US Presidential Election 2016

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not defending Trump. Why might you think I am?

I'm pointing out that people are not goose-stepping down the streets and dressing up like Prince Harry.

 

And people are not firebombing the English, at the moment, they're too busy blaming the immigrants.

But when they're gone, what 'others' will there be to point at?

Who don't even live in the houses they own?

Once you start feeding that mentality.....

I don't know whether you watched any of the video, the first 6 minutes basically went through how 'they' the English, raped and murdered 'us', the welsh, the English are really german anyway, and they stole all 'our' land and resources.

Lots of 'the English' and 'the Welsh' and 'us' and 'them', and 'the English are immigrants', even.

sound familiar?

The history's accurate, I think, too.

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

there's also no doubt that the PLP are just as out of touch - or at least, the last coherent word from the PLP, which would have been back before the ref.

I'm not sure if the PLP (the plotters, rather than all of them) might have a different view to immigration today or not, but I know that out of everything around the EU the view of Corbyn has of immigration is unchanged and the thing of most importance to him. He couldn't get any more out of touch than that. 

Rather than say "I'm all for immigration", the likes of Corbyn needs to say "I'm happy with immigration of up-to XXX,XXX per year". 

It doesn't even matter too much what the number is (tho I'd hope for a recognition that the current 300k-ish is considered too much by very many). It's the acceptance of a limit that will stand the chance of winning people back, because it recognises that you can have too much of a good thing to then make it into something bad.

 

On the particular subject of immigration I would say your right, however I would maintain my view they are more in touch in general and more pragmatic about changing their view. 

On first thought I was completely against the limit, but I can see some merit . To some respect it doesn't matter what the limit is, or if you achieve it in power. It does however show you are listening rather than ignoring.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well, except for the pro democracy rebels and white hats who exposed Asad's war crimes. Theyll be executed as well as their villages as 'Isis' when  they more than likely arent.

care to tell me which of the parties able to win the war and the 'peace' afterwards wouldn't go on a execution spree of their enemies if they came out victorious?

I don't want any of them to win - 'pro democracy rebels'', ha! - but one of them is going to win. I think it's better if the win happens sooner than later. The large scale loss of life will stop, and the vast majority of people will be able to live normal lives.

 

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

So, 'Hang the bitch' isnt a misogynistic death threat for Clinton, but a metaphorical attack from the economically anxious on the elites Clinton represents?

Why didnt Bernie supporters chant and wear those tshirts then? 

I think trying to say someone wearing a 'Hang the bitch' isnt a violent misogynist to some degree is pushing it

I didn't say they were or weren't violent misogynists. I pointed out that it's not literal.

There's lots of nasty elements to Trump and plenty of his supporters.

But that's still not all of them. To generalise about their motivations is doing exactly the same as trump is doing about Syrian refugees.

 

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, feral chile said:

Correctly or incorrectly, too.

I actually researched whether immigrants cost the UK money.

As ever, it's complicated. But it certainly isn't the picture that's presented to us.

Out of interest do you read right wing sources as well. My view (please correct if I am wrong) is that you seem to seek out media that you agree with.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

what do you do with 50 million refugees from syria and global warming then? Send them back to die ? Let them drown in the sea? Lock them up in a camp? Or let them in like Germany and make it work?

Surely it's not an all or nothing? I think countries work together to try and share the load. Does a refugee have a right to safety? Absolutely. Do they have a right to always be able to choose their country of safely? Not in my view.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

On first thought I was completely against the limit, but I can see some merit . To some respect it doesn't matter what the limit is, or if you achieve it in power. It does however show you are listening rather than ignoring.

Yep, that's exactly how I look at it. There was a time not so long in the past when the limit could have been set quite a way beyond the immigration rate of that time, and it would have been good enough to have stopped much of this.

But it's gone past critical now, where a bit of smoke and mirrors to provide some re-assurance can paper over the cracks. The only thing I'm 100% certain for what would be acceptable to 'the public' now is a reduction on the current numbers.

I reckon 'the people' would be even now be reasonably happy with a small-ish reduction (say down to 250k), more as proof that the govt have listened than for its actual effect on immigration.

 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

The reality is though that Trump/Farage/the UK media equate refugees to being the same as economic migrants.

The demand on countries from refugees is going to only increase. Trump made his hatred of Syrian refugees very clear in his campaign  What do you think him and his supporters want to happen to the half a million syrian refugees or so?

Are u genuinely saying a protectionist, racist Trump administration will do anything other than let them die? And that they wont boast about this to wild applause from their voters?

 

Brexit Britain may be just as bad. W ere the US goes, we follow

My prediction is there will not be a single quote from Trump applauding refugee dieing.Again it's not an all or nothing, they will help some, but can't be expected to help all.

[feral chile]

20 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Out of interest do you read right wing sources as well. My view (please correct if I am wrong) is that you seem to seek out media that you agree with.

it can vary.

As far as stats are concerned, I seek out the most complicated ones. I try to get the original research, because the media always misinterprets the findings.

regarding posting opinions on here, yes, I'd post something I agree with, if they express themselves more articulately than I ever could. I usually make that clear.

I studied philosophy a lot, so sometimes, i'll present a perspective to see what people think.

if this is a polite way of asking me if I agree with that Welsh video, I don't hate English people, but that video does have the power to rile me against an English government. I have to fight it, and see it as racist and divisive.

The video makes me feel upset, angry, and uncomfortable. When I viewed it, I tried to analyse it, and my own reaction. it's very powerful if you're Welsh.

And there was a time when I very much agreed with it. I was literally schooled in this sort of stuff. as in, in school. And went on Welsh language marches (one of my son's teachers was on one, and alluded to it at parents' evening)

I knew John jenkin's son, though I didn't realise who he was at the time, so this is all part of my history.

but I'm non violent to the extent that I don't like anything that hurts people, even emotionally. and ended up finding the whole thing divisive and counter productive.

So I don't really make a good activist. But sympathise and relate to corbyn.

The point is, these are the tactics that divide.

The ones that you all keep saying zahidf is over reacting over.

The ones you probably never see about yourselves. But that immigrants are seeing everywhere.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

If the USA leads on not letting in refugees, then other countries will follow and there will be more of them dying. Dont pretend otherwise.

I agree with this, I also suspect Trump will let in more refugees than he may have admitted during the campaign

[pink_triangle]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

it can vary.

As far as stats are concerned, I seek out the most complicated ones. I try to get the original research, because the media always misinterprets the findings.

regarding posting opinions on here, yes, I'd post something I agree with, if they express themselves more articulately than I ever could. I usually make that clear.

I studied philosophy a lot, so sometimes, i'll present a perspective to see what people think.

 

 

I read labourlist, conservative home, Guido (boy do I wish the left had someone as effective at tackling the right as him) and politico. I really feel getting out of an echo chamber helps me understand politics better.

Interestingly for all I preach about people being stuck in an echo chamber, I was the same in my teens/early 20s thinking all torys were evil. A big change for me is working in community health I meet people of all political persuasions and have realized that some ukip and Tory supporters are actually decent people.

[feral chile]

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I read labourlist, conservative home, Guido (boy do I wish the left had someone as effective at tackling the right as him) and politico. I really feel getting out of an echo chamber helps me understand politics better.

Interestingly for all I preach about people being stuck in an echo chamber, I was the same in my teens/early 20s thinking all torys were evil. A big change for me is working in community health I meet people of all political persuasions and have realized that some ukip and Tory supporters are actually decent people.

I was raised by a Tory, educated by welsh nationalists in high school, became a radical feminist in uni, flirted with the hard left, greenpeace, CND, ALF, usual stuff when you go to uni, then nearly got heavily involved with welsh nationalism through someone I worked with

But I'm just not angry enough, I prefer persuasion to confrontation. i got disillusioned with all of them.

I admire people with passion though, as long as they're not hurting anyone.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by feral chile

[LJS]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, that's exactly how I look at it. There was a time not so long in the past when the limit could have been set quite a way beyond the immigration rate of that time, and it would have been good enough to have stopped much of this.

But it's gone past critical now, where a bit of smoke and mirrors to provide some re-assurance can paper over the cracks. The only thing I'm 100% certain for what would be acceptable to 'the public' now is a reduction on the current numbers.

I reckon 'the people' would be even now be reasonably happy with a small-ish reduction (say down to 250k), more as proof that the govt have listened than for its actual effect on immigration.

 

You may be surprised to learn that I broadly agree with you, because unlike your caricature of my views, I do not believe all immigration anywhere anytime is good or sustainable. Those of us who are generally favourable to immigration have been largely spared the task of putting numbers on it up to now because of our EU membership which meant we had very little real control over the numbers entering the country from there. Once we are out the EU, that will change & it would be irresponsible of any governemnt not to have a policy on how many people we admit & what the criteria for their admission should be. It is pretty ridiculous to ask anyone on here to come up with a number though as you can only come up with a number if you are also coming up with numbers for national revenue and expenditure as well as predictions for growth. I would resist the notion that the number necessarily has to be lower than before. The number should be what is right for the country as a whole. 

 I do think there remains a certain moral responsibility for the richer countries take immigrants from poorer countries who have often been exploited to create our wealth & I would hope that the continued pressure from people from the third world wanting to join the first world persuade us to try and make the world a more equal place ( I do realise that is a tad on the idealistic side as well as making me sound like a Miss World contestant)

[feral chile]

35 minutes ago, LJS said:

You may be surprised to learn that I broadly agree with you, because unlike your caricature of my views, I do not believe all immigration anywhere anytime is good or sustainable. Those of us who are generally favourable to immigration have been largely spared the task of putting numbers on it up to now because of our EU membership which meant we had very little real control over the numbers entering the country from there. Once we are out the EU, that will change & it would be irresponsible of any governemnt not to have a policy on how many people we admit & what the criteria for their admission should be. It is pretty ridiculous to ask anyone on here to come up with a number though as you can only come up with a number if you are also coming up with numbers for national revenue and expenditure as well as predictions for growth. I would resist the notion that the number necessarily has to be lower than before. The number should be what is right for the country as a whole. 

 I do think there remains a certain moral responsibility for the richer countries take immigrants from poorer countries who have often been exploited to create our wealth & I would hope that the continued pressure from people from the third world wanting to join the first world persuade us to try and make the world a more equal place ( I do realise that is a tad on the idealistic side as well as making me sound like a Miss World contestant)

Oh, I expect the narrative will change to suit.

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/sexism-wake-up-call-to-yo_b_12913472.html?section=women&

Apparently, it's not that Americans are racist, it's that they're sexist that's to blame.

[russycarps]

The London review of books nails it much better than any of the gutter press. Obviously most people can't be bothered with a 2000+ words essay, but it's worth a read.

He makes in interesting point at the end too:

"One fact that has to be assimilated by both Labour and the Democrats is this: when Bill and Hillary arrived in Washington in 1992 they had little money. Now, despite remaining notionally in public service throughout, they are worth many millions of dollars. Tony and Cherie Blair were not obscenely wealthy when they arrived in power in 1997. Today they are worth more than $75 million. Consider the working-class voters whom the Clintons or the Blairs exhorted to vote for them in the 1990s: they are probably worse off now than they were then. In effect the Clintons and Blairs surfed on their grievances and inequities, making themselves rich and leaving their voters in the dust. This hasn’t gone unnoticed, which is one reason the old politics is no longer working."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2016/11/14/rw-johnson/trump-some-numbers

[feral chile]

18 minutes ago, russycarps said:

The London review of books nails it much better than any of the gutter press. Obviously most people can't be bothered with a 2000+ words essay, but it's worth a read.

He makes in interesting point at the end too:

"One fact that has to be assimilated by both Labour and the Democrats is this: when Bill and Hillary arrived in Washington in 1992 they had little money. Now, despite remaining notionally in public service throughout, they are worth many millions of dollars. Tony and Cherie Blair were not obscenely wealthy when they arrived in power in 1997. Today they are worth more than $75 million. Consider the working-class voters whom the Clintons or the Blairs exhorted to vote for them in the 1990s: they are probably worse off now than they were then. In effect the Clintons and Blairs surfed on their grievances and inequities, making themselves rich and leaving their voters in the dust. This hasn’t gone unnoticed, which is one reason the old politics is no longer working."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2016/11/14/rw-johnson/trump-some-numbers

A very interesting read. Thanks.

[zahidf]

More Trump voter's economic anxiety

 

 

[zahidf]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Surely it's not an all or nothing? I think countries work together to try and share the load. Does a refugee have a right to safety? Absolutely. Do they have a right to always be able to choose their country of safely? Not in my view.

Um what? They dont chose most the time. At the moment, poorer countries like Turkey and Egypt are taking in more than their fair share because of geography. The UK and US are taking a lot less than other, poorer countries and are moaning the most

[zahidf]

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

So you planning on tackling this one zahidf, or does it not fit your narrative?

They werent quite racist enough. Trump was more racist and he wasnt a woman. Too reasons for them to switch!

Edited November 14, 2016 by zahidf

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Um what? They dont chose most the time. At the moment, poorer countries like Turkey and Egypt are taking in more than their fair share because of geography. The UK and US are taking a lot less than other, poorer countries and are moaning the most

Part of the reason Turkey takes so many refugees is that the EU pays them to do so.This is neither a justification nor a criticism - there are arguments on both sides. There is an argument that Turkey is culturally closer to many of the refugees and they face a shorter and therefore less hazardous journey to get there. The same applies for the return journey for those who wish to return home when it is safe to do so. 

Of course much of that is idealistic and the conditions for most of the refugees are pretty shit and there are probably limited employment opportunities in Turkey.

I don't doubt that the motivation behind keeping the refugees in Turkey is much more to do with keeping them out of the rest of Europe than a genuine concern for their welfare.

I am on the record as saying that we should take more refugees than we currently do but that is a pipe dream under the current government with the Daily Mail keeping an eye on them.

[feral chile]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I read labourlist, conservative home, Guido (boy do I wish the left had someone as effective at tackling the right as him) and politico. I really feel getting out of an echo chamber helps me understand politics better.

Interestingly for all I preach about people being stuck in an echo chamber, I was the same in my teens/early 20s thinking all torys were evil. A big change for me is working in community health I meet people of all political persuasions and have realized that some ukip and Tory supporters are actually decent people.

You think anyone who rejects Conservative principles must think all Tories are evil? What about people who see all politics as part of the same corruption? 

You're still trapped in this binary opposition thing you've got going on. Tories and Labour, they're part of the same system.

You think you think outside the box, but you really don't.

Not that any of us can, as we're all subject to conditioned choices. But don't kid yourself.

[feral chile]

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Out of interest do you read right wing sources as well. My view (please correct if I am wrong) is that you seem to seek out media that you agree with.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't answer this in full. I do read a few right wing sources but they're bad for my blood pressure. I studied political philosophy which steps right outside any concepts we debate here.

[feral chile]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/julian-baggini/failure-of-political-consumerism

I found this while I was browsing. It's an old article from 2013. Basically, it says that both left and right are fighting for the middle ground so those to the extremes of it feel marginalised and not represented. It also argues that society is too fragmented for anyone to identify as occupying the middle ground. It also argues that people realise politicians are trying to form policies around what's popular but interpret this as fake, and would trust parties who made strong statements. 

[pink_triangle]

22 minutes ago, feral chile said:

You think anyone who rejects Conservative principles must think all Tories are evil? 

Not at all. I think there are many people who reject conservative principles without thinking that, I put myself in the same category.

I do however think there is a problem with many (and I think the number is growing) making negative judgements on a person's morals due to them supporting the other side. I have no problem being friends with conservatives or thinking some labour supporters are horrible people.

[pink_triangle]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

Part of the reason Turkey takes so many refugees is that the EU pays them to do so.This is neither a justification nor a criticism - there are arguments on both sides. There is an argument that Turkey is culturally closer to many of the refugees and they face a shorter and therefore less hazardous journey to get there. The same applies for the return journey for those who wish to return home when it is safe to do so. 

Of course much of that is idealistic and the conditions for most of the refugees are pretty shit and there are probably limited employment opportunities in Turkey.

I don't doubt that the motivation behind keeping the refugees in Turkey is much more to do with keeping them out of the rest of Europe than a genuine concern for theirwelfare

I agree with all of that. Although there are genuine questions what standard of living, what employment opportunities a refugee should be entitled too, in the knowledge that there's huge difference in what different countries can offer, despite being able to offer safety.