whatever, i'll let it go.

 

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Promising to improve peoples lives while denigrating minorities? Thats an example of what facism promises!

Nope, not the same thing.

Hitler targeted a race inside the country as the basis of all ills, and the gains would be directly from them. Trump made clear that he was talking about those on the outside, people who weren't Americans, and america's benefit would be at the expense of those outside of the country.

I'm quite happy to accept that it's in the same public park, but the place for ball games is over there. It's not (quite) the same ball game.

Yep, i'm sure it appealed to the racists, and we all know there's an amount of them. But those people were going to give their support to someone, anyway.

They're both about improving your lot at the expense of someone else, but so is socialism. They're each very different in method.

I'm not trying to defend Trump, I'm trying to point out that what you're saying is no less extreme than anything Trump said.

 

[feral chile]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, I mentioned I'd seen similar yesterday.

The reality is that Corbyn is more like Clinton - but MUCH less supported - while it's May that's more like Trump, telling 'the people' what they want to hear.

Jezza wants to talk to you and me about trident and how he wants to keep current immigration levels, not how he might get jobs to the valleys or sort out housing. 

 

Well Wales turned nashie, but not the sort I expected.

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not unrelated.

Whatever, i'll let it go.

 

Nope, not the same thing.

Hitler targeted a race inside the country as the basis of all ills, and the gains would be directly from them. Trump made clear that he was talking about those on the outside, people who weren't Americans, and america's benefit would be at the expense of those outside of the country.

I'm quite happy to accept that it's in the same public park, but the place for ball games is over there. It's not (quite) the same ball game.

Yep, i'm sure it appealed to the racists, and we all know there's an amount of them. But those people were going to give their support to someone, anyway.

They're both about improving your lot at the expense of someone else, but so is capitalism.. They're each very different in method.

I'm not trying to defend Trump, I'm trying to point out that what you're saying is no less extreme than anything Trump said.

 

corrected for you

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/10/support-donald-trump-similar-rise-jeremy-corbyn-emily-thornberry

Emily Thornberry talks a lot of crap. An article on her opinion isn't evidence of anything except delusion. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by kaosmark2

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, feral chile said:

corrected for you

You should have made it an addition. I'm quite happy for that to be included too.

I was pointing out that in economic terms and with everything else remaining equal, one person's or society's gain is another person's or society's loss.

I'm no fan of nationalism of any kind, but that doesn't stop me recognising it, or that politics by necessity has you only playing up-to the borders in use for that political contest. Trump wasn't only saying he'd make america great again, he was saying how he'd do it too.

We could debate the rights and wrongs of that, but it's a clear plan beyond the sloganeering of the first part. 'Nice' politicians often only do the sloganeering part.

I could point out that an indy Scotland plan(ned?) to make itself economically successful via having a low corp tax regime, to attract companies to head quarters there, in much the same way as Ireland has done. It's no less robbing the economies of other countries as Trump has suggested he'll do, yet for some reason it gets a free pass.

[pink_triangle]

I agree with what someone said on the Nate Silver podcast. Part of being a fan of democracy is being able to accept when the result doesn't go your way.  I'm disappointed the people chose Trump, but I'm glad that the people had a choice.

[feral chile]

20 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Emily Thornberry talks a lot of crap. An article on her opinion isn't evidence of anything except delusion. 

would have added a smilie, but couldn't make up my mind if it should be amused or horror, because I don't think there's anything remotely similar.

Apart from people being pissed off with the establishment, yet still voting for the ruling classes. (business)

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Apart from people being pissed off with the establishment, yet still voting for the ruling classes. (business)

well, for someone who likes to bang on about how the poor are made to live in shit nowadays, you better keep on hoping that's what they keep doing.

Cos if the business classes aren't doing well the rest of us definitely won't be, and a regime that doesn't respect that fact will lead the country into deeper shit.

 

[feral chile]

'An attack on any one of us is an attack on all of us'

Edited November 10, 2016 by feral chile

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

well, for someone who likes to bang on about how the poor are made to live in shit nowadays, you better keep on hoping that's what they keep doing.

Cos if the business classes aren't doing well the rest of us definitely won't be, and a regime that doesn't respect that fact will lead the country into deeper shit.

 

I don't disagree with that, which is why I didn't vote Leave.

I don't buy wholeheartedly into the whole self justification of socioeconomic inequality, however.

[KingPin]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

You should have made it an addition. I'm quite happy for that to be included too.

I was pointing out that in economic terms and with everything else remaining equal, one person's or society's gain is another person's or society's loss.

I'm no fan of nationalism of any kind, but that doesn't stop me recognising it, or that politics by necessity has you only playing up-to the borders in use for that political contest. Trump wasn't only saying he'd make america great again, he was saying how he'd do it too.

We could debate the rights and wrongs of that, but it's a clear plan beyond the sloganeering of the first part. 'Nice' politicians often only do the sloganeering part.

I could point out that an indy Scotland plan(ned?) to make itself economically successful via having a low corp tax regime, to attract companies to head quarters there, in much the same way as Ireland has done. It's no less robbing the economies of other countries as Trump has suggested he'll do, yet for some reason it gets a free pass.

 What a load of shit, how is it robbing another countries economy if you're economy is more competitive? 

[zahidf]

bernie sanders nails it

'To the degree that Donald Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.'

 

'If Donald Trump takes people's anger and turns it against Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans and women, we will be his worst nightmare.'

 

Decent article on Trump's rise

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Edited November 10, 2016 by zahidf

[feral chile]

53 minutes ago, zahidf said:

bernie sanders nails it

'To the degree that Donald Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.'

 

'If Donald Trump takes people's anger and turns it against Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans and women, we will be his worst nightmare.'

 

Decent article on Trump's rise

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

That article was really good.

You could switch the South Wales Valleys for rural America.

Which explains why they've lost their political loyalties, too.

 

[lost]

Which newspapers were backing which candidates 2012 vs 2016:

And money spent per candidate:

Edited November 10, 2016 by lost

[zahidf]

At the same time, It is not 'smug' to criticise endorsement of racism, misogyny, bigotry and lying. These things are unacceptable. Voters are not children.

[feral chile]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You should have made it an addition. I'm quite happy for that to be included too.

I was pointing out that in economic terms and with everything else remaining equal, one person's or society's gain is another person's or society's loss.

I'm no fan of nationalism of any kind, but that doesn't stop me recognising it, or that politics by necessity has you only playing up-to the borders in use for that political contest. Trump wasn't only saying he'd make america great again, he was saying how he'd do it too.

We could debate the rights and wrongs of that, but it's a clear plan beyond the sloganeering of the first part. 'Nice' politicians often only do the sloganeering part.

I could point out that an indy Scotland plan(ned?) to make itself economically successful via having a low corp tax regime, to attract companies to head quarters there, in much the same way as Ireland has done. It's no less robbing the economies of other countries as Trump has suggested he'll do, yet for some reason it gets a free pass.

shit I posted a long reply to this, and then went to check some figures, and this popped up:

http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/disneys-revenue-espn/

The top 1% now owns half the world's wealth

Credit Suisse says wealth inequality was actually falling before the financial crisis but has increased every year since 2008.

[feral chile]

ok so I know this is msn, even so, the comments under this article...I'm speechless.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/theresa-may-holds-first-talks-with-donald-trump/ar-AAk8Gmr?li=BBrN4i3&ocid=spartandhp

[LJS]

A number of people, notably Neil & pink triangle seem to be suggesting that, in spite of his questionable views on Muslims, Mexicans, women etc, voting for Trump is excusable because some of the people who voted for him did so for other reasons.

So my question to them is how bad would his statements have to have been before you would be prepared to jump off your fence & condemn his supporters?

Oh & why are you so quick to jump to the defence of Trump supporters but have nothing but contempt for Corbyn supporters?

Zahidf may be guilty of seeing things as rather more black & white than they really are from time to time, but at least he is not a mealy mouthed apologist for bigots & racists. There is an important difference between understanding why people vote offensively & justifying it.

Edited November 11, 2016 by LJS

[CHRLY]

10 hours ago, feral chile said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/10/support-donald-trump-similar-rise-jeremy-corbyn-emily-thornberry

I can't stand being told this from Corbynistas. So many people are trying to make out as if this is somehow good news for Corbyn. Trump targeted a specific voter and they voted for him overwhelmingly. Aside from a few really passionate people I'm not really sure who Jez is appealing to. This is a couple of months old, but it seems like not one group of voters favour him.

Edit: Not directed at you Feral, in case it comes across that way.

Edited November 11, 2016 by CHRLY

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, CHRLY said:

I can't stand being told this from Corbynistas. So many people are trying to make out as if this is somehow good news for Corbyn. Trump targeted a specific voter and they voted for him overwhelmingly. Aside from a few really passionate people I'm not really sure who Jez is appealing to. This is a couple of months old, but it seems like not one group of voters favour him.

Edit: Not directed at you Feral, in case it comes across that way.

I agree. I don't like him being compared to Trump, and the public mood is towards non politicians. Corbyn's part of the status quo they want rid of.

[lost]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

So my question to them is how bad would his statements have to have been before you would be prepared to jump off your fence & condemn his supporters?

That question could equally be applied to Clinton supporters.. What if she'd used nukes as defense secretary would trump still be the worst choice?

The thing is I have found more people who have voted for trump mention alot of his faults versus Clinton supporters who are convinced the only reason she lost is the patriarchy or racism.

This could simply be a republican vs democrat thing for alot of people, Clinton got 8 years, Bush 8 and now Obama 8, the US tends to jump every 8 years and no party has ever won more than 3 terms in modern times. Obamacare for most people has been a complete disaster, its nothing like our NHS, its effectively the same as your car insurance company being forced to cover 19 year old Kevin at the end of the road whose written off 6 corsa's in two years and they'll spread that extra cost across the rest of the street. People have seen 40% increases in healthcare costs with no improvement. In a two party system alot of those people (who voted for Obama remember) will simply be saying, lets give the republicans a go.

Edited November 11, 2016 by lost

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

A number of people, notably Neil & pink triangle seem to be suggesting that, in spite of his questionable views on Muslims, Mexicans, women etc, voting for Trump is excusable because some of the people who voted for him did so for other reasons.

So my question to them is how bad would his statements have to have been before you would be prepared to jump off your fence & condemn his supporters?

Oh & why are you so quick to jump to the defence of Trump supporters but have nothing but contempt for Corbyn supporters?

Zahidf may be guilty of seeing things as rather more black & white than they really are from time to time, but at least he is not a mealy mouthed apologist for bigots & racists. There is an important difference between understanding why people vote offensively & justifying it.

I'll try to answer. In terms of how bad he could get before I would write off all his supporters, that's a difficult one. I'm a pragmatist and know some have to be won back. I think condemning the lot makes that process more challenging. 

I also don't think you can judge the voters support of Trump in isolation without looking at the flaws of his opponents. The country felt their choice was between two people with bad personal characteristics and therefore chose bad. I may have completely misjudged the American people, but can't believe half are racist, especially as some of that half voted Obama.

In terms of the comparison with Corbyn supporters, make no mistake I think both have made a terrible choice. However it's their choice to make. I feel more invested in the Corbyn choice because its in my country. It's also much easier to undo the Corbyn choice than the Trump one and I have a vote. Due to my political leanings I also have much more invested in labour having a good candidates in 2020 than the republicans.

Make no mistake I think Trump will be bad for America, but I always think republicans are bad for America. If it had to be a republican I would have preferred Jeb or Rubio, however I would prefer Trump to Cruz who I feel is more idealistic and potentially dangerous. Once the rhetoric is done Trump will be judged by his actions. I think Trump in office will be bad, but not convinced worse than any other generic republican and I accept republicans will always have periods of power in America.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

A number of people, notably Neil & pink triangle seem to be suggesting that, in spite of his questionable views on Muslims, Mexicans, women etc, voting for Trump is excusable because some of the people who voted for him did so for other reasons.

Nope.

I'm simply recognising that people didn't only vote for him because he was racist.

zahidf wants everyone to believe that people only voted for his racism, and because they're racist themselves. It's bollocks, so i said it's bollocks.

People had to make a choice. If those people were repelled by Clinton - and i know plenty were - then Trump starts to become someone they might vote for instead.

As is clear, plenty of people who happily voted for Obama decided this time to vote for Trump - because of other aspects of him than his racism. Rightly or wrongly they felt a political outsider is a better thing than more of the same.

Last night Trump was explicitly asked what he wqas going to do about Muslims, and he found a way to duck the question - which suggests (along with other stuff, such as lauding Obama yesterday) he's not following thru on much of the bollocks he spoke, and his presidency won't be too much about what he campaigned on. He'll go for the 'sensible' and do-able stuff instead - trade deals, Obamacare, infrastructure spending, etc.

 

8 hours ago, LJS said:

So my question to them is how bad would his statements have to have been before you would be prepared to jump off your fence & condemn his supporters?

I can happily condem his supporters for the bollocks they bought into.

Just as I can happy condemn zahidf for talking just as much bollocks.

 

8 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh & why are you so quick to jump to the defence of Trump supporters but have nothing but contempt for Corbyn supporters?

I have contempt for stupidity, no matter where it lies.

The stupidity here isn't from Trump, in case it's passed you by.

 

8 hours ago, LJS said:

Zahidf may be guilty of seeing things as rather more black & white than they really are from time to time, but at least he is not a mealy mouthed apologist for bigots & racists. There is an important difference between understanding why people vote offensively & justifying it.

True, zahidf isn't a mealy mouthed apologist for bigots and racists, he's a bigot and racist. How have you missed it?

If someone says "all Musilims are terrorists", it's rightly condemned as not true.

Why do you think someone saying "all Trump voters are racists" or "all brexit voters are racists" should be given a free pass for doing the same wrong generalisation thing?

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, KingPin said:

 What a load of shit, how is it robbing another countries economy if you're economy is more competitive? 

it takes wealth away from the place that is creating that wealth.

Go on then, please tell me why it's right that ireland robs tax revenues from other EU states? Are you happy with the likes of Google, Microsoft and Apple paying fuck all tax in the UK - and costing you local services - because Ireland is having it instead (or Amazon, where Luxembourg has the tax).?

Do you think that's right and proper, or do you think tax should be collected where it's generated? Cos I happen to know of a political campaign that's largely based on the idea of other another place robbing the wealth and resources of where that campaign is based. Perhaps you know of it too?