Slightly :deviant: behaviour last night, watched the women's footy

[Peter]

Oh, sure. But this is about what those labels had come to mean before him. He's redefined the centre as somewhere that the people who had been marginalised as 'deplorable' could feel they belonged again.
All regimes normalise their policy positions as the centre. In other words, the 'far right' was only called that by the left, who had also spent a lot of time defining the left as being the centre.

He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.

His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.

[Burney]

He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.

His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.

Well yes. He's rather fun. Also, by stomping around the place being extremely gauche in a loud voice, he very much embodies the American national character as a lot of Americans see it, I think.

[redgunamo]

Well yes. He's rather fun. Also, by stomping around the place being extremely gauche in a loud voice, he very much embodies the American national character as a lot of Americans see it, I think.

And equally, as many foreigners see it too. Which makes it seem even better still to Americans.

[Peter]

Well yes. He's rather fun. Also, by stomping around the place being extremely gauche in a loud voice, he very much embodies the American national character as a lot of Americans see it, I think.

Yes. He is arguably the most 'watchable' President in living memory. And it has to be said, the campaign was hilarious.

[redgunamo]

He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.

His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.

That's the point; it only seems unconventional to your sort.

You said before you may even have voted for him yourself. Why?

[Peter]

That's the point; it only seems unconventional to your sort.

You said before you may even have voted for him yourself. Why?

I said if I had lived in Ohio for 30 years and been unemployed I would have voted for him. For obvious reasons. He didn't come around promising generic investment, high tech jobs, the usual garbage. He spoke to them in a way they could understand and promised them what they actually wanted. As I say, highly unconventional.

If its a choice between Hillary and the lunatic, he is well worth a punt.

I think the feeling of being politically ignored in the States is totally off the charts in terms of our understanding.

[Burney]

I said if I had lived in Ohio for 30 years and been unemployed I would have voted for him. For obvious reasons. He didn't come around promising generic investment, high tech jobs, the usual garbage. He spoke to them in a way they could understand and promised them what they actually wanted. As I say, highly unconventional.

If its a choice between Hillary and the lunatic, he is well worth a punt.

I think the feeling of being politically ignored in the States is totally off the charts in terms of our understanding.

Just HOW shįt a candidate was Hillary, though? They couldn't have found a candidate more likely to motivate the marginalised against her if they'd actually been trying to.

[Peter]

Just HOW shįt a candidate was Hillary, though? They couldn't have found a candidate more likely to motivate the marginalised against her if they'd actually been trying to.

They thought nobody could lose to whoever the Republicans fielded- especially him. Sanders was the gamble and Hillary the safe bet.

In truth, Sanders could have beaten him. Would have been a very interesting campaign.