19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 11, 2016 18:52:06 GMT
It's becoming a bit of a theme that the left keep choosing leaders who no-one in their right minds can vote for, and then act all dismayed because they don't win elections. Durr.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 19:03:22 GMT
That's it. Sorry for the length.
Hopefully not tl;dr
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 19:05:20 GMT
The final vote count still isn't in (and Clinton's popular vote lead is increasing all the time) so we can't say how many less votes she had than Obama yet.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 11, 2016 21:18:58 GMT
Busy with work and house moving so good to be able to look at this with a clearer perspective than a few days ago. Worried that my ipad will crash so apologies for there being two posts, one on the US and one on the UK, for whom there are two very different imperatives now. For the US and the people there, whatever we can say or do it's up to them alone if they want to improve their country's standing in the world and take their country back. How? There needs to be more division. To explain..... There is a 10% group or thereabouts who look as though they wanted to send a message and, being persuadable, they are the ones who matter, yet no argument, no discussion, no persuasion will make them change at this point (and discussion and such are vastly overrated as ways of changing minds in any case). The only thing that can do that is experience, experience measured against expectation. Figures show that, in general, the republican vote was no higher than Romney's so it is those who made the choice not to choose who made the difference. Those who didn't vote when they did last time. Make no mistake, the lack of choice is something that they own, it was done as a tacit acceptance that you go along with what others choose for you. For these people time will lead to reevaluation, a reminding for people who are reachable. Nothing beats experience as a tool for changing minds. Other groups who created this situation may do the same (conservatives in the GOP etc.) but one, the 10% or so who are the extremists, the race baiters, those who live by male dominance, those who now are expecting laws to hurt anyone from gay men to anyone they deem 'liberal' (and, yes, they don't actually have any idea what liberalism is, economically or otherwise) must be fought, and yes Americans must, if they don't want this to become the new status quo, literally fight them. As it is now, the KKK and their ilk know that they are central and valued supporters of this President, part of the coalition needed to elect a government like this (as an example, coded anti-semitic language was openly used in campaign videos). Civil resistance is probably going to be necessary. There are too many historical echoes to remind Americans that extremists need to be marginalised and fought, especially when they feel acknowledged and powerful. If fear of blood being spilt leads to inaction, the consequences of that inaction in the face of this group is much, much worse. My heart does go out to all of the new president's hate figures, from those of a different race, sexuality or gender but sitting back and waiting till it blows over is not a good option. So what the US needs is more division, division that marginalises the extremists and peels away those whose inactiion gave them approval. Those who gave extremists their now powerful voice. The UK and where we stand to follow..... INRAT |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 11, 2016 21:20:03 GMT
The final vote count still isn't in (and Clinton's popular vote lead is increasing all the time) so we can't say how many less votes she had than Obama yet. Still counting Obama's votes also mind |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Nov 12, 2016 1:15:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 6:28:57 GMT
This is the real problem with Trump's win and the Brexit vote. Every self-designated underdog who thinks they deserve to be at the top of the tree and has spent years nurturing a grudge against those they think are keeping them from their rightful place has been emboldened by the belief that their own particular resentment has been given the official stamp of approval, granting them both the right and the duty to express it.
Economically, America and Britain will survive. Socially, things look pretty grim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 12:07:00 GMT
Socially is a given but, as I mentioned, economically we have a much bigger problem than we would have under Clinton. The drawing away from free trade and growing protectionism will hobble any attempt to make Brexit work. Where things would have been be tricky they are now going to be a major problem. We have to retain access to the European single market, to not do so would now be suicidal.
In the end this is the nature of competing nationalisms, if people really do not want globalisation then they are going to have to lower their expectations.
With the abandonment of TPP, suddenly with one leap China are free. Instead of being excluded they are now pushing a trans Pacific deal favourable to them. Expect that for Europe too. As for the ridiculous idea floated about us being part of a rejigged NAFTA in the papers yesterday, Trump called NAFTA the worst trade deal ever, it's over and may only be replaced with one that has other signatories licking his boots.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Nov 12, 2016 15:09:58 GMT
Don't worry folks. Trump will make America grate....
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 19:20:45 GMT
Maybe what America needs is to get over the spoiler myth and give third parties a chance.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Nov 13, 2016 8:17:51 GMT
Maybe what America needs is to get over the spoiler myth and give third parties a chance. If only the Democrats had given us a chance to vote for Bernie Sanders then |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 18:25:29 GMT
Maybe what America needs is to get over the spoiler myth and give third parties a chance. If only the Democrats had given us a chance to vote for Bernie Sanders then Very true. He was actually an official write in candidate in California. Not by his own choice though. |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Nov 14, 2016 8:07:00 GMT
So Trump appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist. Tell me again how claims Trump is racist are a narrative created by the loony leftie liberal elite?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 14, 2016 9:27:35 GMT
So Trump appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist. Tell me again how claims Trump is racist are a narrative created by the loony leftie liberal elite? Well the narrative that he's a white supremacist is a narrative created by the loony leftie liberal elite too - just because some loony leftie website says he is doesn't make him one. The BBC isn't reporting he's a white supremacist - why not ? |
|
433 posts
|
Post by DuchessConstance on Nov 14, 2016 9:37:12 GMT
No, his extremist and very public white supremacist and anti-Semitic views, actions and comments make him.
The "loony liberal left elite" are just a bogeyman the billionaire criminals who run the country have invented to control and brainwash people.
It's very weird how desperate people are to defend racism. I know we are supposed to be living in a "post-truth" era but facts are facts. It might be trendy to call everything spin and narrative but the earth still revolves around the sun. Not everything is a matter of opinion. Objective facts exist.
|
|
1,320 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Nov 14, 2016 9:41:31 GMT
Michael Ball and Alfie Boe at the Palladium last night, their second (and last) night there. Introducing the next song, Michael made comment as to news stories in the last week, said they had sung this song the previous evening with a nod to the American election and a man had walked out in disgust ... www.metrolyrics.com/tell-me-its-not-true-lyrics-the-blood-brothers.htmlMade me laugh. |
|
1,320 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Nov 14, 2016 9:57:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 12:16:40 GMT
So Trump appointed a white supremacist as his chief strategist. Tell me again how claims Trump is racist are a narrative created by the loony leftie liberal elite? Actually, there is no leftie elite. The lefties are not in the elite and the elite are not lefties. People like Sanders are the lefties. People like Clinton are the elite. And Clinton sure as hell isn't a leftie. |
|
1,499 posts
|
Post by Steve on Nov 14, 2016 15:38:37 GMT
Is it possible to argue Trump isn't a racist?
(1) Trump was twice successfully sued by the federal government for racially discriminating against black people living in his properties. He could argue that society's racism, at the time, meant that allowing black people into his properties would have reduced their value. So society, not he, was racist;
(2) Trump refers to black people as a mass, as in "the blacks." He could argue it's just a semantic slip, and he really doesn't group all black people together as the same;
(3) Trump felt that a Judge, born in Indiana, was unqualified to hear his Trump University lawsuit because he was "Mexican." Trump could argue that he thinks all people of all backgrounds are incapable of exercising fair judgement, except over someone of the exact same background;
(4) Trump suggested that Mexican Immigrants to the US numbered more "rapists" and "criminals" than in an ordinary population sample. He could assert that he generally believes that immigrants of ALL backgrounds tend to include rapists, ie that rapists are more likely to emigrate than non-rapists;
(5) Trump claimed Obama was born in Africa and a Muslim. Trump could claim that he would accuse any politician of being Muslim and African, and not only black politicians.
(6) Trump said "If Black Lives matter, go back to Africa." Ok, I've had enough, I'm not defending this racist Pr**k any more!
NB: This doesn't mean voters are racist, of course, because it is not wrong to vote for a racist if you believe the alternative is worse.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 14, 2016 16:55:58 GMT
NB: This doesn't mean voters are racist, of course, because it is not wrong to vote for a racist if you believe the alternative is worse. Surely that's debatable? After all, thinking that an alternative candidate is worse than someone who is openly racist and actively endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan is a pretty clear indication that you don't think racism is all that bad, which probably means that you are at least a bit racist. (To quote Avenue Q, 'everyone's a little bit racist'.) |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Nov 14, 2016 16:59:56 GMT
NB: This doesn't mean voters are racist, of course, because it is not wrong to vote for a racist if you believe the alternative is worse. Surely that's debatable? After all, thinking that an alternative candidate is worse than someone who is openly racist and actively endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan is a pretty clear indication that you don't think racism is all that bad, which probably means that you are at least a bit racist. (To quote Avenue Q, 'everyone's a little bit racist'.) It at least means you're willing to overlook his racism in favor of something else, which is questionable AT BEST. Last week (and into this one) is the first time I have ever legitimately been afraid I will be the victim of a hate crime -- which means (a) I've been lucky to live where I've lived and surrounded by the people I've been around, and (b) things suck right now. |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 14, 2016 20:00:14 GMT
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 14, 2016 20:08:02 GMT
And here is a comprehensive article by a reporter who has spent most of the past year covering the election: europe.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044?rm=euReal journalism is a bit harder than the rabbit hole one or two lofty proclaimers seem to have fallen into - Breibart much? (Bannon's disreputable 'news' source.) It has that level of insight. false conspiracies, false equivalencies and then catchy lefty loonie liberal labels just to make it perfect. |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 14, 2016 20:19:19 GMT
The above posted article ends: 'If you voted for Trump because you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home. Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done.'
Or, as I put it to a friend: 'With the KKK cackling with delight at this victory and millions facing deportation, if you did not vote for the only person who could have defeated the pussy-grabber, I don't want to know.'
The lofty cynicism of some of the postings on this thread are insulting to people who have a stake in this.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Nov 14, 2016 21:16:28 GMT
Oh some more loony left opinions on Bannon - the second is actually a Republican - but hey!
'The elevation of Bannon to a powerful position in the White House is an epochal event in American politics, one that has been condemned by the N.A.A.C.P., the A.D.L., and many Democratic leaders, including Harry Reid, whose spokesman said in a statement, “President-elect Trump’s choice of Steve Bannon as his top aide signals that White Supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in Trump’s White House.” The Republican consultant John Weaver, who advises Ohio Governor John Kasich, tweeted, “Just to be clear news media, the next president named a racist, anti-semite as the co-equal of the chief of staff.” Weaver also wrote, “The racist, fascist extreme right is represented footsteps from the Oval Office. Be very vigilant America.” William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, asked on Twitter, “Is there precedent for such a disreputable & unstable extremist in [White House] senior ranks before Bannon?”
Those are from a New Yorker article - but, yeah, loony, huh.
|
|
