This morning...

[Homer]

5 minutes ago, Quark said:

Don't be that guy

 

Ha ha - I know - a bit of sick actually came out of my tear ducts as I typed it!

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, Homer said:

People keep saying ' the left has failed', but I don't understand what the solution is. From my smug, vaguely middle class viewpoint, the obvious solution for most of these disenfranchised protest voters at the bottom of the barrel would be to go back to having some form of actual socialist party that would represent them. However, we had that for two-odd decades, until Blair came along and moved to the centre and finally made the Labour party electable. And that's obviously even less likely to fly in the States.

As crazy as it sounds, what 'working' people seem to want is for some extreme right winger to come along, give tax cuts to the rich while decimating public services - and pointing the finger at immigrants. 

We can all sit here pointing out how stupid that is - but this is derided as being the patronising whinging of the liberals. This appears to be the crux of the whole problem to me. 

people on 'the left' want 'the left' in politics to look after them, no more or less than tories want the tories to look after them. It's about self-interest no matter where a person stands.

But 'the left' hasn't been looking after them, they feel. Instead, 'the left' has been putting gays and people of colour as the priority - or at least, that's how it's seemed. Issues that effect the majority haven't been addressed.

For example, when an immigrant can get a council house quicker than someone who's lived in the area all their lives - and this happens, it's a real thing - then it's hardly surprising that the local who doesn't get the house feels resentful at being pushed towards the back of the queue. It's not about race, or even really immigration, it's about being at the back of the queue and never getting to the front.

So when 'the left' make it so that person never gets to the front of the queue, sooner or later they'll want the queuing order changed that might put them towards the front of the queue.

If 'the left' isn't going to make that change, then that person will eventually give up on them and look for another driver for change.

It's for reasons like this that 'the left' has failed, by seemingly looking after minorities rather than the bulk of the population.

And unfortunately, grand promises can't change this now. Those promises have been rolled out time and again with little change, and they're no longer believed. People want jam now, and not promises of jam tomorrow that might not materialise.

The 'solution' they've opted for will, I think, fail them just as badly (and perhaps worse), but they're not insane enough to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

 

35 minutes ago, Homer said:

Maybe we should just stand back and applaud the right wing extremists for managing to make the immigrants and the liberals the bad guys?

It's easy to fall into that way of thinking, but it helps to consider the thinking and wants of others.

And if we go with my housing example, it's 'the liberals' who've made 'immigrants' the bad guys, by putting them at the front of the queue before 'locals'. I know and so do those people that the allocation is based on greatest need, and to a large extent those people are are happy to accept allocation by greatest need - but only if their own needs are also accounted for along the way too.

It's not particularly about 'right wing extremism', and the more that's shouted at them the more they feel 'the left' has nothing to say to them.

 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

16 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

I don't necessarily disagree that some people voted for Hillary because she was a woman - and that was hardly an educated reason either. Though chances are a lot of the people that had those thoughts also had double reason to vote against Trump - and voting against Trump because of his attitude towards women is a legitimate reason to vote for the other candidate.

But the idea that someone isn't a feminist just because they stick with their partner who's cheated is just nonsense. I wouldn't like to say if Hillary is actually a feminist or not, but just that absolutely doesn't disqualify her from being one. What do we call men who stick with lying cheating partners? 

Also to all intents and purposes they aren't 'together' together any more, they live seperately and it's pretty commonly accepted that they'd have quietly divorced by now if she hadn't had her eyes on The Oval Office ever since he left it.. although I guess you could argue that staying 'with' Bill purely for political reasons makes her look even worse than if she'd just forgiven him 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[jonodillieono]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

people on 'the left' want 'the left' in politics to look after them, no more or less than tories want the tories to look after them. It's about self-interest no matter where a person stands.

But 'the left' hasn't been looking after them, they feel. Instead, 'the left' has been putting gays and people of colour as the priority - or at least, that's how it's seemed. Issues that effect the majority haven't been addressed.

For example, when an immigrant can get a council house quicker than someone who's lived in the area all their lives - and this happens, it's a real thing - then it's hardly surprising that the local who doesn't get the house feels resentful at being pushed towards the back of the queue. It's not about race, or even really immigration, it's about being at the back of the queue and never getting to the front.

So when 'the left' make it so that person never gets to the front of the queue, sooner or later they'll want the queuing order changed that might put them towards the front of the queue.

If 'the left' isn't going to make that change, then that person will eventually give up on them and look for another driver for change.

It's for reasons like this that 'the left' has failed, by seemingly looking after minorities rather than the bulk of the population.

And unfortunately, grand promises can't change this now. Those promises have been rolled out time and again with little change, and they're no longer believed. People want jam now, and not promises of jam tomorrow that might not materialise.

The 'solution' they've opted for will, I think, fail them just as badly (and perhaps worse), but they're not insane enough to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

 

It's easy to fall into that way of thinking, but it helps to consider the thinking and wants of others.

And if we go with my housing example, it's 'the liberals' who've made 'immigrants' the bad guys, by putting them at the front of the queue before 'locals'. I know and so do those people that the allocation is based on greatest need, and to a large extent those people are are happy to accept allocation by greatest need - but only if their own needs are also accounted for along the way too.

It's not particularly about 'right wing extremism', and the more that's shouted at them the more they feel 'the left' has nothing to say to them.

 

Think you've nailed it there chief

[Rose-Colored Boy]

15 hours ago, Quark said:

Not a huge leap, but not necessarily a correct one either.

You could argue stupidity for anyone voting Clinton as well.

Is anything more stupid than being informed enough to recognise the evil of Trump but enable him by voting for a third party? If everybody who voted Green or Liberterian in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan had voted Democrat instead, Hillary would have won comfortably. Hope those idiots take it to their grave

[Quark]

Just now, Zac Quinn said:

Is anything more stupid than being informed enough to recognise the evil of Trump but enable him by voting for a third party? If everybody who voted Green or Liberterian in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan had voted Democrat instead, Hillary would have won comfortably. Hope those idiots take it to their grave

Sorry Zac but that's ridiculous.  By that rationale we should only ever vote for the two main parties in the running (Con/Lab or Rep/Dem) as anything else is just enabling the party you like least to win.

No new parties, no challenges, no growth of new movements unless they're big enough to guarantee victory at the first attempt. Really?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

7 minutes ago, Quark said:

Sorry Zac but that's ridiculous.  By that rationale we should only ever vote for the two main parties in the running (Con/Lab or Rep/Dem) as anything else is just enabling the party you like least to win.

No new parties, no challenges, no growth of new movements unless they're big enough to guarantee victory at the first attempt. Really?

When there's a risk of Donald bloody Trump becoming leader of the free world, yes.

You could argue - and I frequently do - that the British and American electoral systems should be changed so that third parties have a chance of achieving anything other than locking Labour and the Democrats out, but under the current systems they are just doomed to failure. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Zac Quinn

[Harry49]

Fundamentally elections provide electors with the following choice:

Stick with the same govt/leader or take a gamble and go for change.

Therefore the party/leader currently in power has the job in the campaign of convincing the electorate that all is going well and to make a change would not be worth the risk. Whilst the opposition need to demonstrate that all is not good and that they not only could make it better but that they are not too much a risk.

The majority of Electors are risk averse and the party/leader in power therefore has an inbuilt advantage and historically it is only when enough people believe that things are not good that change occurs. For example: Obama after financial crash, Labour after Black Wednesday.

Trump won on Tuesday because after 8 years of Obama(who promised change), 8 years of GW Bush the lives of enough voters had deteriorated so far that they were willing to not only believe Trump would make things better but that (amazingly to both Democrats and traditional Republicans) he was worth the risk.

He skilfully based his campaign around the concerns of the voters he needed to win over, those in the lower to middle income  bracket in the so called “rust belt” states. Ohio, Wisconsin etc. see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-ohio-youngstown-voters Messages about bringing back jobs, controlling immigration played well and he had the added advantage of being able to ride the current western political wave of distrust of career politicians.

He could not have handpicked his opponent any better, Clinton was seen as a continuation of the last 30 years( Bill, George, G2, Obama), the embodiment of a career politician.

He did not win because his voters were racist/ sexist/ anti LBGT but because their lives were materially worse now and there was not enough belief in the usual suspects to make them better. As ever with elections – “it’s the economy stupid” something Clinton ironically seemed to forget.

[somecoolusername]

5 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

Our system has at least some rhyme and reason. Our PM and Government is based purely on who has a majority of MPs in Parliament. 

Whereas the US have downticket races to elect their representatives and that can result in either a President being blocked at every turn (like Obama) or having absolute power (like Trump). And given the President elected has absolutely no relation to those elected representatives then there is absolutely no reason to have the electoral college. 

yes, but the majority of MPs doesn't necessarily reflect who the majority of people voted for.

I wasn't trying to say that our system is as bad as the US. I was just making the point that it is also possible to win the popular vote and lose the election here (and indeed it has happened).

[somecoolusername]

5 hours ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

6. You can throw these labels around all you like, but just because you say them, doesn't make them true. He's un-PC sure, but just because you act so offended and flabbergasted doesn't make you right. He hires plenty of women, plenty of Mexicans, plenty of black people, plenty of homosexuals. He wants to make money at the end of the day and live a good life - like most people in the world. You can't do that if you don't hire women, blacks, homosexuals just because they're women, blacks, homosexuals, etc. He's just not a bigot because you don't like his language.
 

ah, the old "I have black friends" argument. Never mind that he chose a running mate who believes in electroshock conversion therapy for gay people, eh? 

[Untz]

24 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Is anything more stupid than being informed enough to recognise the evil of Trump but enable him by voting for a third party? If everybody who voted Green or Liberterian in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan had voted Democrat instead, Hillary would have won comfortably. Hope those idiots take it to their grave

What if they hated Hillary just as much as they hated Trump?

I would also presume that a lot of Libertarians would align more naturally with the Republicans than the Dems.

[shuttlep]

1 hour ago, Keithy said:

He didn't trick anyone. Intelligent, well educated people voted for him. I'm not sure how people forgot he was a billionaire; that was one of his main arguments - I am a very successful business man.

a think it was his son who said he is a blue collar billionaire , he has never been blue collar, he is highly intelligent , and you have to give it to him he saw a way to get what he wanted and he went out there and got it. I would have hated living there and having only them tow to Vote for. Having to choose for how is least worse is something I am used to. but the are both really terrible. 

 

I heard an interview this morning with someone who knows him very well . they said lots of complimentary things about him, How clever he is and how driven he is. But they worry as he never accepts no for an answer, which can be good in certain points, but has has said somethings he wants to do which go against the constitution, . when this was pointed out to him he stated  "I will do what I want" that may be fine in business but not in Government, also presidents don't really get a day off. Hi Friend was saying although Trump works very hard he sometimes will decide to take a day off a week off, go on holiday do what he pleases and when. something he won't be able to do.

 

I wonder if he will start this term and then decide after two years he doesn't want to be there 

[Winslow Leach]

I've remembered why I come here for your music chat, not your hot takes.

[somecoolusername]

2 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

I am no posho, live in a rented flat  on the other side of the A2, just by the Sun in the Sands. And yes, it takes ages to get a Doctor's appointment.

Oh my god are you my next door neighbour? This is freaky. 

[The Nal]

59 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

if its not his opinion why post it on his twitter feed? (as I stated there were attempts to debunk it but no he actually did post this)   more to the point why the fuck are you defending the c**t? 

I'm not defending him. I'm pointing out the reality. He was trying to get votes. Which he succeeded in doing. 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, somecoolusername said:

Oh my god are you my next door neighbour? This is freaky.

So that's what that banging on my wall was...

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, Quark said:

Sorry Zac but that's ridiculous.  By that rationale we should only ever vote for the two main parties in the running (Con/Lab or Rep/Dem) as anything else is just enabling the party you like least to win.

No new parties, no challenges, no growth of new movements unless they're big enough to guarantee victory at the first attempt. Really?

ultimately - whether you like it or not - a vote in the UK for a 'left' party that has no hope of winning that seat helps enfranchise the right.

It's one of the many bad consequences of our electoral system, but that's the only electoral system we have to work with unless there's enough support for change - which there doesn't appear to be,. based on the AV ref

So really, there are no new parties, no challenges.

Movements are something else, that can happen away from the main parties. It's why, for example, we now have equal gay rights, which wasn't something particularly party-driven but evolved pretty much by itself within society away from those parties, an idea whose time had come - so much so that it was the tories who took the final step that was considered a step too far by the supposedly 'progressive' Labour party.

We get no change with this unless we change the voting system.

[somecoolusername]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

So that's what that banging on my wall was...

it's coming from inside the house 

[russycarps]

4 minutes ago, somecoolusername said:

Oh my god are you my next door neighbour? This is freaky. 

what's that sun in the sands pub like? I'm quite a way away from you guys, nearer catford/lewisham town

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, Harry49 said:

Fundamentally elections provide electors with the following choice:

 

Stick with the same govt/leader or take a gamble and go for change.

 

Therefore the party/leader currently in power has the job in the campaign of convincing the electorate that all is going well and to make a change would not be worth the risk. Whilst the opposition need to demonstrate that all is not good and that they not only could make it better but that they are not too much a risk.

 

The majority of Electors are risk averse and the party/leader in power therefore has an inbuilt advantage and historically it is only when enough people believe that things are not good that change occurs. For example: Obama after financial crash, Labour after Black Wednesday.

 

Trump won on Tuesday because after 8 years of Obama(who promised change), 8 years of GW Bush the lives of enough voters had deteriorated so far that they were willing to not only believe Trump would make things better but that (amazingly to both Democrats and traditional Republicans) he was worth the risk.

 

He skilfully based his campaign around the concerns of the voters he needed to win over, those in the lower to middle income  bracket in the so called “rust belt” states. Ohio, Wisconsin etc. see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-ohio-youngstown-voters Messages about bringing back jobs, controlling immigration played well and he had the added advantage of being able to ride the current western political wave of distrust of career politicians.

 

He could not have handpicked his opponent any better, Clinton was seen as a continuation of the last 30 years( Bill, George, G2, Obama), the embodiment of a career politician.

 

He did not win because his voters were racist/ sexist/ anti LBGT but because their lives were materially worse now and there was not enough belief in the usual suspects to make them better. As ever with elections – “it’s the economy stupid” something Clinton ironically seemed to forget.

A nice post that i mostly agree with, but i think you go a bit off course at the end.

It's not the case - certainly not on average - that people's lives in the USA are materially worse over the last ten years. The USA has ridden this side of the crash much better than us (in part because they took a hit around 2000, while Labour spent it's way out of what would have otherwise been a recession).

Rather than 'lives being materially worse', it's a bit more about power shifts. Once upon a time the white american had it all on a plate for them, as they were top of the social tree. With the opportunities now more evenly shared around, the opportunities for the 'white american' are reduced, and it's that loss that they feel is the worsening of their lives.

 

[Homer]

8 minutes ago, russycarps said:

what's that sun in the sands pub like? I'm quite a way away from you guys, nearer catford/lewisham town

The queueing on the A2 often back right up to it - if the wireless is to be believed.

[waterfalls212434]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

 

But this is the problem: WHY HAVE SOME 'WORKING CLASS' PEOPLE GOT A PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM BUT NOT WITH BEING SCREWED BY THE LIKES OF FARAGE?!

This is exactly the problem, and it comes from the media and the lies we are fed......here we have good people like corbyn and the rest of the left of labour along with people like the greens, they want to do good things they want to stand up for working people, they want to get rid of some of the equality in society..........but because the mail, express, sun etc tell them to people see them as `barmy socialists` and turn to people like ukip despite the fact that its plainly obvious to anyone with the ability to even use google that ukip dont give a flying fuck about them.

Want to know whats wrong with this country? its not the partys, its the media and the constant culture of lies and right wing agendas being pushed to the point where people believe complete and utter bollocks and use that complete and utter bollocks as a reason to attack those trying to be on their side!

look at the various surveys that have been carried out summing up what people think immigration stats are vs what they actually are, same goes for the amount we spend on benefits and all the rest,.......and why do you think they get it so wrong? because the `lie` is what the media have been pushing on them for years now so theyve come to see it as the truth....even if it isnt.

What we need to do is start doing a few of these papers for inciting such hate but itll never happen because while people are ranting and raving at scapegoats be they immigrants, lefties, or anything else the tory government can get away with whatever it likes!,,,,just as long as they keep making out people like corbyn to be the enemy and immigrants to be the enemy and people wanting equality for gay people to be the enemy etc etc noone is bothering to look at the real enemy, that being our government!

[Quark]

Can I just say, and I think this is a testament both to the posters and the culture that Neil has created here, that I have had more constructive social / political discussions on this forum than anywhere else.

That is all.

 

[Homer]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

Can I just say, and I think this is a testament both to the posters and the culture that Neil has created here, that I have had more constructive social / political discussions on this forum than anywhere else.

That is all.

 

Piss off.

[waterfalls212434]

its like with trump...people making him out to be this anti establishment, rebel against the political order.......now.how the fuck is donald trump anti establishment? hes a fucking billionaire businessman! he didnt do that on the fucking black market now either did he? hell if it wasnt for a bit of help and the breaks hes no doubt had at times from these politicians he wouldnt have made his fortune! do you think hes got where he is without being involved in any lobbying, backhanders etc? dont make me laugh!

Similar to (on a small scale) when people claim nigel farage the stockbrokers son whos spent his entire life in business or politics never held down a blue collor job in his life and now sits there with a big fat eu expense account while doing fuck all to earn it........is some kind of working class hero!

FUCK ME PEOPLE ARE STUPID!