Looking at all these protests I am struck by the thought that there are few more [Archive] - AWIMB

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 09:53 AM

I see nothing particularly sane or insane about either choice. You could either vote for more of the same old crap if that suited you or you could vote to shake up the snow globe a bit and see what happens.

You could justify the election of Jeremy Corbyn to Prime Minister with precisely the same logic. Were it to happen, I very much doubt that you would have held that view.

dismalswamp

11-10-2016, 09:55 AM

pathetic sights on this earth than an angry liberal :hehe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

Sir C

11-10-2016, 09:56 AM

You could justify the election of Jeremy Corbyn to Prime Minister with precisely the same logic. Were it to happen, I very much doubt that you would have held that view.

You are missing the point, somewhat. If Corbyn was elected and people reacted by weeping hysterically (or claiming to), they would be just as mockable as the angry lefties in question. :shrug:

One expects a little dignity from one's fellow citizens, as well as, perhaps, a touch of respect for the democratic process.

Burney

11-10-2016, 10:01 AM

You could justify the election of Jeremy Corbyn to Prime Minister with precisely the same logic. Were it to happen, I very much doubt that you would have held that view.

If I believed that was a possibility, I would probably take a look at the reasons why it might happen rather than arrogantly and lazily dismissing those who made the choice as stupid/insane/racist/whatever. Your lofty assumption that the status quo that happens to suit you is sanity and all else is insanity is precisely the mindset that meant Clinton and her ilk didn't see this coming.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 10:02 AM

pathetic sights on this earth than an angry liberal :hehe:

Thought bubble: "I'm gonna be getting me some serious leftie pussy if this makes the news"

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 10:06 AM

If I believed that was a possibility, I would probably take a look at the reasons why it might happen rather than arrogantly and lazily dismissing those who made the choice as stupid/insane/racist/whatever. Your lofty assumption that the status quo that happens to suit you is sanity and all else is insanity is precisely the mindset that meant Clinton and her ilk didn't see this coming.

Right. The crying wolf-thing, hugely overdone. After all, if Romney was, as we were assured, intending, among other horrors, to put all the darkies back in chains, how much worse could The Donald be.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 10:08 AM

""Thought bubble: "I'm gonna be getting me some serious leftie pussy if this makes the news""

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 10:09 AM

If I believed that was a possibility, I would probably take a look at the reasons why it might happen rather than arrogantly and lazily dismissing those who made the choice as stupid/insane/racist/whatever. Your lofty assumption that the status quo that happens to suit you is sanity and all else is insanity is precisely the mindset that meant Clinton and her ilk didn't see this coming.

Are you telling us that if Corbyn got elected you would look at it rationally and objectively and not demonstrate any emotion at all? Really? I'm dubious, Burney. :-)

And I never said that anything other than the status quo was insane, I glibly suggested that voting for Trump was. That's rather different.

Burney

11-10-2016, 10:21 AM

Are you telling us that if Corbyn got elected you would look at it rationally and objectively and not demonstrate any emotion at all? Really? I'm dubious, Burney. :-)

And I never said that anything other than the status quo was insane, I glibly suggested that voting for Trump was. That's rather different.

Well you're wrong, I'm afraid. I don't have to agree with something to understand or empathise with it or be rational about it. The reason I find Corbyn so hilarious is that he is so demonstrably the diametrically wrong answer to the problems currently facing the British political left. Equally, I find some of his policies and utterances ridiculous and even offensive. Nonetheless, I can still understand that he appeals to a vestigial purist leftism that never felt enturely comfortable with the compromises required to achieve electoral success under Blair and that (in addition to Labour's rock-bottom morale post the 2015 general election) is what got him elected. There you go: rational, objective analysis of something I don't agree with whatsoever.

In this election, Trump was the only meaningful alternative to the status quo that was available. Given which, there was nothing insane about voting for him.

Tony C

11-10-2016, 10:33 AM

This is the left for you...if the shoe was on the other foot we would accept the results and move forward but the social justice and feminist mob are an incredibly merciless and hateful bunch.

I say us...because we pretty much saw the same reactions from the pro Euro voters post Brexit...in a more tasteful British way rather than the crass US version

By the way...seems to be mostly you white people protesting...

Trump is not my president....my advice to Supreme Leader Donald...flag them all for deportation :nod:

Monty92

11-10-2016, 10:40 AM

""Thought bubble: "I'm gonna be getting me some serious leftie pussy if this makes the news""

363

ddddfdfdfdfdd

Sir C

11-10-2016, 10:43 AM

Burney

11-10-2016, 10:46 AM

363

ddddfdfdfdfdd

:hehe: That's basically his Tinder profile imo.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 10:50 AM

We know he's not 100% keen on Mexicans and Allans, t, but has he expressed his view on people of colour as yet?

Mexican illegal immigrants and Allan extremists. I've never heard him say anything against law-abiding Mexicans or moderate/secular Allans.

Sir C

11-10-2016, 10:52 AM

Mexican illegal immigrants and Allan extremists. I've never heard him say anything against law-abiding Mexicans or moderate/secular Allans.

I must confess that I have heard him say nothing first hand, since I find his voice and face so repulsive that i avoid any direct view of him, so my information on his utterances is gleaned from the media and social media.

I probably don't have a very balanced view, do I? :-(

Monty92

11-10-2016, 10:52 AM

:hehe: That's basically his Tinder profile imo.

Enjoyed yours and Charlie's exchange with Hugo. He went a bit quiet in the end, didn't he.

Pat Vegas

11-10-2016, 10:55 AM

pathetic sights on this earth than an angry liberal :hehe:

I was watching Sky news last night and they were interviewing different citizens of the US. I don't think they got what they were looking for.

Who did you vote for? trump WHY? (in this patronising way)

Then even the mexican fella they interviewed voted for Trump.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 10:59 AM

I must confess that I have heard him say nothing first hand, since I find his voice and face so repulsive that i avoid any direct view of him, so my information on his utterances is gleaned from the media and social media.

I probably don't have a very balanced view, do I? :-(

Oh he's clearly a truly appalling human who believes in nothing and understands almost as little. But in a sense I think this makes him ideologically neutral in that he approaches issues with no preconceptions.

So when he sees Allans murdering innocent people on the streets of America and Europe, he delivers an instinctive, rational reaction rather than one skewed by his existing beliefs or hobby horses. And the instinctive rational reaction to islamic terrorism is to stop the cu*nts coming to your country, even if that inconveniences/offends millions of innocent Allans.

I doubt very much he's a racist, although he does seem to played a little fast and loose with notions of sexual consent.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 11:01 AM

Mexican illegal immigrants and Allan extremists. I've never heard him say anything against law-abiding Mexicans or moderate/secular Allans.

Brilliant tactics really, as it made everyone who disagreed appear, to normal people anyway, to be encouraging foreigners to go to America and break American law.

Sir C

11-10-2016, 11:06 AM

Oh he's clearly a truly appalling human who believes in nothing and understands almost as little. But in a sense I think this makes him ideologically neutral in that he approaches issues with no preconceptions.

So when he sees Allans murdering innocent people on the streets of America and Europe, he delivers an instinctive, rational reaction rather than one skewed by his existing beliefs or hobby horses. And the instinctive rational reaction to islamic terrorism is to stop the cu*nts coming to your country, even if that inconveniences/offends millions of innocent Allans.

I doubt very much he's a racist, although he does seem to played a little fast and loose with notions of sexual consent.

If anything about him really troubles me, it's that the few moments of footage I have seen suggest to me that he is as thick as pigshít. We'll have to rely on the 'checks and balances', I suppose.

Pat Vegas

11-10-2016, 11:10 AM

If anything about him really troubles me, it's that the few moments of footage I have seen suggest to me that he is as thick as pigshít. We'll have to rely on the 'checks and balances', I suppose.

If anything Sir C it's good news. Our country band will be more popular than ever. I was thinking we should change the name somewhat. How about to the Drop Dead Hillary's Or the Amazing Trump Band.

Burney

11-10-2016, 11:11 AM

Enjoyed yours and Charlie's exchange with Hugo. He went a bit quiet in the end, didn't he.

He did a bit. I find it odd how taken aback some people who offer opinions on Twitter seem when they are challenged.

Brentwood

11-10-2016, 12:01 PM

Absolute f@cking state of this one :hehe:

https://twitter.com/Crisprtek/status/796597718751838208

"We are strong. You don't know how strong we are"

Said by a man reduced to tears, wailing like a mad man on the streets

Burney

11-10-2016, 12:07 PM

"We are strong. You don't know how strong we are"

Said by a man reduced to tears, wailing like a mad man on the streets

You do wonder if it's occurred to these people that they might be taken a bit more seriously if they didn't keep crying every time they didn't get their way. Seriously, crying because something you don't like has happened is what children do, not grown adults.

eastgermanautos

11-10-2016, 12:08 PM

If anything about him really troubles me, it's that the few moments of footage I have seen suggest to me that he is as thick as pigshít. We'll have to rely on the 'checks and balances', I suppose.

You're totally wrong. There are no checks and balances. It's tribal. The republicans control all three branches, and now the "lefties," in order to have any chance at regaining power, are going to have to go on a rampage. I believe that the "right," to counter this, will set up paramilitary organizations in defense of those three branches. Things are going to devolve try quickly into bloodshed, government inaction, and finally civil war.

Meanwhile awimb will continue as ever, one hopes. :-)

Ash

11-10-2016, 12:21 PM

You're totally wrong. There are no checks and balances. It's tribal. The republicans control all three branches, and now the "lefties," in order to have any chance at regaining power, are going to have to go on a rampage.

Eh? So your choice loses an election and so you "have to" go on a rampage? What's wrong with waiting till the next election and winning that? Y'know, by perhaps picking a better candidate?

Anyway, the Republican establishment hate Trump as much as the Democrat establishment, don't they? So probably he doesn't actually control the houses at all.

Burney

11-10-2016, 12:50 PM

You're totally wrong. There are no checks and balances. It's tribal. The republicans control all three branches, and now the "lefties," in order to have any chance at regaining power, are going to have to go on a rampage. I believe that the "right," to counter this, will set up paramilitary organizations in defense of those three branches. Things are going to devolve try quickly into bloodshed, government inaction, and finally civil war.

Meanwhile awimb will continue as ever, one hopes. :-)

Have you been at the mushrooms again, ega? :-(

Ash

11-10-2016, 12:57 PM

And I never said that anything other than the status quo was insane, I glibly suggested that voting for Trump was. That's rather different.

Voting for Trump may well be insane, but on foreign policy, voting for Clinton is batshít crazy. More Iraqs. More Libyas. More Syrias. Perhaps next time against Russia. The Clinton Foundation enjoys massive donations from Saudi Arabia. Saudi fùcking Arabia, the epicentre of Islamist terrorism. She wants to aid Al Quaeda and ISIS in Syria by threatening war with Russia if it continue to support government forces. While Trump seeks to thaw relations with Russia and end US support for Saudi Arabia.

Trump well be some or all of the awful things he appears to be, but one of the things he does not appear to be is a member of the neocon/libhawk Washington endless war machine, with its madness of claiming to fight terrorism on one hand, while using the same terrorists as a regime-changing attack dog on the other while plunging countries into endless chaos.

And the funny thing is, the people who consider themselves so superior in intellect and knowledge to Trump's voters just don't seem to understand any of this. Like the posh young lady in the pub last night who was explaining to me that the reason people voted for Trump was because they were all morons who identified with him because he was a moron. Five minutes later she admitted to not having a clue where Angola was or even that there was a country of that name.

Burney

11-10-2016, 01:03 PM

Voting for Trump may well be insane, but on foreign policy, voting for Clinton is batshít crazy. More Iraqs. More Libyas. More Syrias. Perhaps next time against Russia. The Clinton Foundation enjoys massive donations from Saudi Arabia. Saudi fùcking Arabia, the epicentre of Islamist terrorism. She wants to aid Al Quaeda and ISIS in Syria by threatening war with Russia if it continue to support government forces. While Trump seeks to thaw relations with Russia and end US support for Saudi Arabia.

Trump well be some or all of the awful things he appears to be, but one of the things he does not appear to be is a member of the neocon/libhawk Washington endless war machine, with its madness of claiming to fight terrorism on one hand, while using the same terrorists as a regime-changing attack dog on the other while plunging countries into endless chaos.

And the funny thing is, the people who consider themselves so superior in intellect and knowledge to Trump's voters just don't seem to understand any of this. Like the posh young lady in the pub last night who was explaining to me that the reason people voted for Trump was because they were all morons who identified with him because he was a moron. Five minutes later she admitted to not having a clue where Angola was or even that there was a country of that name.

This is rather good, a

https://medium.com/@dizzy_thinks/congratulations-identity-politics-you-****ed-the-world-f58f6f3f1cc1#.vwv3rc2kz

Ash

11-10-2016, 01:49 PM

This is rather good, a

https://medium.com/@dizzy_thinks/congratulations-identity-politics-you-****ed-the-world-f58f6f3f1cc1#.vwv3rc2kz

He makes an interesting point about Leave being an identity-politics backlash, but I like to be optimistic that it was more of a positive expression of democratic than that. He's obviously spot on about the irony of people shouting "fascist" while seeking to reduce suffrage to only those with the correct opinions.

dismalswamp

11-10-2016, 01:52 PM

Voting for Trump may well be insane, but on foreign policy, voting for Clinton is batshít crazy. More Iraqs. More Libyas. More Syrias. Perhaps next time against Russia. The Clinton Foundation enjoys massive donations from Saudi Arabia. Saudi fùcking Arabia, the epicentre of Islamist terrorism. She wants to aid Al Quaeda and ISIS in Syria by threatening war with Russia if it continue to support government forces. While Trump seeks to thaw relations with Russia and end US support for Saudi Arabia.

Trump well be some or all of the awful things he appears to be, but one of the things he does not appear to be is a member of the neocon/libhawk Washington endless war machine, with its madness of claiming to fight terrorism on one hand, while using the same terrorists as a regime-changing attack dog on the other while plunging countries into endless chaos.

And the funny thing is, the people who consider themselves so superior in intellect and knowledge to Trump's voters just don't seem to understand any of this. Like the posh young lady in the pub last night who was explaining to me that the reason people voted for Trump was because they were all morons who identified with him because he was a moron. Five minutes later she admitted to not having a clue where Angola was or even that there was a country of that name.

Excellent post sir. Anyone who could even consider voting for Clinton if they knew ANYTHING about what has been going on with her band of corruptables, the Foundation, her dreadful foreign policy and her immigration plans is beyond contempt. That's the thing though, these mainstream media brainwashed idiots don't know any of this.

Burney

11-10-2016, 02:00 PM

He makes an interesting point about Leave being an identity-politics backlash, but I like to be optimistic that it was more of a positive expression of democratic than that.

I think it's possible that it was both. I voted for it for good, democratic reasons, but the fact that it p1ssed off a lot of identity politics advocate whom I absolutely cannot stand was a significant bonus. :-)

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 02:03 PM

Voting for Trump may well be insane, but on foreign policy, voting for Clinton is batshít crazy. More Iraqs. More Libyas. More Syrias. Perhaps next time against Russia. The Clinton Foundation enjoys massive donations from Saudi Arabia. Saudi fùcking Arabia, the epicentre of Islamist terrorism. She wants to aid Al Quaeda and ISIS in Syria by threatening war with Russia if it continue to support government forces. While Trump seeks to thaw relations with Russia and end US support for Saudi Arabia.

Trump well be some or all of the awful things he appears to be, but one of the things he does not appear to be is a member of the neocon/libhawk Washington endless war machine, with its madness of claiming to fight terrorism on one hand, while using the same terrorists as a regime-changing attack dog on the other while plunging countries into endless chaos.

And the funny thing is, the people who consider themselves so superior in intellect and knowledge to Trump's voters just don't seem to understand any of this. Like the posh young lady in the pub last night who was explaining to me that the reason people voted for Trump was because they were all morons who identified with him because he was a moron. Five minutes later she admitted to not having a clue where Angola was or even that there was a country of that name.

I haven't said anything about the intellect of Trump's voters. I judge Trump based on his actions and the things he has said. And using that as a barometer he is an intellectually superficial, mysoginistic, racist moron. And the idea that someone should vote for such an idiot because the alternative was 'status quo' strikes me as absurd.

And the only thing I've ever heard Trump say about Islamic extremism is that he will ban all Muslims (presumably some of whom believe in a secular democracy) from entering the US of A and that he wants to 'take out' ISIS. Not sure how Ash came to his conclusions re Trump's foreign policy given how little he's actually said about it.

Ash

11-10-2016, 02:29 PM

Not sure how Ash came to his conclusions re Trump's foreign policy given how little he's actually said about it.

It's a true measure of what a dismal campaign it has been on both sides, that so little has been discussed about foreign policy, and so little is known about where they stand and what they have done. But then I gather Hillary made the call to focus on Trump's personality, rather than the political issues.

The points about Trump's policies on Russia and Saudi Arabia could be found, amongst other places, on the BBC website yesterday.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 02:49 PM

It's a true measure of what a dismal campaign it has been on both sides, that so little has been discussed about foreign policy, and so little is known about where they stand and what they have done. But then I gather Hillary made the call to focus on Trump's personality, rather than the political issues.

The points about Trump's policies on Russia and Saudi Arabia could be found, amongst other places, on the BBC website yesterday.

Given that, in your own words, "voting for Trump may well be insane", discussion about the relative merits of both candidates' foreign policies seems rather besides the point.

The reason many intelligent people held their noses and voted for Clinton is because they, very understandably, felt that it was the least worst option when the only other choice would be "insane"

Where would your vote have gone, by the way?

Ash

11-10-2016, 02:52 PM

Given that, in your own words, "voting for Trump may well be insane", discussion about the relative merits of both candidates' foreign policies seems rather besides the point.

The reason many intelligent people held their noses and voted for Clinton is because they, very understandably, felt that it was the least worst option when the only other choice would be "insane"

Where would your vote have gone, by the way?

For me, foreign policy is never beside the point. Wars kill, and a poppy is for life, not just for November.

The problem with Trump is that you don't know what you're going to get. The problem with Clinton is that you do know what you're going to get. I would have voted for neither.

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 03:08 PM

Monty92

11-10-2016, 03:09 PM

For me, foreign policy is never beside the point. Wars kill, and a poppy is for life, not just for November.

The problem with Trump is that you don't know what you're going to get. The problem with Clinton is that you do know what you're going to get. I would have voted for neither.

Domestic policy kills too - welfare policy, for example. But we are more sentient to deaths caused by war because we see the consequences on the news every night. That doesn't necessarily make it rational.

Obama is considered to the left of Clinton, foreign policyistically, but he loves killing brown people with drones. Clinton takes money from the Saudis, we sell arms to them. That's just politics, surely.

But you are wrong in one sense to paint Trump as an unknown quantity, as if he' some kind of enigmatic maverick figure. But this isn't why we don't know what he'll do. The reason we don't know what he'll do is because his stupidity is unprecedented for someone in high office. And that was enough to convince many people to vote for the other candidate.

What would have stopped you choosing between two terrible options? Principle? Surely you just choose the least worst one?

Pokster

11-10-2016, 03:12 PM

Domestic policy kills too - welfare policy, for example. But we are more sentient to deaths caused by war because we see the consequences on the news every night. That doesn't necessarily make it rational.

Obama is considered to the left of Clinton, foreign policyistically, but loves killing brown people with drones. Clinton takes money from the Saudis, we sell arms to them. That's just politics, surely.

But you are wrong in one sense to paint Trump as an unknown quantity, as it he is some kind of enigmatic maverick figure. The only reason we don't know what he will do is because his stupidity is unprecedented for someone in high office. And that, for many, was enough to convince people to vote for the other candidate.

What would have stopped you choosing between two terrible options? Principle? Surely you just choose for the least worst one?

But how do you choose the least worst one when the choice seems to be being poked in the eye with a fork, or stabbed in the leg with a rusty knife.

One seems a loose cannon (on the face of it), the other seems corrupt and in it for her rather than the country

Pat Vegas

11-10-2016, 03:12 PM

Trump on ISIS: we should 'take their oil' and we should 'bomb the **** out of them'.

I'm struggling to reconcile these statements with your view of his foreign policy, if I'm honest, Ash.

Perhaps organisations such as Isis will no longer exist with Trump in charge. Not because he is going to wipe them out.
But maybe they will stop being funded/created.

Sir C

11-10-2016, 03:15 PM

Monty92

11-10-2016, 03:15 PM

Trump on ISIS: we should 'take their oil' and we should 'bomb the **** out of them'.

I'm struggling to reconcile these statements with your view of his foreign policy, if I'm honest, Ash.

I think Ash is offended by the calculated nature of Clinton's evil foreign policy decisions. He doesn't take Trump seriously because his pronouncements are full of machismo and it's very easy to almost laugh them off.

Except now he has to take him seriously.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 03:20 PM

But how do you choose the least worst one when the choice seems to be being poked in the eye with a fork, or stabbed in the leg with a rusty knife.

One seems a loose cannon (on the face of it), the other seems corrupt and in it for her rather than the country

If the calculation is between two people who might **** up the world (or continue ****ing up the world, in Clinton's case), and after reasoned analysis you decide that one of the two people is likely to **** up the world in a lesser way than the other, then it seems reasonable to vote for the one that you believe is likely to do the less damage.

This decision does not have to be made - CANNOT be made - with absolute certainty. But then that applies to most decisions in life.

Ash

11-10-2016, 03:25 PM

Trump on ISIS: we should 'take their oil' and we should 'bomb the **** out of them'.

I'm struggling to reconcile these statements with your view of his foreign policy, if I'm honest, Ash.

ISIS are attacking the West and subjecting the areas they control to barbarism, so bombing them is fair game imo, as the Russians are in Syria. Clinton wanted to threaten Russia to chase them out and leave Syria to ISIS & Al Nusra/Al Quaeda.

7sisters

11-10-2016, 03:26 PM

something along the lines of holding your children a little bit closer :hehe:

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 03:29 PM

If the calculation is between two people who might **** up the world (or continue ****ing up the world, in Clinton's case), and after reasoned analysis you decide that one of the two people is likely to **** up the world in a lesser way than the other, then it seems reasonable to vote for the one that you believe is likely to do the less damage.

This decision does not have to be made - CANNOT be made - with absolute certainty. But then that applies to most decisions in life.

I would have thought that in this scenario most sensible people would choose the lesser of two evils. It's hard for me to understand how someone could see Hillary as the greater evil. You may not like her, or agree with her, but are you really telling me she's more likely to do something insanely stupid than Trump?

I struggle with that view.

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 03:34 PM

ISIS are attacking the West and subjecting the areas they control to barbarism, so bombing them is fair game imo, as the Russians are in Syria. Clinton wanted to threaten Russia to chase them out and leave Syria to ISIS & Al Nusra/Al Quaeda.

That's missing the point. The US is already very actively engaged in the fight against ISIS and the current situation is improving.

Trump's uttering are what you would expect from an 8 year old or an illiterate imbecile. They don't really tell you anything other than that the person uttering them has no sensible view of the issue. So how could anyone vote for him?

Monty92

11-10-2016, 03:37 PM

I would have thought that in this scenario most sensible people would choose the lesser of two evils. It's hard for me to understand how someone could see Hillary as the greater evil. You may not like her, or agree with her, but are you really telling me she's more likely to do something insanely stupid than Trump?

I struggle with that view.

Yes, I think there's a pretty good argument to say that Clinton was the sensible choice for those who are risk-averse when it comes to the future security of the world.

But then again, it's also true that the world never changed because people hedged their bets. It changes by shaking things up. And in this respect, Trump was the obvious choice. And probably would have been for me were he not mentally ill and monumentally stupid.

The hugely respected historian Dan Carlin, who is quite liberal in many ways, pretty much endorsed voting for Trump (though said he was not voting himself).

Pokster

11-10-2016, 03:39 PM

That's missing the point. The US is already very actively engaged in the fight against ISIS and the current situation is improving.

Trump's uttering are what you would expect from an 8 year old or an illiterate imbecile. They don't really tell you anything other than that the person uttering them has no sensible view of the issue. So how could anyone vote for him?

Perhaps because HC is a corrupt serial liar who has bent the truth to create a wealth for her and her husband, she is part of the establishment that has failed the USA at home and abroad... so perhaps people had just had enough of her

Ash

11-10-2016, 03:49 PM

You may not like her, or agree with her, but are you really telling me she's more likely to do something insanely stupid than Trump?

Something as insanely stupid as starting a war against a nuclear power?

Burney

11-10-2016, 03:53 PM

Yes, I think there's a pretty good argument to say that Clinton was the sensible choice for those who are risk-averse when it comes to the future security of the world.

But then again, it's also true that the world never changed because people hedged their bets. It changes by shaking things up. And in this respect, Trump was the obvious choice. And probably would have been for me were he not mentally ill and monumentally stupid.

The hugely respected historian Dan Carlin, who is quite liberal in many ways, pretty much endorsed voting for Trump (though said he was not voting himself).

Point of order: I like Dan Carlin very much, but he is always at pains to point out that he is NOT a historian, but a 'fan of history'.

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 03:56 PM

Something as insanely stupid as starting a war against a nuclear power?

Yes, exactly that.

Burney

11-10-2016, 04:00 PM

Yes, I think there's a pretty good argument to say that Clinton was the sensible choice for those who are risk-averse when it comes to the future security of the world.

But then again, it's also true that the world never changed because people hedged their bets. It changes by shaking things up. And in this respect, Trump was the obvious choice. And probably would have been for me were he not mentally ill and monumentally stupid.

The hugely respected historian Dan Carlin, who is quite liberal in many ways, pretty much endorsed voting for Trump (though said he was not voting himself).

The thing is, though, that a more competent, sane and suitable candidate than the Donald wouldn't have been as appealing. His very unsuitability was rather the point.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 04:07 PM

The thing is, though, that a more competent, sane and suitable candidate than the Donald wouldn't have been as appealing. His very unsuitability was rather the point.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think any number of sane, competent right-leaning, straight-talking, anti-PC, non-establishment populists would have had the same appeal.

Burney

11-10-2016, 04:22 PM

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think any number of sane, competent right-leaning, straight-talking, anti-PC, non-establishment populists would have had the same appeal.

Don't think so, actually. Thing Trump was, the more grotesquely he behaved and spoke, the more people were determined to vote for him. Why? Precisely because he appalled and horrified the people his supporters hate. The very fact that he he appeared to have no filter - lying outrageously, saying appalling things and mocked sacred cows like the disabled and POWs - gave him his edge because they made the bien pensant liberals clutch their pearls. A more polished candidate wouldn't have been able to achieve that.

Monty92

11-10-2016, 04:37 PM

Don't think so, actually. Thing Trump was, the more grotesquely he behaved and spoke, the more people were determined to vote for him. Why? Precisely because he appalled and horrified the people his supporters hate. The very fact that he he appeared to have no filter - lying outrageously, saying appalling things and mocked sacred cows like the disabled and POWs - gave him his edge because they made the bien pensant liberals clutch their pearls. A more polished candidate wouldn't have been able to achieve that.

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

Ash

11-10-2016, 04:41 PM

And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

ISTR RickyG ticking a few of these boxes.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 04:41 PM

Burney

11-10-2016, 04:45 PM

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

But his crassness, vulgarity, and crude offensiveness and the outrage they caused are what cut through the noise of the primaries and got him the nomination. Without them, he'd have been just another punter with some weird views. And while much of his demographic may not recognise the phrase 'identity politics', they know what it is and they hate it and its advocates.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 04:47 PM

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

Not last year though, not when he began his campaign. Remember he had absolutely "no chance" to even get through the Primaries.

In the end, between The Feeb, Wikileaks and simply being Hillary, she was mortally wounded anyway, not least amongst her own supporters. Trump's methods made sure he was the last opponent standing when it came time to take advantage and he otherwise ran a great, ballsy campaign.

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 04:50 PM

But his crassness, vulgarity, and crude offensiveness and the outrage they caused are what cut through the noise of the primaries and got him the nomination. Without them, he'd have been just another punter with some weird views. And while much of his demographic may not recognise the phrase 'identity politics', they know what it is and they hate it and its advocates.

I don't agree that it was his crassness, vulgarity or offensiveness that got him the nomination. I think it was the fact that he wasn't a politician. Any highly successful businessman who rejected 'the establishment' would have sufficed, I think.

The fact that he's utterly vulgar held him back although, ultimately, not enough.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 04:53 PM

But his crassness, vulgarity, and crude offensiveness and the outrage they caused are what cut through the noise of the primaries and got him the nomination. Without them, he'd have been just another punter with some weird views. And while much of his demographic may not recognise the phrase 'identity politics', they know what it is and they hate it and its advocates.

Told you so, didn't I. The America what won it for him isn't interested in a' that ****e, except to say that it *is* ****e and the main reason they're in this ****e.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 04:57 PM

I don't agree that it was his crassness, vulgarity or offensiveness that got him the nomination. I think it was the fact that he wasn't a politician. Any highly successful businessman who rejected 'the establishment' would have sufficed, I think.

The fact that he's utterly vulgar held him back although, ultimately, not enough.

That was the banter of the thing though. The fact that he's a millionaire playboy business celebrity going back decades means he most certainly *is* establishment, so his behaviour was crucial in ensuring he alone avoided that charge.

World's End Stella

11-10-2016, 05:00 PM

That was the banter of the thing though. The fact that he's a millionaire playboy business celebrity going back decades means he most certainly *is* establishment, so his behaviour was crucial in ensuring he alone avoided that charge.

I should have said 'political establishment', as Trump is, ironically, about as 'establishment' as it gets.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 05:00 PM

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 05:04 PM

Trump's America is sick of foreign policy by this time. Much of it has no money and no future and kids to feed.

Again, that wouldn't be enough; this election has proved once and for all that they're all in it together. Politics, business, media, academia. Even government itself. And none of them give a damn about Trump's Forgotten People, who needed them to reject him as conformation that he was with *them*. If you follow me.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 05:17 PM

I think that his ability to upset liberals may have persuaded the likes of you and I to vote for him. But it wasn't the likes of you and I that got him elected. For the demographic that won it for him, phrases like "identity politics" mean absolutely nothing.

I think anyone who rocked up and gave it tough talk about immigration, terrorism and smashing the corrupt elites had a good chance of winning against Clinton. And they didn't necessarily need to be a dribbling, gratuitously offensive cretin who ridicules disabled journalists in public and admits to sexually assaulting women.

Anyway, you're forgetting that it's really only the *progressive* esatablishment that's been scattered to the four winds. The Republican party elite is in better and more powerful shape than it's been in a century.

eastgermanautos

11-10-2016, 08:33 PM

Anyway, you're forgetting that it's really only the *progressive* esatablishment that's been scattered to the four winds. The Republican party elite is in better and more powerful shape than it's been in a century.

I doubt that that's the case. The republicans do have a head of steam, and success breeds success. I think some sort of quasi-Apartheid system is what we'll get. It's a white minority looking to hold on to their ancient privileges. Kind of like South Africa. They'll set up some sort of Byzantine legal instrument for keeping minorities (now or else soon the majority of the population) in check. Thus will American sacrifice whatever moral equity it had banked in the 20th century. These things happen. Sh!t sucks. But yes, in response to your earlier post, Hillary did blow it. Somewhere -- in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, these sorts of places, they allowed the canker to grow, unchecked.

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 08:58 PM

I doubt that that's the case. The republicans do have a head of steam, and success breeds success. I think some sort of quasi-Apartheid system is what we'll get. It's a white minority looking to hold on to their ancient privileges. Kind of like South Africa. They'll set up some sort of Byzantine legal instrument for keeping minorities (now or else soon the majority of the population) in check. Thus will American sacrifice whatever moral equity it had banked in the 20th century. These things happen. Sh!t sucks. But yes, in response to your earlier post, Hillary did blow it. Somewhere -- in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, these sorts of places, they allowed the canker to grow, unchecked.

I know South Africa, some of my people are from down there. They've always made good money, done alright. A quasi-Apartheid system is what America's had for decades anyway. It's just that nobody cares to notice it, unless the pay is decent.

Real difference is, you guys are rich whereas South Africa is dirt poor. Trump's Americans never minded other people having money but they refused to tolerate being bantered off by so-called Elites trying to drown them while pretending to give them a bath, as the man said.

In a normal election they wouldn't have bothered, I think. Trump gave them a tangible reason to bother.

It's all a bit like Leicester City winning the league because their rivals underperform.

eastgermanautos

11-10-2016, 09:52 PM

I know South Africa, some of my people are from down there. They've always made good money, done alright. A quasi-Apartheid system is what America's had for decades anyway. It's just that nobody cares to notice it, unless the pay is decent.

Real difference is, you guys are rich whereas South Africa is dirt poor. Trump's Americans never minded other people having money but they refused to tolerate being bantered off by so-called Elites trying to drown them while pretending to give them a bath, as the man said.

In a normal election they wouldn't have bothered, I think. Trump gave them a tangible reason to bother.

It's all a bit like Leicester City winning the league because their rivals underperform.

This "we were already living in squalor, yet did not acknowledge it" argument is not really accurate. There's a huge divide in this country between the coasts and the flyovers. If you've been living on the coasts the past few years it's been fvcking great. Duddn't matter if you're white. brown, or yellow. The lumpens out there in the middle have been sucking on fumes all right. I thought we could keep them down for another four years, but apparently not...

redgunamo

11-10-2016, 11:31 PM

This "we were already living in squalor, yet did not acknowledge it" argument is not really accurate. There's a huge divide in this country between the coasts and the flyovers. If you've been living on the coasts the past few years it's been fvcking great. Duddn't matter if you're white. brown, or yellow. The lumpens out there in the middle have been sucking on fumes all right. I thought we could keep them down for another four years, but apparently not...

South Africa is lovely, only the parts they show on television could be called squalid. My teenage son's posh Paris apartment is far more seedy and unsalubrious. Call it a "huge divide", if you like.

The whole point about living in a civilised country like yours is no-one has to care who their government is (everybody can make their own way regardless), so most people you see don't actually mind one way or the other.

The wife and I spent part of the Summer in West Texas. Then up through Chicago and Detroit and back home through Maine. Meeting people, you know. Holidays. As the lady said, what difference, at this point, does it make. Well, now you know, it makes no difference at all, until a Donald Trump comes along.