This morning...

[waterfalls212434]

51 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Those views of course exist in their party,  but they don't usually all exist in the one person who is in power. 

Some recent Republicans seem touchy feely by comparison. 

id agree with this, there are elements of the above in the republican party of course, every party has its extreme elements.......but those elements have never been so close to the white house before I think that`s whats unnerving people, they are used to hearing about the odd nut-job republican Representative or senator stirring the pot but with no real chance of anything he believes in becoming reality. They aren`t used to the head policy adviser to the president, the vice president and the president himself having such viewpoints. That is a big difference and that`s whats worrying people.

as for the hitler comparisons? I think people are going on historical precedent to be honest, you cannot deny that hitler came to power with the same kind of rhetoric, with the same kind of `hes not as bad as they claim give him a chance` attitude and the same kind of atmosphere plaguging the world of mistrust and fear of certain minority groups and foreigners. Noone is trying to claim what happened in 30s germany will happen again because I like to think weve moved past the stage where we would allow it to ever go that far but you cannnot blame people for seeing similarities with known historical facts.  I think some of the quotes on this piece from the ww2 vet turned political activist Harry leslie smith give pause for thought` http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/never-expected-see-conditions-gave-9237439 hard to argue with a 94 year old ww2 vet turned political activist who saw the rise of Nazism first hand and fought against their kind  on the battlefield....much respect.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, grumpyhack said:

I'm beginning to see both both Brexit and Trumping as a long-overdue wake up call to the established order who have significantly failed large parts of both the UK and US populations.

Yep.

I think a large part of it is those populations wanting to have the politicians prove they do actually take notice of the population, rather then the politicians doing their same thing no matter how the population votes.

Which, as nutty as it sounds, requires 'the people' to force those politicians to do some nutty things. If the politicians don't follow thru, the politicians aren't working for 'us'.

It's the population (or a large part of it) wanting the politicians to prove they're not dictators.

 

1 minute ago, grumpyhack said:

The biggest areas of Brexit and Trump voting came from people in largely deprived areas who felt let down or overlooked by the existing system.  It was a 'sod it, nothing can be worse than what we've had' vote.

Maybe time in opposition is necessary to allow the previous regimes to reflect on getting it right next time in order to return to power.  Let's just hope that not too much damage is done in the meantime.

I'd say so.

Politicians refusing to accept public opinion ends up being a worse thing, ultimately. It's what got us here in the first place, because politicians wouldn't accept that the country wanted a say on the EU, and so when a vote was finally squeezed out of them, the population said 'fuck you, we're going to make sure you're listening'.

If Blair/Brown had followed thru on the promise for a ref on the EU Constitution - which became the Lisbon Treaty - then I don't think we'd be here.

When politicians don't trust the country, the country isn't going to trust politicians.

[russycarps]

11 minutes ago, grumpyhack said:

I'm beginning to see both both Brexit and Trumping as a long-overdue wake up call to the established order who have significantly failed large parts of both the UK and US populations.

The biggest areas of Brexit and Trump voting came from people in largely deprived areas who felt let down or overlooked by the existing system.  It was a 'sod it, nothing can be worse than what we've had' vote.

Maybe time in opposition is necessary to allow the previous regimes to reflect on getting it right next time in order to return to power.  Let's just hope that not too much damage is done in the meantime.

Yep, and how clinton thought parading an endless line of ultra rich celebrities on stage with her was going to win the working class vote is beyond me.

Trump may be a billionaire, but he is a businessman not a politician so the working class believed he understood them much more than clinton.

Clinton ran a campaign as inept as the remainers. She really does not deserve the presidency.

[clarkete]

Several of you are coming to rather sweeping conclusions, based on a result that would have been entirely different if 1 percent of their population had voted differently and where the losing candidate had plenty of issues which were easily raked over with helpful assistance from the Russians.

Don't get carried away with that people have spoken schtick, half their people hate this result too and they've just taken the power from one elite and given it to another, which they'll realise over the next four years.

Likewise, they've made impossible promises over the last year in terms of funding pledges without tax increases, aside from all the properly crazy stuff.  Clearly they can't do all of these things, so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

as for the hitler comparisons? I think people are going on historical precedent to be honest, you cannot deny that hitler came to power with the same kind of rhetoric, with the same kind of `hes not as bad as they claim give him a chance` attitude and the same kind of atmosphere plaguging the world of mistrust and fear of certain minority groups and foreigners. Noone is trying to claim what happened in 30s germany will happen again because I like to think weve moved past the stage where we would allow it to ever go that far but you cannnot blame people for seeing similarities with known historical facts.  I think some of the quotes on this piece from the ww2 vet turned political activist Harry leslie smith give pause for thought` http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/never-expected-see-conditions-gave-9237439 hard to argue with a 94 year old ww2 vet turned political activist who saw the rise of Nazism first hand and fought against their kind  on the battlefield....much respect.

You can find comparisons at any time with the Nazis.

If you actually take the trouble to hear what Trump said exactly, it's exceedingly clear it's fuck all like the nazis. He's made exceedingly clear that he's not demonising any segment of the population within the USA's borders - which is what Hitler did - and all it really comes out as is 'america is putting america first'

(I realise that plenty have heard Trump differently - worse to what he actually said - but that's the exact opposite of what happened around Hitler).

While the Trump version of 'america is putting america first' is more extreme than has become the norm of the modern age, it's still what *every* country in the world does at all times, too.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should sit back and give Trump free reign to do whatever he wants, but I am saying that the democratic result has to be accepted, and that part of things shouldn't be protested. In the end its calling for an end of democracy - which would be Trump or another having that free reign.

Reaction to Trump should now be on the specifics of what he might try to do - which is again not about who he might appoint beside him, it's about what those people actually do.

But some of Trump also needs to be accepted, too. If a large part of the population are saying he's allowed to do nothing of his plans, that only confirms to those who voted for Trump that they don't matter a fuck, so they're not going to give a fuck about those who say they don't matter.

Edited November 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Several of you are coming to rather sweeping conclusions, based on a result that would have been entirely different if 1 percent of their population had voted differently and where the losing candidate had plenty of issues which were easily raked over with helpful assistance from the Russians.

Rather unfortunately, those damn Ruskies exposed the truth about Clinton, and people felt they couldn't support that.

In fact, what the Ruskies exposed wasn't anything people didn't really already know. This is why Trump won with a lower vote than the recently-losing republican candidates - the problem wasn't that people voted for Trump, it was that they couldn't/wouldn't vote for Clinton.

The Democratic Party hold their own guilt, for believing that a donkey in a rosette could beat all challengers.

 

4 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Don't get carried away with that people have spoken schtick, half their people hate this result too and they've just taken the power from one elite and given it to another, which they'll realise over the next four years.

But 'the people have spoken'. There has to be a winner.

I agree that it's just another elite, but he's not part of the standard political elite, who Trump promised to kick down the road. That was part of his attraction, at least as much as any racism.

Of course, like so much of what he said, he's already shown that as bollocks via the appointment of republican insiders, just as his "you're going to jail" has been shown as bollocks, just as his "despicable" Obama has been shown as bollocks.

Even the reaction to his "I'll deport 3M illegals" is bollocks, cos Obama deported 3M too.

There's far too many people reacting to just the headlines without caring about details, or caring to demonstrate their intelligence by examining the details or considering real context.

 

4 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Likewise, they've made impossible promises over the last year in terms of funding pledges without tax increases, aside from all the properly crazy stuff.  Clearly they can't do all of these things, so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

Exactly.

And already, how it goes is being shown as more of the same rather than any huge change.

What I do know is that polarisation won't bring people together - and it's not just Trumpers who are guilty of that one.

[waterfalls212434]

`He's made exceedingly clear that he's not demonising any segment of the population within the USA's borders  `

Apart from mexicans, muslims, black people, left wingers, feminists and so on......why dont you take a look at the mans twitter feed and other social media opinion posts rather then whats `reported` in the media theres a good reason his pr team during the runup to the election apparently had to `ban` him from personally posting opinion (as it was wrecking his campaign everytime he did!.)....also even if hes not guilty of such bigotry the people hes surrounding himself certainly are there is no doubt about that!.....Steve bannon for one is a notorious anti semite among other things and thats his fucking policy advisor, his vice pres is notoriously anti gay rights so how do you think thats going to go? If he opposes such viewpoints why is he surrounding himself with these people? that makes no logical sense what so ever!

Look I will never apologise for calling a stone a stone he is a bigoted moron and his team even more so. Not only that but considering his views on climate change as well hes a fucking stupid, bigoted moron.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

 

`He's made exceedingly clear that he's not demonising any segment of the population within the USA's borders  `

Apart from mexicans, muslims...

I see you only read the headlines.

The Mexicans he denigrated were very specifically ones not in America. The Muslims he denigrated were very specifically not the ones in America.

I'm not trying to suggest there was anything good about what he said, but what he said is not what you're saying.

Are you pretending he said what you claim, or do you claim that because of your ignorance of what he actually said?

[jparx]

33 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep, and how clinton thought parading an endless line of ultra rich celebrities on stage with her was going to win the working class vote is beyond me.

I was saying that throughout her entire campaign. Each mega celebrity that came on stage with her just pushed large portions of the working class further and further in to Donald's arms. There was no focus on what she would do for them, just a constant bashing of Trump and hanging out with celebrities in a poor attempt to seem hip. You can't win an election when your main policy is "I'm not the other person".

It was a dreadful campaign from start to finish.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep, and how clinton thought parading an endless line of ultra rich celebrities on stage with her was going to win the working class vote is beyond me.

worse than that, she only mentioned the working class in passing, to then go on and say it was the middle classes who mattered and not the working class.

 

[clarkete]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

worse than that, she only mentioned the working class in passing, to then go on and say it was the middle classes who mattered and not the working class.

 

I agree with some of what you've said, but you've made some broad and incorrect generalisations about what he and she did based on the coverage that you've seen.  If you look further you'll see that what you've stated is not so explicitly true.

He did denigrate groups, within and outside the states.  He said some awful hate inspiring things during the last year, many of which were at rallies that were shared unedited and unchallenged on some of the tv networks.

She did speak about working class folks and has done for decades.  Where they made a terrible mistake in her campaign was in the blue wall thing, where they assumed certain states with a majority were so safe that they didn't even campaign there.

The second link is most striking to me, thus far I can't envisage that an official of any capacity here would write something like that.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/churches-vandalized-trump-racist-graffiti/story?id=43538621

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/racist-post-michelle-obama-backlash-43524986

 

[waterfalls212434]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I see you only read the headlines.

The Mexicans he denigrated were very specifically ones not in America. The Muslims he denigrated were very specifically not the ones in America.

I'm not trying to suggest there was anything good about what he said, but what he said is not what you're saying.

Are you pretending he said what you claim, or do you claim that because of your ignorance of what he actually said?

Ive read what he said, ive seen interviews with the man and ive read up on his past attitude to certain topics and comments attributed to him on such issues so no I dont just `read the headlines` besides you clearly ignored the part where I spoke of the people Donald is surrounding himself with you can argue for trump all you like but would you care to try and deny that people like steve bannon are openly bigoted? and that trump in surrounding himself with these people is basically accepting their viewpoints?  thats basic logic because why if you oppose peoples views would you bring them into your inner circle? let alone have them advise you on policy knowing their prejudices on key issues? Said it before ill say it again, judge the man by the company he keeps and he seems to be putting together a team of racists, homophobes and far right lunatics....so ill reserve my right to call him a bigoted prick! 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, clarkete said:

He did denigrate groups, within and outside the states.  He said some awful hate inspiring things during the last year,

I agree he said plenty of hate inspired things.

But you'll have to show me the quotes - in full context - of where he specifically denigrated those inside the USA rather than made clear he wasn't referring to internals.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Ive read what he said, ive seen interviews with the man and ive read up on his past attitude to certain topics and comments attributed to him on such issues so no I dont just `read the headlines` besides you clearly ignored the part where I spoke of the people Donald is surrounding himself with you can argue for trump all you like but would you care to try and deny that people like steve bannon are openly bigoted? and that trump in surrounding himself with these people is basically accepting their viewpoints?  thats basic logic because why if you oppose peoples views would you bring them into your inner circle? let alone have them advise you on policy knowing their prejudices on key issues? Said it before ill say it again, judge the man by the company he keeps and he seems to be putting together a team of racists, homophobes and far right lunatics....so ill reserve my right to call him a bigoted prick! 

Bannon is openly bigoted, and so was George Bush. The Republican party are openly bigoted. But standard republican bigoted stuff is not the narrative plenty of people are applying to Trump.

And yes, Trump went well beyond the standard bigoted stuff.

But you'll have to show me where he specifically applied it to those inside America, rather than made clear he was applying it those outside.

Edited November 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Bannon is openly bigoted, and so was George Bush. The Republican party are openly bigoted. But standard republican bigoted stuff is not the narrative plenty of people are applying to Trump.

And yes, Trump went well beyond the standard bigoted stuff.

But you'll have to show me where he specifically applied it to those inside America, rather than made clear he was applying it those outside.

https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/798491054400032768

[zahidf]

 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/798491054400032768

so another reply of no proof of what people have been saying.

Either there's substance to these claims of demonisation of Muslims and Mexicans inside America, or there isn't.

So far I'm only being convinced that the bullshit reaches as high as Trump's racism.

Edited November 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

so another reply of no proof of what people have been saying.

Either there's substance to these claims of demonisation of Muslims and Mexicans inside America, or there isn't.

So far I'm only being convinced that the bullshit reaches as high as Trump's racism.

Read Breitbart for 5 mins maybe. The new chief stratgey expert for the white house is a white nationalist

[zahidf]

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Read Breitbart for 5 mins maybe. The new chief stratgey expert for the white house is a white nationalist

No shit sherlock, I didn't know.,

A president gets to appoint his team. That only gets overturned if democracy itself is overturned.

Meanwhile, i'm waiting for the proof of Trump demonising Muslims and Mexicans within america as some are claiming.

 

[The Nal]

2 hours ago, russycarps said:

Clinton ran a campaign as inept as the remainers. She really does not deserve the presidency.

Worst presidential candidate since Walter Mondale. 

[zahidf]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so another reply of no proof of what people have been saying.

Either there's substance to these claims of demonisation of Muslims and Mexicans inside America, or there isn't.

So far I'm only being convinced that the bullshit reaches as high as Trump's racism.

So the worries of those organisations should be ignored?

Id also like to point out that the Jewish anti defamation league condemned Trump's last campaign video as anti-semitic. 

He demonised syrian refugees currently living in the USA. Spread lies also about New Jersey muslims celebrating in the streets the day after 911. That prejudiced enough?

Edited November 15, 2016 by zahidf

[zahidf]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No shit sherlock, I didn't know.,

A president gets to appoint his team. That only gets overturned if democracy itself is overturned.

Meanwhile, i'm waiting for the proof of Trump demonising Muslims and Mexicans within america as some are claiming.

 

Um, he appointed a white nationalist to be part of his senior white house team.

That in itself is worrying you know. You cant say 'well, he has a racist helping him shape policy, but what PROOF do you have he will be racist?'

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, clarkete said:

Several of you are coming to rather sweeping conclusions, based on a result that would have been entirely different if 1 percent of their population had voted differently and where the losing candidate had plenty of issues which were easily raked over with helpful assistance from the Russians.

Would the reaction have been different if Clinton had won the college and Trump the popular vote? Yes, absolutely. And that's the problem. And why Clinton didn't win. Had it been a narrow Clinton win, we should have had a similar reaction to what is happening now: asking why all those people voted for someone like Trump, what's driving that and why they feel unrepresented, and how they can be included in the future, lest the next election be lost. But instead they'd have been dismissed as racists that didn't like immigrants and mysogynists that didn't like Hilary and who cares because they lost.

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

Those views of course exist in their party,  but they don't usually all exist in the one person who is in power. 

Weirdly I think in most Republican candidates those views exist, but aren't spoken, because prevailing wisdom is that it's electoral suicide as it'll alienate all those in the middle ground that voted Democrat last time and that you needed to win votes from. 

In Trump's case, I don't think he actually holds those views personally, but is speaking them anyway because he actually thinks it's politically expedient (and it seems like he's right).

[The Nal]

Even moderate Republican opinion on Jewish people is traditionally heavy handed.