I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Obvious problem is now so many companies business model is based upon being able to use Mexican labour e.g. Vizio Tv are designed in the US, components from China and assembled in Mexico...allowing them to compete on price and quality with the big players.
There is an important point here that should not get lost. Rural, or as they call it, small town America has been royally screwed but not just or even mainly by globalisation. Even if the rest of the world ceased to exist, they'd still have lost their shops to the web, and had already lost office jobs to the cities and factories to other states. Trump can't reverse that, and no-one else is trying.
I'm currently rereading a book I mentioned a few weeks back, The United States of Anger by Gavin Esler, I last read it when it was first published back in the 90s. Some of the issues it covers are less contentious now than they were, particularly the social ones; but the economic issues, and the view Americans have of their government seem to have got worse over the last 20 years. Anger that Trump is channeling has been bubbling away for decades now. If the political system in the US was more responsive it might have done something to abate that anger, but it didn't and instead a clownish outsider took advantage of it.
I don't expect Trump to fix anything, but I hope his victory will push Democrats and Republicans to assess where they went wrong, and to take action to address the issues that have enabled Trump to win.
So I think I'm right in saying that the Democrat has got the most votes in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections?
If this had been an AV election rather than FPTP I think Trump may have won the national popular vote through Johnson's preferences. Not to mention the GOP have now won more EC votes than any presidential election since 1988
And if it had been a straight election on the popular vote then Clinton would be President. What-ifs such as this don't matter; the key is that Americans haven't ended up with the President most of them voted for.
Stop whinging. U.S. elections are determined by the electoral college, Trump knew that and blitzed the swing states in the last few days doing 5 rallies a day while Clinton barely did 2 or 3, her campaign has nobody to blame but itself, in 2000 Gore campaigned round the clock until the end.
Her miniscule 0. 1% current lead in the popular vote is also significantly less than Gore's lead that year and she has significantly fewer EC votes than he got too. Finally as stated this year it is the Trump vote which has seen a third party take Republican votes in the form of the Libertarians and Johnson, in 2000 it was Gore who saw Democratic votes lost to Nader and the Greens
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
That's more or less what I said (or meant to say): she was the wrong woman.
But I disagree that the system is not stacked against women, particularly in the US. It is, or at least appears to be.
As for your last paragraph: agree to some degree: although there are perfectly sensible feminists (I would count Mrs J amongst them), the shrillest, most extreme ones are the ones who get media airtime.
But feminism should really become equalism: the idea that, as much as is feasible, people should be treated equally and subjected to the same rules and have the same opportunities, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Pick the best person for the job, regardless of such considerations.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
Bit late - just woke up! - but looks like the polling won't actually massively far off. NYT live tracker is currently predicting it'll end at Clinton +0.5 nationally, whereas the polls at the end of last week had it a 2 point race - before what looks like herding after that (in which case, a true average minus herding might have been near spot on).
Rasmussen and IBD look pretty good now, if you smooth out their polls they had it tied for a while.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
That's more or less what I said (or meant to say): she was the wrong woman.
But I disagree that the system is not stacked against women, particularly in the US. It is, or at least appears to be.
As for your last paragraph: agree to some degree: although there are perfectly sensible feminists (I would count Mrs J amongst them), the shrillest, most extreme ones are the ones who get media airtime.
But feminism should really become equalism: the idea that, as much as is feasible, people should be treated equally and subjected to the same rules and have the same opportunities, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Pick the best person for the job, regardless of such considerations.
Nail. On. The. Head.
Although, getting to that point requires a lot of serious policy content. So much easier to just say "America is great because America is good!".....
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Obvious problem is now so many companies business model is based upon being able to use Mexican labour e.g. Vizio Tv are designed in the US, components from China and assembled in Mexico...allowing them to compete on price and quality with the big players.
Yes, I think that's true. Companies like Vizio will struggle while Samsung and Sony who make their TVs in China will restore their manufacturing away from China back to SK and Japan. A huge dose of automation as well IMO for low margin manufacturing.
Bit late - just woke up! - but looks like the polling won't actually massively far off. NYT live tracker is currently predicting it'll end at Clinton +0.5 nationally, whereas the polls at the end of last week had it a 2 point race - before what looks like herding after that (in which case, a true average minus herding might have been near spot on).
NBC, Reuters and Monmouth had a particularly poor night whatever fraction of a percentage point Clinton leads the popular vote by
I see Trump got basically 30% of the Latino vote...
Just a thought, BBC had a piece with a Latino woman (whose parents came from Mexico), who was going to vote Trump because she was shit scared of the violence in Mexico spilling over into US. Be interesting to know that Trump saying lots of bad 'ombes in Mexico (in far worse language than that) didn't go down as quite badly as one would think.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Didn't Freddie Forsyth write a novel about just such an event? I think it was even called, "Icon" and published in the late 1990s.
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Of course, the funny bit is that the 10% repatriation tax he's proposing acts as an incentive to off-white manufacturing.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president. Putin is the tsar, with the symbols, icons and the church.
Jeez...5 dead, 50 injured and driver arrested in that crash.
Oh shit, that's not good. Either fell asleep or just missed the corner I guess.
To add to my previous, if it's happened where I think it's happened, the "corner" is a junction for the two main arms of the Tram Link network. The trams from Elmers End and Beckenham Junction meet the trams coming up from New Addington and all get funnelled down into Central Croydon.
The track used was once the line running from Elmers End to Selsdon which had a stop at Bingham Road - the turn and the track into Croydon was the result of the demolition of a number of houses along that side of the road in the late 90s. The road paralleling the track is the A232 which diverts left to go round Croydon town centre while the tram heads down into East Croydon.
The turn is sharp and has to be taken slowly and carefully - the obvious thought (too obvious perhaps) is the tram came into the turn too fast for whatever reason and overturned.
''Be interesting to know that Trump saying lots of bad 'ombes in Mexico (in far worse language than that) didn't go down as quite badly as one would think. ''
Its almost as if immigrants don;t want their new country to become like the country they left.
Will Richard Nabavi's bet with Ladbrokes, involving Trump winning between 21 - 30 States, just sneak in as a winner? Having appeared an absolute certainty throughout the contest, by my reckoning it now requires Hillary to win the cliffhanger in New Hampshire to restrict the Donald to winning the upper limit of 30 States.
Yes, that's right. I took a bit of insurance on NH just in case.
I see all those Californian can now spend the next 4 years legally getting whacked out of their brains on weed to forget about President Trump....
I think the issue for Trump is going to be what he will do when (rather than if) he does badly in the 2018 midterms and finds himself facing a Democrat Senate and perhaps even a Democrat House.
Pre trade suggests the DJIA will fall 250 points on opening rather than the 700 being touted overnight. It will probably send London lower again but certainly not the market turmoil many had envisaged on a Trump victory.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president. Putin is the tsar, with the symbols, icons and the church.
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Didn't Freddie Forsyth write a novel about just such an event? I think it was even called, "Icon" and published in the late 1990s.
Correct. I confess it's not an original idea of mine.
But it applies to several other places as well, I think.
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Of course, the funny bit is that the 10% repatriation tax he's proposing acts as an incentive to off-white manufacturing.
The trouble is that trade between the USA and Mexico really isn't that lop-sided. In 2015, Mexican imports totaled $295 billion but American imports the other way were $236 billion.
A tariff gets slapped on, Sony bolts off to China. In the meanwhile (to move off into hyperbole,) Iowa corn rots in the sweltering Midwestern sun.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president.
Indeed :-) Also extended the Presidential term from 4 to 6 years. Two terms 2000-2008 has thus been extended into 2000-2024, like some banana republic (and no doubt he'll do something similar in 2024).
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president. Putin is the tsar, with the symbols, icons and the church.
Putin did everything by the book constitutionally and his returning as President wasn't dependent on changing the constitution.
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
(From 2000) *innocent face*
I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife.
I see all those Californian can now spend the next 4 years legally getting whacked out of their brains on weed to forget about President Trump....
I think the issue for Trump is going to be what he will do when (rather than if) he does badly in the 2018 midterms and finds himself facing a Democrat Senate and perhaps even a Democrat House.
That problem starts now because he faces a Republican House, half of whose members are so extreme they will not even compromise with each other, and regard Trump as a renegade Democrat.
''I think the issue for Trump is going to be what he will do when (rather than if) he does badly in the 2018 midterms and finds himself facing a Democrat Senate and perhaps even a Democrat House.''
Good point, and one that anyone wailing about Armageddon would do well to bear in mind.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president. Putin is the tsar, with the symbols, icons and the church.
He's a demagogue, not a Tsar.
Vlad-im-ir Putin Lover of the Russian queen There was a cat that really was gone
Vlad-im-ir Putin Russia's greatest love machine It was a shame how he carried on
Bit late - just woke up! - but looks like the polling won't actually massively far off. NYT live tracker is currently predicting it'll end at Clinton +0.5 nationally, whereas the polls at the end of last week had it a 2 point race - before what looks like herding after that (in which case, a true average minus herding might have been near spot on).
Rasmussen and IBD look pretty good now, if you smooth out their polls they had it tied for a while.
it wasn't the national polling that was really bad it was state polling, especially many of the swing states.
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Of course, the funny bit is that the 10% repatriation tax he's proposing acts as an incentive to off-white manufacturing.
The trouble is that trade between the USA and Mexico really isn't that lop-sided. In 2015, Mexican imports totaled $295 billion but American imports the other way were $236 billion.
A tariff gets slapped on, Sony bolts off to China. In the meanwhile (to move off into hyperbole,) Iowa corn rots in the sweltering Midwestern sun.
It may be lop-sided by the time he takes office. The peso just took a huge dive...
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Of course, the funny bit is that the 10% repatriation tax he's proposing acts as an incentive to off-white manufacturing.
The trouble is that trade between the USA and Mexico really isn't that lop-sided. In 2015, Mexican imports totaled $295 billion but American imports the other way were $236 billion.
A tariff gets slapped on, Sony bolts off to China. In the meanwhile (to move off into hyperbole,) Iowa corn rots in the sweltering Midwestern sun.
It may be lop-sided by the time he takes office. The peso just took a huge dive...
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president. Putin is the tsar, with the symbols, icons and the church.
Putin did everything by the book constitutionally and his returning as President wasn't dependent on changing the constitution.
I think many people were shocked at the clenched fist, rather than open handshake extended to Russia post-Cold War.
It was a huge mis-step. If Trump can detoxify the situation, all well and good to him. My knowledge of Putin's aspirations are not sufficient to comment on what is currently happening in eg. Ukraine, but jaw-jaw has got to be better than war war.
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
(From 2000) *innocent face*
I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife.
Bit late - just woke up! - but looks like the polling won't actually massively far off. NYT live tracker is currently predicting it'll end at Clinton +0.5 nationally, whereas the polls at the end of last week had it a 2 point race - before what looks like herding after that (in which case, a true average minus herding might have been near spot on).
Rasmussen and IBD look pretty good now, if you smooth out their polls they had it tied for a while.
it wasn't the national polling that was really bad it was state polling, especially many of the swing states.
''I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife. ''
I reckon the US voters only want to really use Trump as an establishment wrecking ball. I'd be surprised if there's really much appetite for some of the crazier stuff.
I see Trump got basically 30% of the Latino vote...
Just a thought, BBC had a piece with a Latino woman (whose parents came from Mexico), who was going to vote Trump because she was shit scared of the violence in Mexico spilling over into US. Be interesting to know that Trump saying lots of bad 'ombes in Mexico (in far worse language than that) didn't go down as quite badly as one would think.
That means Trump needs an impossible 11.1% swing in the remaining towns to win it. As far as I can see his max in any single NH town has been 10%, so for him to do this in all the remaining ones is not going to happen.
I propose the Democracts start the Invasion project. A mere 2 million Californians dividing themselves into 20 100,000 person groups moving, pre-election, to a carefully designated swing states could secure for them the 2020 election.
I think it gives a sense of the enormity of what's happened that American liberals are now heaping more opprobrium upon Clinton and her underlings than on Donald Trump. This feels unprecedented. I can't remember, say, the Tories being that inflamed about Major in 1997.
This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
''I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife. ''
I reckon the US voters only want to really use Trump as an establishment wrecking ball. I'd be surprised if there's really much appetite for some of the crazier stuff.
Er I think they want him to deport 11 million immigrants like he promised and Muslim ban.
Here are the states where Clinton’s likely to beat Obama’s margin from 2012, according to current projections:
California Texas Utah Arizona Georgia Massachusetts Washington Kansas the District of Columbia
That means Trump needs an impossible 11.1% swing in the remaining towns to win it. As far as I can see his max in any single NH town has been 10%, so for him to do this in all the remaining ones is not going to happen.
Somehow I knew that PB wouldn't be too pleased with Merkel's comments. I think @JosiasJessop (once again) makes some very good points in regard to this.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
If Le Pen wins in France, I'll expect a celebratory mood on here too.
That means Trump needs an impossible 11.1% swing in the remaining towns to win it. As far as I can see his max in any single NH town has been 10%, so for him to do this in all the remaining ones is not going to happen.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Oh do be quiet. Which leader of a regional power with any miles on the clock isn't a liar, murderer or bully these days?
''I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife. ''
I reckon the US voters only want to really use Trump as an establishment wrecking ball. I'd be surprised if there's really much appetite for some of the crazier stuff.
This could be like 1976 when the Democrat southern Governor Carter defeated President Ford but that was a blip in a long period of Republican control of the White House from 1968 to 1992.
The allegations made against HRC aren't the same as Nixon's involvement in Watergate but left a smell of corruption around Washington politics that Carter was able to use to his advantage.
Just as a tangent, Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms as POTUS. Obama will be only 59 in 2020 (Trump will be 73 or 74 ?) - the children will be grown up. It may be people will look back on him with some affection especially if the Trump vision doesn't come to pass. Michelle Obama won't stand for it but it's a thought...
''I think the issue for Trump is going to be what he will do when (rather than if) he does badly in the 2018 midterms and finds himself facing a Democrat Senate and perhaps even a Democrat House.''
Good point, and one that anyone wailing about Armageddon would do well to bear in mind.
Quite. You can't f.. about with American constitution in the same way that you can with the British.
Somehow I knew that PB wouldn't be too pleased with Merkel's comments. I think @JosiasJessop (once again) makes some very good points in regard to this.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
If Le Pen wins in France, I'll expect a celebratory mood on here too.
@nunu Weren't LATimes predicting figure like 15%, 20% re the AA vote? I think they were pretty spot on in regard to the Latino vote though.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Didn't Freddie Forsyth write a novel about just such an event? I think it was even called, "Icon" and published in the late 1990s.
Correct. I confess it's not an original idea of mine.
But it applies to several other places as well, I think.
Thanks, Mr. Royale, It is nice to know that my memory hasn't rotted away completely.
Incidentally, I too am an ardent monarchist and have been for many years. In fact I believe the sooner that we get rid of the democracy nonsense the sooner we will return to good governance. Dante had it right.
I think it gives a sense of the enormity of what's happened that American liberals are now heaping more opprobrium upon Clinton and her underlings than on Donald Trump. This feels unprecedented. I can't remember, say, the Tories being that inflamed about Major in 1997.
This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
Yes, the Democrat establishment is finished but did Slate not notice Trump demolished the Republican establishment candidates as well, or were they too tied up with votecastr?
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
Of course, the funny bit is that the 10% repatriation tax he's proposing acts as an incentive to off-white manufacturing.
The trouble is that trade between the USA and Mexico really isn't that lop-sided. In 2015, Mexican imports totaled $295 billion but American imports the other way were $236 billion.
A tariff gets slapped on, Sony bolts off to China. In the meanwhile (to move off into hyperbole,) Iowa corn rots in the sweltering Midwestern sun.
It may be lop-sided by the time he takes office. The peso just took a huge dive...
That's the ironic cherry on the whole big ironic sundae. Because of a Trump victory, manufacturing in Mexico is now even cheaper.
This maybe an idea for a future thread, but isn't this result a golden opportunity for UKIP to tap into? All those WWC voters in Labour's northern heartlands are surely similar in thought and outlook to the WWC in America, and they have also been dismissed by the London leftist elite as 'racist'. Hillary Clinton is metropolitan London in human form. A Paul Nuttall could do some real and perhaps terminal damage to Labour in the North.
Slightly better odds on Trump >300 votes on Betfair (1.11) versus winning Michigan (1.08), even though they are the same bet at this point. Both still too long, fair price no longer than 1.02
I see Trump got basically 30% of the Latino vote...
Just a thought, BBC had a piece with a Latino woman (whose parents came from Mexico), who was going to vote Trump because she was shit scared of the violence in Mexico spilling over into US. Be interesting to know that Trump saying lots of bad 'ombes in Mexico (in far worse language than that) didn't go down as quite badly as one would think.
''I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife. ''
I reckon the US voters only want to really use Trump as an establishment wrecking ball. I'd be surprised if there's really much appetite for some of the crazier stuff.
This could be like 1976 when the Democrat southern Governor Carter defeated President Ford but that was a blip in a long period of Republican control of the White House from 1968 to 1992.
The allegations made against HRC aren't the same as Nixon's involvement in Watergate but left a smell of corruption around Washington politics that Carter was able to use to his advantage.
Just as a tangent, Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms as POTUS. Obama will be only 59 in 2020 (Trump will be 73 or 74 ?) - the children will be grown up. It may be people will look back on him with some affection especially if the Trump vision doesn't come to pass. Michelle Obama won't stand for it but it's a thought...
He's not allowed surely - no way will the constitution be amended to remove the term limits?
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
Some people here think it's terrible, some don't. That seems very balanced, after all 59 million Americans seem to think he was the better choice. I'm sure you can find other sites where you can converse only with people who agree with you.
F1: Magnussen to drive for Haas apparently. Suspect that means AN Other will be Hulkenberg's team mate at Renault. Be surprised if Palmer got the gig. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37920386
''I feel kinda sorry for Bill. In 2000, he saw his Veep fail to win the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Now, it's the same thing regarding his wife. ''
I reckon the US voters only want to really use Trump as an establishment wrecking ball. I'd be surprised if there's really much appetite for some of the crazier stuff.
This could be like 1976 when the Democrat southern Governor Carter defeated President Ford but that was a blip in a long period of Republican control of the White House from 1968 to 1992.
The allegations made against HRC aren't the same as Nixon's involvement in Watergate but left a smell of corruption around Washington politics that Carter was able to use to his advantage.
Just as a tangent, Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms as POTUS. Obama will be only 59 in 2020 (Trump will be 73 or 74 ?) - the children will be grown up. It may be people will look back on him with some affection especially if the Trump vision doesn't come to pass. Michelle Obama won't stand for it but it's a thought...
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
It perhaps better understands the reasons Trump won than most places online. And hey, it was the result of democracy working. The "little people" got to shake their fists at the system they despised. When can that be a bad thing?
And some on pb.com maybe look back to Reagan in 1980 and think "they said all this about Reagan then - it's the end of the world! - but that worked out OK."
I think it gives a sense of the enormity of what's happened that American liberals are now heaping more opprobrium upon Clinton and her underlings than on Donald Trump. This feels unprecedented. I can't remember, say, the Tories being that inflamed about Major in 1997.
This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
Excerpt: Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.
Somehow I knew that PB wouldn't be too pleased with Merkel's comments. I think @JosiasJessop (once again) makes some very good points in regard to this.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
If Le Pen wins in France, I'll expect a celebratory mood on here too.
@nunu Weren't LATimes predicting figure like 15%, 20% re the AA vote? I think they were pretty spot on in regard to the Latino vote though.
There were predicting 4.4% AA and 38.3% Latino Nationally, trying to use the Florida figure is cheating.
Also, the world is a lot bigger than 59 million Americans. And views online come from all parts of the world....
So just 59 million Americans and PB, is that your view? For someone who likes to criticise posters here you come across as peculiarly blinkered yourself.
That's more or less what I said (or meant to say): she was the wrong woman.
But I disagree that the system is not stacked against women, particularly in the US. It is, or at least appears to be.
As for your last paragraph: agree to some degree: although there are perfectly sensible feminists (I would count Mrs J amongst them), the shrillest, most extreme ones are the ones who get media airtime.
But feminism should really become equalism: the idea that, as much as is feasible, people should be treated equally and subjected to the same rules and have the same opportunities, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Pick the best person for the job, regardless of such considerations.
FWIW Regina's view is that Hillary was an odd choice for a feminist icon. She got where she was (or at least was perceived to) because of what her husband did, and turned a blind eye while he was dicking bimbos instead of throwing the bastard out on his ear and stripping the hide of his back in the divorce courts. Her Majesty adds that it's no wonder more women than expected voted for Trump. They felt they could deal with a serial groper but wouldn't vote a woman with so little self-respect.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
It perhaps better understands the reasons Trump won than most places online. And hey, it was the result of democracy working. The "little people" got to shake their fists at the system they despised. When can that be a bad thing?
And some on pb.com maybe look back to Reagan in 1980 and think "they said all this about Reagan then - it's the end of the world! - but that worked out OK."
I think there's understanding why he's won, and there's actively seeming to sympathise with Trump's agenda (like Plato does, for example).
There seems to be this idea that because Trump's victory was a fair and democratic one, somehow you can't have a negative opinion on it. If that's the case, I assume many Conservatives on here have never had negative opinions Labour GE victories? Afterall, it's democracy working
On Regan, was he a racist? Was he a misogynist? If so, I would never compare him with Trump. Even George W Bush is better than Trump.
Also, the world is a lot bigger than 59 million Americans. And views online come from all parts of the world....
So just 59 million Americans and PB, is that your view? For someone who likes to criticise posters here you come across as peculiarly blinkered yourself.
Trump needs to kick the special prosecutor nonsense for Hillary into the long grass. Winning and on the platform he did is going to make a lot of enemies, you don't want to be adding this into the mix.
Somehow I knew that PB wouldn't be too pleased with Merkel's comments. I think @JosiasJessop (once again) makes some very good points in regard to this.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
If Le Pen wins in France, I'll expect a celebratory mood on here too.
Merkel is a fool and she's going to get ousted next year, not by AfD, but because she'll have to go to the Greens or FDP with her begging bowl and they will ask for her head.
You are mistaking people counting their winnings with happiness over Trump. Very few are happy that Trump won, but many hedged with big bets on him winning so at least we would do well in that instance.
On Le Pen, I doubt it. Some might be but most will be very concerned about such a development.
As always, you lefties are completely missing the point if what's happened. The WWC are rebelling against the settled liberal agenda, how do we reverse that, is it possible, and what do to ensure that everyone benefits from globalisation and not just migrants looking to boost their personal wealth at the expense of local people and the very rich who benefit from lower wage costs in their businesses and investments.
Trump needs to kick the special prosecutor nonsense for Hillary into the long grass. Winning and on the platform he did is going to make a lot of enemies, you don't want to be adding this into the mix.
Especially given that the Trump University case is incoming
Trump needs to kick the special prosecutor nonsense for Hillary into the long grass. Winning and on the platform he did is going to make a lot of enemies, you don't want to be adding this into the mix.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
It perhaps better understands the reasons Trump won than most places online. And hey, it was the result of democracy working. The "little people" got to shake their fists at the system they despised. When can that be a bad thing?
And some on pb.com maybe look back to Reagan in 1980 and think "they said all this about Reagan then - it's the end of the world! - but that worked out OK."
I think there's understanding why he's won, and there's actively seeming to sympathise with Trump's agenda (like Plato does, for example).
There seems to be this idea that because Trump's victory was a fair and democratic one, somehow you can't have a negative opinion on it. If that's the case, I assume many Conservatives on here have never had negative opinions Labour GE victories? Afterall, it's democracy working
On Regan, was he a racist? Was he a misogynist? If so, I would never compare him with Trump. Even George W Bush is better than Trump.
Tories lose elections to Labour (or at least, did). We don't proclaim the End of All Human Decency as a result. Just knuckle down to overturn it next time....
Comments
I don't expect Trump to fix anything, but I hope his victory will push Democrats and Republicans to assess where they went wrong, and to take action to address the issues that have enabled Trump to win.
Her miniscule 0. 1% current lead in the popular vote is also significantly less than Gore's lead that year and she has significantly fewer EC votes than he got too. Finally as stated this year it is the Trump vote which has seen a third party take Republican votes in the form of the Libertarians and Johnson, in 2000 it was Gore who saw Democratic votes lost to Nader and the Greens
But I disagree that the system is not stacked against women, particularly in the US. It is, or at least appears to be.
As for your last paragraph: agree to some degree: although there are perfectly sensible feminists (I would count Mrs J amongst them), the shrillest, most extreme ones are the ones who get media airtime.
But feminism should really become equalism: the idea that, as much as is feasible, people should be treated equally and subjected to the same rules and have the same opportunities, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Pick the best person for the job, regardless of such considerations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqVih7IFlI
Rasmussen and IBD look pretty good now, if you smooth out their polls they had it tied for a while.
I'm sure she'll say yes my good man!!
Although, getting to that point requires a lot of serious policy content. So much easier to just say "America is great because America is good!".....
Due to it, the new trains are probably going to be slower than the existing ones, at least for part of the journey, restricting capacity.
Just a thought, BBC had a piece with a Latino woman (whose parents came from Mexico), who was going to vote Trump because she was shit scared of the violence in Mexico spilling over into US. Be interesting to know that Trump saying lots of bad 'ombes in Mexico (in far worse language than that) didn't go down as quite badly as one would think.
The track used was once the line running from Elmers End to Selsdon which had a stop at Bingham Road - the turn and the track into Croydon was the result of the demolition of a number of houses along that side of the road in the late 90s. The road paralleling the track is the A232 which diverts left to go round Croydon town centre while the tram heads down into East Croydon.
The turn is sharp and has to be taken slowly and carefully - the obvious thought (too obvious perhaps) is the tram came into the turn too fast for whatever reason and overturned.
Its almost as if immigrants don;t want their new country to become like the country they left.
Easton and Litchfield now in on NYT
http://patch.com/new-hampshire/milford-nh/trump-wins-milford
Trump wins Milford by 34.
Keene results apparently 7932 to 3831. That's a lead of 4,101 https://twitter.com/MFoleyKS/status/796211538776489984
This puts Clinton ahead by 2,101 votes in the state
Remaining votes are ~13,000, Trump needs 58.2%, a swing of 10.1% compared to Romney.
That is NOT going to happen. Back heavily.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-calls-for-end-to-electoral-college/
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
(From 2000) *innocent face*
But it applies to several other places as well, I think.
A tariff gets slapped on, Sony bolts off to China. In the meanwhile (to move off into hyperbole,) Iowa corn rots in the sweltering Midwestern sun.
The long nightmare is over, I've basically broken even.
Good point, and one that anyone wailing about Armageddon would do well to bear in mind.
Lover of the Russian queen
There was a cat that really was gone
Vlad-im-ir Putin
Russia's greatest love machine
It was a shame how he carried on
New Hampshire still yet to be called????
It was a huge mis-step. If Trump can detoxify the situation, all well and good to him. My knowledge of Putin's aspirations are not sufficient to comment on what is currently happening in eg. Ukraine, but jaw-jaw has got to be better than war war.
I reckon the US voters only want to really use Trump as an establishment wrecking ball. I'd be surprised if there's really much appetite for some of the crazier stuff.
~11,330 votes remaining, Clinton leading by 2144.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire
That means Trump needs an impossible 11.1% swing in the remaining towns to win it. As far as I can see his max in any single NH town has been 10%, so for him to do this in all the remaining ones is not going to happen.
Clinton should be around 1.01.
This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html
Here are the states where Clinton’s likely to beat Obama’s margin from 2012, according to current projections:
California
Texas
Utah
Arizona
Georgia
Massachusetts
Washington
Kansas
the District of Columbia
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
If Le Pen wins in France, I'll expect a celebratory mood on here too.
The allegations made against HRC aren't the same as Nixon's involvement in Watergate but left a smell of corruption around Washington politics that Carter was able to use to his advantage.
Just as a tangent, Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms as POTUS. Obama will be only 59 in 2020 (Trump will be 73 or 74 ?) - the children will be grown up. It may be people will look back on him with some affection especially if the Trump vision doesn't come to pass. Michelle Obama won't stand for it but it's a thought...
Incidentally, I too am an ardent monarchist and have been for many years. In fact I believe the sooner that we get rid of the democracy nonsense the sooner we will return to good governance. Dante had it right.
Milford
Surry
Sutton
Orford
New Castle
Loudon
Nottingham
Washington
F1: Magnussen to drive for Haas apparently. Suspect that means AN Other will be Hulkenberg's team mate at Renault. Be surprised if Palmer got the gig.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37920386
And some on pb.com maybe look back to Reagan in 1980 and think "they said all this about Reagan then - it's the end of the world! - but that worked out OK."
Ours was Brexit
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
Excerpt:
Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.
Edit: I know now is not the time for excerpts...
Also, the world is a lot bigger than 59 million Americans. And views online come from all parts of the world....
That's more or less what I said (or meant to say): she was the wrong woman.
But I disagree that the system is not stacked against women, particularly in the US. It is, or at least appears to be.
As for your last paragraph: agree to some degree: although there are perfectly sensible feminists (I would count Mrs J amongst them), the shrillest, most extreme ones are the ones who get media airtime.
But feminism should really become equalism: the idea that, as much as is feasible, people should be treated equally and subjected to the same rules and have the same opportunities, regardless of gender, race, etc.
Pick the best person for the job, regardless of such considerations.
FWIW Regina's view is that Hillary was an odd choice for a feminist icon. She got where she was (or at least was perceived to) because of what her husband did, and turned a blind eye while he was dicking bimbos instead of throwing the bastard out on his ear and stripping the hide of his back in the divorce courts. Her Majesty adds that it's no wonder more women than expected voted for Trump. They felt they could deal with a serial groper but wouldn't vote a woman with so little self-respect.
As it happens, I'm firmly in the 'terrible' camp. But that doesn't mean I have to regard those who aren't as deplorable or even necessarily wrong.
There seems to be this idea that because Trump's victory was a fair and democratic one, somehow you can't have a negative opinion on it. If that's the case, I assume many Conservatives on here have never had negative opinions Labour GE victories? Afterall, it's democracy working
On Regan, was he a racist? Was he a misogynist? If so, I would never compare him with Trump. Even George W Bush is better than Trump.
You are mistaking people counting their winnings with happiness over Trump. Very few are happy that Trump won, but many hedged with big bets on him winning so at least we would do well in that instance.
On Le Pen, I doubt it. Some might be but most will be very concerned about such a development.
As always, you lefties are completely missing the point if what's happened. The WWC are rebelling against the settled liberal agenda, how do we reverse that, is it possible, and what do to ensure that everyone benefits from globalisation and not just migrants looking to boost their personal wealth at the expense of local people and the very rich who benefit from lower wage costs in their businesses and investments.