This morning...

[DeanoL]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I still don't buy it.

You can (as an example) find the odd post online from a person who believed the "£350m for the NHS" thing, but has anyone ever actually met someone who believed it*?
 

That particular one, no. Although I think people did believe it was the real figure of how much we pay the EU. Even if that money wouldn't necessarily be spent on the NHS, I've certainly had people argue that we spend that figure on the EU. Which we don't, as we get loads of it back.

I've also definitely spoken with people who believed that Turkey joining was imminent and unpreventable. Even I had to look up exactly where they were in the process during the campaign. The answer was "nowhere".

The "£350m for the NHS" is the most obvious lie and hence the one people flag up most often, but probably had the least effect.

[waterfalls212434]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as you know yourself, you've changed what I said which was true into something else that i didn't say.

18 months ago, if you'd asked just about anyone what Trump was about, you'd hear 'billionaire', 'property', and 'the apprentice' but it's hugely unlikely you'd have heard him tied to anything political-system or political-establishment.

(yes, he might have said a few things that politics could be tied to, but that's no different to anyone else).

In joe-public's terms, he's not political establishment.

The fact that he's considered successful is something else. That puts him within 'the establishment' but not 'the political establishment', but that's always going to come with an 'outsider' like Trump for President, cos Americans (in particular*) aren't the types who'd go for someone like that who wasn't already thought of as hugely successful.

*Which i've got to say is probably the much smarter take than the British thing of Farage, a small-time success on someone else's payroll and a nine-times loser at elections.

 

But surly even the dumbest of people must realise the political establishment and the business establishment go hand in hand? esp at the level trumps at! youll find businessmen like trump schmoozing at exaclty the same dinners and fundraisers youll find the politicans and via lobbyists hes going to have just as much impact on the political process.

I dont see how the 2 can be separated, one doesn't work well without the other

[Alex DeLarge]

Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump.  But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.

[The Nal]

White and wealthy in voting Republican shocker. 

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, alibear said:

Pretty quiet - I've only been because my friend's dad plays in a covers band there. So I guess the live music isn't bad!

Sun in the Sands isn't too bad, as you say it's pretty quiet. They cut it in half recently and turned half of it into a Turkish resteraunt, which in turn became a greasy spoon. I don't go in there very often, Princess of Wales and The Railway in Blackheath are my preferred drinking holes when I'm down that way. Also very keen on the Red Lion up the other end of Shooter's Hill Road.

[Alex DeLarge]

2 minutes ago, The Nal said:

White and wealthy in voting Republican shocker. 

I'm just posting this because it's not as clear as the working class revolt it's being painted as.

[trevethin]

1 hour ago, shuttlep said:

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

Or whether he'll be impeached ? ...

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, Harry49 said:

Economists are about as reliable as politicians but here are two views that would reflect "materially". but i am sure with a little more Googling time I could find two articles to counter them.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-average-income-in-usa-family-household-history-3306189?utm_term=average+income+middle+class&utm_content=p1-main-2-title&utm_medium=sem&utm_source=msn_s&utm_campaign=adid-89d4e973-e742-45bf-a154-2117212e3b2b-0-ab_msb_ocode-28805&ad=semD&an=msn_s&am=broad&q=average+income+middle+class&o=28805&qsrc=999&l=sem&askid=89d4e973-e742-45bf-a154-2117212e3b2b-0-ab_msb

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2016/04/23/lost-dream-90-of-americans-are-worse-off-today-than-they-were-in-the-early-1970s/#7e04b0585dde

 

I should have been a little better with my definition, as it's mostly the unemployment levels that have affected the averages in your first link.

There's definitely sections of society that have taken a bad hit, but for others things have been fairly normal, in contrast to the UK where just about everyone suffered wage stagnation over years (if nothing more).

And in the 2nd it talks about the same income as the 70's in real terms, yet people have significantly richer lifestyles today than i the 70s - so it might be the same income, but (perhaps via an accumulation effect?) they have more of value (more that's better) about them in their daily lives.

(as someone who lived thru the 70s, I know that's true).

But anyway, having read that first link and seen how little 1 in 3 americans have in pay today I can see why a Clinton that mentioned the poor in passing and then lauded the middle classes as america's backbone (and who she'd be working for) wasn't going to get all the voters mobilsed she'd be hoping for.

I think in all cases of politics going nutty, both here and in the states, it's more about an idea of how politics isn't working for them, rather than how that politics that isn't working is bringing poverty on them (that's not me saying people don't have poverty brought on them, to be clear).

They're of course strongly connected things, but i think one of the places its demonstrated is by people saying it's not them that's affected but (in a uk context), say, how the disabled are having their govt support cut, or how others can't get a house, etc, etc. It's not always about how they are personally affected.

 

[GlastoSimon]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

All candidates and policy platforms are flawed. It's unlikely any person would ever agree with everything.

So what a person ends up doing is voting for the least objectionable candidate rather than the most preferred.

Within my first minute of starting to take an interest in the US elections about 3 months ago, I saw just how hated Clinton was even by people who'd voted Democrat all their lives. It was never going to be an easy win for her, no matter how dreadful her opponent was.

Which I understand for many other demographics, and I put Trump's victory mainly down to Clinton's uninspiring campaign/persona/whatever.

I spose I take those first two sentences from you and think that women should leaning away from Trump after his comments, rather than towards him.

In truth its probably where his 'shy' vote came from, as I did not expect women to vote for him over Clinton at all.

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

sadly the idea that all women are part of some kind of a sisterhood who all look out for each other couldnt be further from the truth!

 

Well, there we go. Not even a 'sisterhood' mentality particularly, but at least some kind of self-respect from the majority of female voters you'd have expected.

Edited November 10, 2016 by GlastoSimon

[The Nal]

40 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

I'm just posting this because it's not as clear as the working class revolt it's being painted as.

Agree yeah. Anti establishment vote really. Same amount of working class voted this time. But for Trump!

President Trump sorry.

[jonodillieono]

57 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump.  But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.

64% of American's earn over 50 thousand dollars? With the dollar and pound being very similar in value right now I might have to move to America. I wanna be rich

[Homer]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Sun in the Sands isn't too bad, as you say it's pretty quiet. They cut it in half recently and turned half of it into a Turkish resteraunt, which in turn became a greasy spoon. I don't go in there very often, Princess of Wales and The Railway in Blackheath are my preferred drinking holes when I'm down that way. Also very keen on the Red Lion up the other end of Shooter's Hill Road.

The Vanbrugh, just off Vanbrugh Hill, is very nice.

[Cornelius_Fudge]

2 hours ago, somecoolusername said:

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? 

Look I'm not defending a rumour that Pence may or may not have insinuated but if you think the vote was about race and gender then it just supports the argument that the left has lost touch with a lot of people and need to ask themselves why. 

[arcade fireman]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

His platform was waaaay bigger than just that.

What they voted for was something of his platform - and not necessarily just the part of it you wish to concentrate on.

If you wish to play the same reductionist game with the brexit vote, you can also believe that 52% of this country's population are racists - including plenty from within the minorites that live in this country who voted for brexit.

I don't doubt that racism played its part in both votes, but its more than simply that. It's a vote for change rather than more of the same.

Where both falls apart as political ideas is that the change people voted for wasn't the same change for everyone, and so they find themselves as part of a disparate grouping that's going to find it difficult to carry much of that change forwards, because they're not united on what that change should be.

This is a straw man argument though. I never would say the same things about Brexit. I agree that racism had a role in the   Brexit vote to a degree, but this was fundamentally a different matter altogether. People voted for us to leave a trading/political union. However odious Nigel Farage may be (and I'd stop short of calling him an outright racist in any event), most people who voted Brexit would never even vote for his party. There were some xenophobic flash points and undertones at times but Brexit wasn't overtly promoted on this platform.

Trump however is different. There are two other down ticket races in the US elections. When Trump talked about denying climate change, of denying entry to Muslims, of punishing some women who have abortions, of walking in on beauty contestants while they were changing etc etc - people ended up voting for him. People were happy to send a message out that someone who said and did all these thing was fit to lead their country. The two things aren't even comparable.

Talking about the rest of his platform isn't all that relevant. All of the vile politicians we have seen in modern history had plenty of other policies. The fundamentals of his gender and race based policies however are the sort of things the Republican base have been crying out for years. Trump's other policiesdon't have any sort of logical backing or costing however. Big tax cuts combined with interventionist policies supporting home grown industry? 

[marcoolio]

47 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

I'm just posting this because it's not as clear as the working class revolt it's being painted as.

I think that's because it would be specifically the *white* working class revolt; the "earning less than $50,000" includes both white and non-white. The published data (http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls) doesn't show the income by race figures, but it does show education by race figures. Assuming a correlation between education and income, it does show a strong white working class support for Trump.

 

[somecoolusername]

3 minutes ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Look I'm not defending a rumour that Pence may or may not have insinuated but if you think the vote was about race and gender then it just supports the argument that the left has lost touch with a lot of people and need to ask themselves why. 

I didn't say that's what the vote was about. I was saying that whether or not he hires LGBT people, black people, whatever, has nothing to do with his obvious misogynistic, racist, homophobic views 

[marcoolio]

Also interesting, those choosing "the lesser of two evils" predominantly chose Trump. (Again, based on this poll.)

 

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, GlastoSimon said:

I spose I take those first two sentences from you and think that women should leaning away from Trump after his comments, rather than towards him.

That's probably an easy impression to take away from the limited reporting from this side of the pond. We got treated to every juicy morsel in big headlines, but very little of the endless list of wonderful things he said he'd do in the more-normal-politician way. and because at the start he never believed he'd be i a position where he'd have to deliver them, they flowed endlessly.

I honestly think he never thought he'd win the nomination, and that some of the more outrageous things he said was him trying to lose some support rather than gain it. It then got a bit weird for a while while he started to play with the new toy called outrage, to see what it could do and where he could go with it. By the time it came to the debates it was all pretty much pulled back, leaving just an attack on Clinton. And then that was pulled back from in his victory speech.

So, in the main, I think most of the really bad stuff was just noise, and what we'll have is a Trump mostly guided by old republican hands. It'll be bad of course because it'll be a republican, but that's a different thing to the end of world stuff some are going with.

[Hugh Jass]

20 minutes ago, Homer said:

The Vanbrugh, just off Vanbrugh Hill, is very nice.

Not been there, where I drink usually depends on my route home. If I'm going via Greenwich it's The Yacht next to the river, Blackheath it's either the Railway or Princess of Wales or if I'm going via North Greenwich I like The Pilot Inn just by the Dome.

(I do love that in the middle of this political discussion there's a sub-conversation on the best pubs in Royal Greenwich)

[Cornelius_Fudge]

11 minutes ago, somecoolusername said:

I didn't say that's what the vote was about. I was saying that whether or not he hires LGBT people, black people, whatever, has nothing to do with his obvious misogynistic, racist, homophobic views 

Yes I suppose every person who despises black people, women etc pays them exorbitant amounts of money and helps them develop as employees etc...  Right...  right...

People who expected Clinton to win easily must really wonder why this all happened then and they can only come up with racism and sexism. It's poor analysis. 

[alibear]

24 minutes ago, Homer said:

The Vanbrugh, just off Vanbrugh Hill, is very nice.

I'm still yet to go there; a friend of mine loves it. The Lord Northbrook in Lee is great, as is the Pelton Arms, not far from the Vanbrugh - I saw an awesome Rolling Stones tribute band there not so long ago. Although I did see them tweet about a knitting evening the other day.... 

[alibear]

4 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Not been there, where I drink usually depends on my route home. If I'm going via Greenwich it's The Yacht next to the river, Blackheath it's either the Railway or Princess of Wales or if I'm going via North Greenwich I like The Pilot Inn just by the Dome.

(I do love that in the middle of this political discussion there's a sub-conversation on the best pubs in Royal Greenwich)

I love that you call it Royal Greenwich - the council will be thrilled!

Aware that I'm not adding much to the real discussion... everyone else seems to be summing it up pretty well. What I think the election has done is open up people's eyes to just how deep-rooted America's problems are, regarding its infrastructure, lack of livelihoods, etc. Casual observers [including me, until recently] generally hear about race and Obamacare. It's creating jobs and infrastructure regeneration which Trump talked about, directly to the states they affect the most. It doesn't matter that he probably doesn't have a clue how these problems are going to be overcome; I guess the general public feel he's listened. Does he deserve their vote despite the hideous things he's said and done... the polls seem to think so.

Edited November 10, 2016 by alibear

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

This is a straw man argument though. I never would say the same things about Brexit. I agree that racism had a role in the   Brexit vote to a degree, but this was fundamentally a different matter altogether. People voted for us to leave a trading/political union. However odious Nigel Farage may be (and I'd stop short of calling him an outright racist in any event), most people who voted Brexit would never even vote for his party. There were some xenophobic flash points and undertones at times but Brexit wasn't overtly promoted on this platform.

Trump however is different. There are two other down ticket races in the US elections. When Trump talked about denying climate change, of denying entry to Muslims, of punishing some women who have abortions, of walking in on beauty contestants while they were changing etc etc - people ended up voting for him. People were happy to send a message out that someone who said and did all these thing was fit to lead their country. The two things aren't even comparable.

Talking about the rest of his platform isn't all that relevant. All of the vile politicians we have seen in modern history had plenty of other policies. The fundamentals of his gender and race based policies however are the sort of things the Republican base have been crying out for years. Trump's other policiesdon't have any sort of logical backing or costing however. Big tax cuts combined with interventionist policies supporting home grown industry? 

there's at least two sides to any contest.

If everything about Trump is so very bad, what might that say about the opponent that can't beat him? I don't think that side of things can be ignored.

You're right that his promises are just about impossible to deliver as a coherent whole because some conflict, but what you're forgetting about those promises is the appeal each had towards different demographics. They weren't said because they made sense or because they are his intention, but because they were popular and would get him support. There were nuggets chucked in all directions, at all possible pockets of support; it's good politic-ing for a campaign, not necessarily so good when you're expected to live up to it.

Most of the non-sensical stuff was early on, and probably at a time when he thought he had no chance of progressing to the Pres vote.

[arcade fireman]

7 hours ago, Cornelius_Fudge said:

Most is pretty sweeping And you don't know anything about them or what they have dealt with in their lives, so you should never assume.
I can't imagine waking up as a Muslim, no, so I can't imagine what that feels like either.

I would love to know what your assumptions on me would be, as you could make pretty much any general statement and it would cover a lot bases for a lot of people. You can try and I can answer, but that wouldn't make your assumptions any more valid or invalid - just opinions, again, sadly.

Yes, Islam is a religion. Correct. Sadly, it's not ignorant. Even 'moderate' Islam practices submission of women, but you're free to do your own research in to this. It's not about everyone, true, but you shouldn't assume that it's all just fine and happy either and with free speech I believe people should be allowed to be critical of a religion without the threat of violence or recriminations, or someone simply bleating RACIST RACIST, just because someone said something critical. I would suggest a debate that I attached below to watch. Or perhaps watch anything with Christopher Hitchens.

4 - Yes, US intervention is still necessary - because of the fuck up by Bush. You're not going to bring stability there without more help in that area. But preventing a Cold War with Russia is a much more likely scenario with Trump at the helm.

5 - Tax is a legal business and if you know how to legally not pay tax, then it's the law at fault, not the person. The person is still not corrupt for doing so. Morally questionable, but morals are an entirely different prospect.

Number 6 is laughable. There's a big difference between hiring a black person and paying them and a slave trader owning slaves. That's ridiculous and surely you see that? Hiring a black person isn't something you would do if you were racist. Owning a slave to work for free on the basis of captivity is obviously very different. Trump does not run his businesses like cotton plantations.

I suggest watching this debate. It's a very even and well thought out discussion using facts on both the for and against side. Not just people crying racism and other PC labels - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A

 

1. I am making the assumption with your views and your dismissal of the things Trump has said that you've never really faced meaningful discrimination in your life. Whether it be based on your race, colour, religion (or lack of one), gender etc.

This is what allows you to be so blasé about Trump by simply calling him "un-PC". I find Nigel Farage odious but almost everything "offensive" he has said I can agree comes into this category. Trump goes several levels beyond Farage.

Do you think taking a film crew to the gym to publicly humiliate a Miss Universe contestant about her weight as he did is just "un-PC"? Or do you in fact think it's behaviour degrading to women?

Do you think saying a judge can't make a decision on a case because he's Mexican is simply un-PC? Or do you think maybe this is outright discriminatory behaviour? 

I mean I could go on here. There's a clear fundamental difference.

2. There is a huge difference in being critical of a religion and its teachings (not that I recall Trump ever engaging in much talk about the Koran itself) and saying people from that religion can't come to this country. Unless the video you posted has Christopher Hitchens advocating stopping Muslims from entering a country, I'm not particularly interested in your efforts to steer the argument from this point.

And plenty of "moderate" Muslim women I know work at the very top of my profession earning more than their husbands. So just as I don't judge Christians or even the religion today by what the Bible says (because there is some vile stuff in there), nor do I judge Islam by those standards.

I do find practices in various Muslim countries abhorrent, but I also see homosexuals getting locked up in various Christian African countries too for example. It's a complicated picture. 

3. A Cold War with Russia was never going to be the same prospect as it was before. The entire geopolitical environment is totally different to how it was in those days. If you haven't noticed, the Iron Curtain doesn't exist anymore and the Kremlin doesn't have anything like the influence and control over dozens of countries to do their bidding. Of course some commentators are saying the Trump victory does make Russian incursions to make those days happen again more likely but who knows. 

4. Where does morality end and corruption begin? You accused Clinton of being corrupt, but has she ever even come close to being convicted of anything? Of course I think things she has done are undoubtedly shady too, but the "crooked" tag was being used far more against Clinton than it was against Trump. Which was just ridiculous.

5. When did I even talk about slaves? I wasn't referring to slaves - slavery ended a very long time ago but in the period that Trump supporters usually refer to when they want to "Make America Great Again" - i.e. the 1950s - many still had black housekeepers and cleaners. But why even stop there? Does the fact you might see a Pakistani doctor or have a Mexican driver suddenly disqualify you from being a racist? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, just because you find people from minorities useful for your personal interests it doesn't mean you can't be racist against them. 

[arcade fireman]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/donald-trump-lawsuits-university-washington-dc-hotel

Yeah, Trump isn't corrupt at all.