If people REALLY believe that they get more credible news from Breitbart and the Canary, the more traditional media sources have got to work on their PR. It's absolute nonsense. Having said that, certain outlets really need to be highlighted as needing work. Fox News and C4 News have very clear agendas which are surely only being consumed by people who either nod along or laugh. I think that the BBC gets attacked from all sides so must be doing something right, even if most of their staff are broadly centre-left so have that slight in-built view. I generally trust most of what I see on the BBC or Sky News even if I want to throw things at the telly whenever Kay Burley is on location.
Should have been Biden. No way would he have lost Penn and Michigan.
'Should have been' means what exactly? It costs a billion dollars to run for president. The fucking machine decides who their drone is each time round. Hillary was the ultimate establishment insider machine drone. the system got what it wanted. But the system has been inured for so long to the people that it forgot what they might vote for. The shock of this election is not at all Trump's personal qualities. It is that a non-machine non-establishment non-drone forced his way rudely onto the ticket and into the White House. That is NOT supposed to happen. It's NOT what Goldman Sachs are paying for. They'll be very annoyed.
The ticket price for a Clinton speech fell off a cliff yesterday.
TrumpHitler won because WhiteHitlers imposed their fascism on Jewmerica.
Mildly amused by the apparently widespread protests. Reminiscent of those here when the Conservatives won the last election. Or the views of some fringe Remain voters, who think democracy only counts when it agrees with them.
TrumpHitler won because WhiteHitlers imposed their fascism on Jewmerica.
Mildly amused by the apparently widespread protests. Reminiscent of those here when the Conservatives won the last election. Or the views of some fringe Remain voters, who think democracy only counts when it agrees with them.
They've been caught pre-booking charter buses to bring protesters in just in time for the news broadcasts. This is as spontaneous as a Unite march.
Could Alt short for the German Alte, meaning old? I know I'm old, I'm also righty-wingy in my outlook. So maybe the phrase is right-on.
I think it's from the Alt key on keyboards? - giving a different result from the same accompanying key.
Afaik it's a direct lift from Alt Country (alternative country music) which I guess may have more resonances than just the literal appropriation - the reinvigoration of a moribund and exhausted form etc.
The Alt Right combine the social policies of George Wallace with the economic and foreign policies of George McGovern.
Synthesisation is everywhere. Putting it crudely, Alt Country combines old school country (Hank Williams, Carters etc) and punk sensibility.
I've spotted a meme on the Twitter feeds of leftish friends - "I give up, I don't understand people." My unspoken response is "that's correct. If only you had had that insight twenty years ago..."
They're talking bollocks. More people voted Clinton.
Even more people voted for Trump + Johnson
It is an incredibly simplistic view to assume a Johnson voter is a lapsed Republican.
A Johnson voter backs small government and lower taxes, they are certainly not lapsed Hillary voters
Johnson took NOTA votes, some of which were certainly Dem voters ubenthused by Hillary
True but has any one seen any polling breakdown of how the Johnson votes split between Trump, Clinton and Other?
@nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.
yep, that is what is scary. But labour are hopeless (as are the democrats in the US). Both wings of the party, and the problem currently is that they are to bound up in bonkers and insane identity politics, human rights, and fucking absolutely clueless about how to manage immigration as a political issue.
I don't think we are going to agree on identity politics and human rights. As it is I think all politicians of various stripes don't know how to deal with the issue of immigration. As long as globalisation continues in the way it has, mass immigration feels inevitable. And I think many politicians don't know how to confront that.
Correct. A hardcore want it stopped completely, and for now the politicians can ignore those. A hardcore don't care at all. They are being ignored now, but were given disproportionate attention previously. The rest of the population are on a scale of concern, and politicians have the unenviable task of knowing they need to do something, but it's unclear how much control will satisfy how many people, and is it even possible to the extent it is wanted.
I don't see that uncontrolled immigration is inevitable. What is inevitable I global population growth as living standards improve.
No, as per my previous post. Global population is slowly reducing and will halt within the lifetimes of current young adults.
You have the effect the wrong way round in any case - higher living standards reduce population growth.
Trump is transactional. He does deals and will say whatever is necessary to close them. He will then renege on the terms if that's what suits him. Trump said what he had to say to get to the White House. He will now disappoint a lot of people and probably won't stand again in 2020.
When has a president ever left the White House of his own accord? This one's a megalomaniac narcissist. And he just won numerous battles against the odds, so even if it's hopeless he'll convince himself that he'll somehow come through it. If he's still alive in 2020, he'll stand.
I suspect you are both right. He'll disappoint a lot of people but he'll convince himself he's done a good job and stand again.
How he'd get on against a sensible woman with a practical leftist programme is another matter. One term Presidents aren't unknown.
Miss Plato, it's stupid, not just because it's wrong but also because there are issues with what Trump has said. But he's not Hitler. When attacks/complaints are over the top they dilute the impact of genuine criticism.
Should have been Biden. No way would he have lost Penn and Michigan.
'Should have been' means what exactly? It costs a billion dollars to run for president. The fucking machine decides who their drone is each time round. Hillary was the ultimate establishment insider machine drone. the system got what it wanted. But the system has been inured for so long to the people that it forgot what they might vote for. The shock of this election is not at all Trump's personal qualities. It is that a non-machine non-establishment non-drone forced his way rudely onto the ticket and into the White House. That is NOT supposed to happen. It's NOT what Goldman Sachs are paying for. They'll be very annoyed.
Jeb dispatched handily in the primaries and Clinton smacked in the General. There'll be some companies that funded and backed both heavily.
Watching some bits and pieces of late night US "comedy" talks shows, obviously a lot of hate at Trump, but also a lot of hate at people who voted for him....its the thick white racist line, like Brexit again.
Trump, is fair game, people who voted (and we know a significant number of Latinos and Asians did as well as educated white women) are not...rather perhaps they should try to understand why they voted for Trump and / or people didn't vote Clinton.
Like Brexit, yes those that are really racist voted that way, but a lot of normal folk who aren't did as well.
Trump, is fair game, people who voted (and we know a significant number of Latinos and Asians did as well as educated white women) are not...rather perhaps they should try to understand why they voted for Trump and / or people didn't vote Clinton.
Of course you should try to understand why they voted for Trump - that's one of the things we've been talking about in this thread. But let's not infantilize the voters. Actions have consequences, and people are responsible for their actions. Some very bad things are likely to happen, and it's their fault.
A quick point on EC v PV. If the president was determined by the popular vote, people should not assume that Hillary would have won. If the US changed the system, the whole dynamic of the vote would change. There must be a lot of people who don't bother to vote as they live in safe states. Historically, the Left have always liked to assume that the non-voters are their people, but as we saw with Brexit, a popular vote might actually have worked to Trump's advantage.
Only half the story surely Johnson +3m needs investigation. Where did he gain votes?
My guess is that Trump gains WWC votes in the rust belt and lost them to Johnson in the OC and other locations where it didn't matter.
If Trump is relatively sensible for 4 years those votes could come back for him (or Pence) so the popular vote is less significant than you might think.
"Trump is relatively sensible" - that's not a phrase you see used very often. Maybe Trump is a clever guy who did 'what he had to do to get elected' and will govern sensibly - is that the art of the deal? I somehow doubt it.
Trump is transactional. He does deals and will say whatever is necessary to close them. He will then renege on the terms if that's what suits him. Trump said what he had to say to get to the White House. He will now disappoint a lot of people and probably won't stand again in 2020.
The arguments of what Trump will do once in office is futile. The answer is that nobody knows what path he will take. The first 100 hours will tell us, we wont have to wait for the first 100 days to find out.
When is Hillary moving into the Ecuadorian embassy?
In all seriousness - after what I've seen during this campaign and what's come out of Wikileaks, I'm beginning to wonder if Assange is the victim of an organised campaign re the sex allegations.
I've disliked him for years and thought he was just awful. For me to begin to think that maybe I swallowed a load of BS is troubling on many levels.
Well, given he has brought down the forces against him he'll have no problem going to Sweden to stand trial and clear his name then?
Yep, we should see Assange leaving the Ecuadorian embassy shortly, shouldn't we?
I bloody well hope so. All I want to know is who to send the surveillance bill to.
A quick point on EC v PV. If the president was determined by the popular vote, people should not assume that Hillary would have won. If the US changed the system, the whole dynamic of the vote would change. There must be a lot of people who don't bother to vote as they live in safe states. Historically, the Left have always liked to assume that the non-voters are their people, but as we saw with Brexit, a popular vote might actually have worked to Trump's advantage.
A quick point on EC v PV. If the president was determined by the popular vote, people should not assume that Hillary would have won. If the US changed the system, the whole dynamic of the vote would change. There must be a lot of people who don't bother to vote as they live in safe states. Historically, the Left have always liked to assume that the non-voters are their people, but as we saw with Brexit, a popular vote might actually have worked to Trump's advantage.
... and might not.
No, but people shouldn't get too upset about Clinton winning the PV but losing the election. Trump played to win the EC (even if he didn't like it!) and won. And that's all that matters.
'Of course, when you think about it, it was inevitable, says some smart-arsed twat
THE election of Donald Trump was inevitable and obvious, according to some smug, smart-arsed twat.
The twat, Martin Bishop, used words including ‘disenfranchised’, ‘swamped’ and ‘angry’ to bolster an argument which was later described as ‘obvious’ and ‘rubbish’.
Bishop said: “White working class, ignored, globalisation, elite.”
He added: “Politics of emotion, social media, ignored, globalised, ignored, elites, ignored, ignored, ignored. This doesn’t really affect me.”
But Professor Henry Brubaker, from the Institute for Studies, said: “It’s because Hillary Clinton was a shit candidate.
Trump, is fair game, people who voted (and we know a significant number of Latinos and Asians did as well as educated white women) are not...rather perhaps they should try to understand why they voted for Trump and / or people didn't vote Clinton.
Of course you should try to understand why they voted for Trump - that's one of the things we've been talking about in this thread. But let's not infantilize the voters. Actions have consequences, and people are responsible for their actions. Some very bad things are likely to happen, and it's their fault.
I think that is the wrong approach i.e blaming people for voting one way or another, because you think it is wrong or will cause bad things.
1) They have no right of reply.
2) They have been presented with a limited choice of options. Brexit, was yes or no, not well I would like this to change but to stay as part of single market. POTUS was a giant douche vs a turd sandwich.
3) It reinforces their attitude / position e.g. Cameron "Little Englander" comment was probably one of the worst things he could have said. I know a lot of people who said well I was on the fence then he basically called me a racist, a) screw him and b) is that the best argument he can put up for staying.
Only half the story surely Johnson +3m needs investigation. Where did he gain votes?
My guess is that Trump gains WWC votes in the rust belt and lost them to Johnson in the OC and other locations where it didn't matter.
If Trump is relatively sensible for 4 years those votes could come back for him (or Pence) so the popular vote is less significant than you might think.
"Trump is relatively sensible" - that's not a phrase you see used very often. Maybe Trump is a clever guy who did 'what he had to do to get elected' and will govern sensibly - is that the art of the deal? I somehow doubt it.
Trump is transactional. He does deals and will say whatever is necessary to close them. He will then renege on the terms if that's what suits him. Trump said what he had to say to get to the White House. He will now disappoint a lot of people and probably won't stand again in 2020.
The arguments of what Trump will do once in office is futile. The answer is that nobody knows what path he will take. The first 100 hours will tell us, we wont have to wait for the first 100 days to find out.
When is Hillary moving into the Ecuadorian embassy?
In all seriousness - after what I've seen during this campaign and what's come out of Wikileaks, I'm beginning to wonder if Assange is the victim of an organised campaign re the sex allegations.
I've disliked him for years and thought he was just awful. For me to begin to think that maybe I swallowed a load of BS is troubling on many levels.
Well, given he has brought down the forces against him he'll have no problem going to Sweden to stand trial and clear his name then?
Yep, we should see Assange leaving the Ecuadorian embassy shortly, shouldn't we?
I bloody well hope so. All I want to know is who to send the surveillance bill to.
Speaking of which, GCHQ intercepts all kinds of communications that the US aren't allowed to intercept under their constitution, then sends them to the US. A few months from now they'll be sending them to President Trump, who pursues all kinds of personal vendettas and threatened to jail his political opponent.
Does everybody in Britain think that's OK? Does anybody in the Labour Party think maybe it might be the kind of thing that would justify waking Jeremy Corbyn up from his extended snooze?
Only half the story surely Johnson +3m needs investigation. Where did he gain votes?
My guess is that Trump gains WWC votes in the rust belt and lost them to Johnson in the OC and other locations where it didn't matter.
If Trump is relatively sensible for 4 years those votes could come back for him (or Pence) so the popular vote is less significant than you might think.
"Trump is relatively sensible" - that's not a phrase you see used very often. Maybe Trump is a clever guy who did 'what he had to do to get elected' and will govern sensibly - is that the art of the deal? I somehow doubt it.
Trump is transactional. He does deals and will say whatever is necessary to close them. He will then renege on the terms if that's what suits him. Trump said what he had to say to get to the White House. He will now disappoint a lot of people and probably won't stand again in 2020.
The arguments of what Trump will do once in office is futile. The answer is that nobody knows what path he will take. The first 100 hours will tell us, we wont have to wait for the first 100 days to find out.
When is Hillary moving into the Ecuadorian embassy?
In all seriousness - after what I've seen during this campaign and what's come out of Wikileaks, I'm beginning to wonder if Assange is the victim of an organised campaign re the sex allegations.
I've disliked him for years and thought he was just awful. For me to begin to think that maybe I swallowed a load of BS is troubling on many levels.
Well, given he has brought down the forces against him he'll have no problem going to Sweden to stand trial and clear his name then?
Yep, we should see Assange leaving the Ecuadorian embassy shortly, shouldn't we?
I bloody well hope so. All I want to know is who to send the surveillance bill to.
Speaking of which, GCHQ intercepts all kinds of communications that the US aren't allowed to intercept under their constitution, then sends them to the US. A few months from now they'll be sending them to President Trump, who pursues all kinds of personal vendettas and threatened to jail his political opponent.
Does everybody in Britain think that's OK? Does anybody in the Labour Party think maybe it might be the kind of thing that would justify waking Jeremy Corbyn up from his extended snooze?
If people REALLY believe that they get more credible news from Breitbart and the Canary, the more traditional media sources have got to work on their PR. It's absolute nonsense. Having said that, certain outlets really need to be highlighted as needing work. Fox News and C4 News have very clear agendas which are surely only being consumed by people who either nod along or laugh. I think that the BBC gets attacked from all sides so must be doing something right, even if most of their staff are broadly centre-left so have that slight in-built view. I generally trust most of what I see on the BBC or Sky News even if I want to throw things at the telly whenever Kay Burley is on location.
Can you show me the left-wing equivalent of biasedbbc.org?
Should have been Biden. No way would he have lost Penn and Michigan.
'Should have been' means what exactly? It costs a billion dollars to run for president. The fucking machine decides who their drone is each time round. Hillary was the ultimate establishment insider machine drone. the system got what it wanted. But the system has been inured for so long to the people that it forgot what they might vote for. The shock of this election is not at all Trump's personal qualities. It is that a non-machine non-establishment non-drone forced his way rudely onto the ticket and into the White House. That is NOT supposed to happen. It's NOT what Goldman Sachs are paying for. They'll be very annoyed.
Jeb dispatched handily in the primaries and Clinton smacked in the General. There'll be some companies that funded and backed both heavily.
LOL
They may also have been the ones backing Rubio and Remain on BF!
I do find it funny that people get it NOW. Suddenly the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" BS rings hollow when the opposing side, and a particularly awful candidate, is about to take the levers of power.
Also given that a lot of intercepted data is retained it is not only the next candidate you need to worry about, but all conceivable candidates.
Trump is transactional. He does deals and will say whatever is necessary to close them. He will then renege on the terms if that's what suits him. Trump said what he had to say to get to the White House. He will now disappoint a lot of people and probably won't stand again in 2020.
The arguments of what Trump will do once in office is futile. The answer is that nobody knows what path he will take. The first 100 hours will tell us, we wont have to wait for the first 100 days to find out.
When is Hillary moving into the Ecuadorian embassy?
In all seriousness - after what I've seen during this campaign and what's come out of Wikileaks, I'm beginning to wonder if Assange is the victim of an organised campaign re the sex allegations.
I've disliked him for years and thought he was just awful. For me to begin to think that maybe I swallowed a load of BS is troubling on many levels.
Well, given he has brought down the forces against him he'll have no problem going to Sweden to stand trial and clear his name then?
Yep, we should see Assange leaving the Ecuadorian embassy shortly, shouldn't we?
I bloody well hope so. All I want to know is who to send the surveillance bill to.
Speaking of which, GCHQ intercepts all kinds of communications that the US aren't allowed to intercept under their constitution, then sends them to the US. A few months from now they'll be sending them to President Trump, who pursues all kinds of personal vendettas and threatened to jail his political opponent.
Does everybody in Britain think that's OK? Does anybody in the Labour Party think maybe it might be the kind of thing that would justify waking Jeremy Corbyn up from his extended snooze?
He threatened to jail Hillary because he suspects she has been committing criminal offences. There is no reason a presidential candidate should be above the law. The FBI didn't clear her, it just didn't recommend prosecution.
I do find it funny that people get it NOW. Suddenly the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" BS rings hollow when the opposing side, and a particularly awful candidate, is about to take the levers of power.
You'd think they would but I haven't yet seen any sign that the people who didn't get it before now get it.
Boston Bobblehead This is either the World's worst acting or the FUNNIEST THING I have Evah seen! Haha! ::Deep Breath:: BWAHAHAHA! https://t.co/kobP3IvNbF
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Colum Eastwood is behaving like a Twitter celebrity, rather than the leader of a political party. It was daft enough stamping his wee foot while Trump was an unlikely candidate. It's just ridiculous now he's President-elect.
Should have been Biden. No way would he have lost Penn and Michigan.
'Should have been' means what exactly? It costs a billion dollars to run for president. The fucking machine decides who their drone is each time round. Hillary was the ultimate establishment insider machine drone. the system got what it wanted. But the system has been inured for so long to the people that it forgot what they might vote for. The shock of this election is not at all Trump's personal qualities. It is that a non-machine non-establishment non-drone forced his way rudely onto the ticket and into the White House. That is NOT supposed to happen. It's NOT what Goldman Sachs are paying for. They'll be very annoyed.
Jeb dispatched handily in the primaries and Clinton smacked in the General. There'll be some companies that funded and backed both heavily.
LOL
They may also have been the ones backing Rubio and Remain on BF!
This year wasn't all bad. I laid so much Bush it was unreal.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Watching some bits and pieces of late night US "comedy" talks shows, obviously a lot of hate at Trump, but also a lot of hate at people who voted for him....its the thick white racist line, like Brexit again.
Trump, is fair game, people who voted (and we know a significant number of Latinos and Asians did as well as educated white women) are not...rather perhaps they should try to understand why they voted for Trump and / or people didn't vote Clinton.
Like Brexit, yes those that are really racist voted that way, but a lot of normal folk who aren't did as well.
They have four years to get over it and do the analysis. The problem we have with Brexit is too many people who should be working on helping get a good deal for Britain having lost, are still pushing to get the vote ignored as we walk to the wall.
'Of course, when you think about it, it was inevitable, says some smart-arsed twat
THE election of Donald Trump was inevitable and obvious, according to some smug, smart-arsed twat.
The twat, Martin Bishop, used words including ‘disenfranchised’, ‘swamped’ and ‘angry’ to bolster an argument which was later described as ‘obvious’ and ‘rubbish’.
Bishop said: “White working class, ignored, globalisation, elite.”
He added: “Politics of emotion, social media, ignored, globalised, ignored, elites, ignored, ignored, ignored. This doesn’t really affect me.”
But Professor Henry Brubaker, from the Institute for Studies, said: “It’s because Hillary Clinton was a shit candidate.
If people REALLY believe that they get more credible news from Breitbart and the Canary, the more traditional media sources have got to work on their PR. It's absolute nonsense. Having said that, certain outlets really need to be highlighted as needing work. Fox News and C4 News have very clear agendas which are surely only being consumed by people who either nod along or laugh. I think that the BBC gets attacked from all sides so must be doing something right, even if most of their staff are broadly centre-left so have that slight in-built view. I generally trust most of what I see on the BBC or Sky News even if I want to throw things at the telly whenever Kay Burley is on location.
Can you show me the left-wing equivalent of biasedbbc.org?
It's like looking at a Time front cover on the activation of Skynet. I just want to shout " But that's not real. It was a film. Didn't they see the film? "
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Really the best you can come up with pedantry because I didn't quote directly and there is debate about the attribution? How about addressing the point of the post?
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Really the best you can come up with pedantry because I didn't quote directly and there is debate about the attribution? How about addressing the point of the post?
I'm sure my points would be as banal and well worn as yours, I'm just more discriminating about trotting them out.
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
We don't need to wonder, Biden would have won, easily. So would Bernie. Just look at the statement Bernie released today as an example of why he was the right candidate and the DNC shenanigans to gift the nomination to Hillary has come back to bite them in the bum.
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.”
Sanders added: “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.”
It concluded: “To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
“To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
People genuinely believe that the they get the truth from 'news' sites like Brieitbart and or The Canary.
The Corbynite Labour forums frequently have real comments complaining about the right wing Guardian. The Morning Star is even a bit too right wing for some.
Feels connected to the unreality that drives vulnerable people who cannot sing onto the X Factor, convinced they are the new Elvis.
Is there a news outlet that you regard as agenda-free? I can't think of one. The sensible reader reads a few different outlets and filters it through their own ideas to come up with an informed view on world events.
There's something particularly devious about both the Canary and Brieitbart though. If you think of news print. We have the quality broadsheets that hold an agenda but at least try to put an alternative view. Specifically the Times and the Guardian, then you have the Independent and the Telegraph who are a bit more keen to editorialise news items and not just keep it to comments. We have the mail and express who do the same thing but are much more proficient in it. Their writing moves away a bit from the truth and are no strangers to deliberately and knowingly distorting their news items. Then we have the political tabloids like the sun and mirror who hold lower standards again, but respect to the latter, while they editorialise pretty much any politically related story they almost always contain the actual factual information at the bottom of the story which very often is at complete odds to the headline and first couple of paragraphs.
But with the Canary and Brieitbart there is absolutely no effort at putting a counter argument, and connections to the truth are very loose. They are essentially a news agency based on clickbait and facebook memes. They are designed to generate outrage and traffic at all costs without any kind of semblance of journalistic integrity.
Haven't had the time to read the thread in full, BUT- some US State populations have changed really substantially in this time! Does someone have figures that adjust for this? Comparing 2004 vs 2016 may otherwise be quite misleading.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Really the best you can come up with pedantry because I didn't quote directly and there is debate about the attribution? How about addressing the point of the post?
Shows that median incomes have risen considerably in the long run from the 80s... but that they still have not recovered from the depths of the global recession.
Either way- doesn't feel like stagnant is the right way of describing that graph.
(FWIW, the four states here have had relatively flat populations over time. But if you want to look at other states, e.g. Florida, it would make a huge difference)
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
We don't need to wonder, Biden would have won, easily. So would Bernie. Just look at the statement Bernie released today as an example of why he was the right candidate and the DNC shenanigans to gift the nomination to Hillary has come back to bite them in the bum.
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.”
Sanders added: “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.”
It concluded: “To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
“To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 4h4 hours ago "Sanders could have won". They're not voting anti-establishment. Corbyn's anti-establishment. They're voting right-wing anti-establishment.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
But with the Canary and Brieitbart there is absolutely no effort at putting a counter argument, and connections to the truth are very loose. They are essentially a news agency based on clickbait and facebook memes. They are designed to generate outrage and traffic at all costs without any kind of semblance of journalistic integrity.
But both seem to be run by people who genuinely don't believe that. That think the MSM are out to get them. Conspiracy theorists. People linking to these sites should think more carefully.
People genuinely believe that the they get the truth from 'news' sites like Brieitbart and or The Canary.
The Corbynite Labour forums frequently have real comments complaining about the right wing Guardian. The Morning Star is even a bit too right wing for some.
Feels connected to the unreality that drives vulnerable people who cannot sing onto the X Factor, convinced they are the new Elvis.
I know - some people even believe they get the truth from CNN, the BBC or Politico. What everyone gets is a (selective) version of the truth as perceived by the organisation publishing it.
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
Biden has run twice before and flopped both times. Why would he have won this time? It can't be because he would have run as an outsider against the establishment because he is the sitting vice-president. He is the Establishment.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Really the best you can come up with pedantry because I didn't quote directly and there is debate about the attribution? How about addressing the point of the post?
Shows that median incomes have risen considerably in the long run from the 80s... but that they still have not recovered from the depths of the global recession.
Either way- doesn't feel like stagnant is the right way of describing that graph.
Working lifetimes are circa 45 years and for those working in the past 15 years they have seen median incomes remain below 1999 for 15 years. That is 1/3 of their "earning years" and for the younger ones will be for all of their working life to date.
The what-ifs are wonderful but I'd suspect anyone other than Hill would have won. The racist, misogynist theme wasn't the issue. Mere excuses for picking the wrong candidate.
A Condoleezza Rice figure would have won at a canter.
Hillary was tainted by being too Establishment, and her big meme "I've got ovaries," was lost by being her husband's wife. More Tammy Wynette than an Emily Pankhurst.
I hate to say it, but the best person probably won, despite all his obvious faults.
Stop crying, children. If that's the best Democrats can do, they deserved to lose.
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
We don't need to wonder, Biden would have won, easily. So would Bernie. Just look at the statement Bernie released today as an example of why he was the right candidate and the DNC shenanigans to gift the nomination to Hillary has come back to bite them in the bum.
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.”
Sanders added: “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.”
It concluded: “To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
“To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 4h4 hours ago "Sanders could have won". They're not voting anti-establishment. Corbyn's anti-establishment. They're voting right-wing anti-establishment.
I think Bernie would have been slaughtered, personally. I suggest Biden would be a different matter.
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
Biden has run twice before and flopped both times. Why would he have won this time? It can't be because he would have run as an outsider against the establishment because he is the sitting vice-president. He is the Establishment.
I think Obama would have been stronger for him and there would have been fewer Dems feeling that a vote for him required a nose peg.
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
We don't need to wonder, Biden would have won, easily. So would Bernie. Just look at the statement Bernie released today as an example of why he was the right candidate and the DNC shenanigans to gift the nomination to Hillary has come back to bite them in the bum.
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.”
Sanders added: “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.”
It concluded: “To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
“To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 4h4 hours ago "Sanders could have won". They're not voting anti-establishment. Corbyn's anti-establishment. They're voting right-wing anti-establishment.
I think they voted anti-PC anti-establishment rather than right wing. Bernie wasn't particularly PC, he drew the ire of BLM activists when he refused to endorse them and he's been off the divine PC message quite often. In a "he tells it like it is" sort of way, he's about the same as Trump, just from a different vantage point. Trump asked black Americans to vote for him on the basis of "it can't get any worse", Bernie asked them to vote for him on the same basis, just using friendlier language and saying the DNC establishment hasn't delivered for black Americans rather than being as blunt as Trump.
Going back to the conversation with the Dem friend from yesterday, he mainly seemed worried that whatever people said about Trump's supporters, the man himself doesn't seem exercised by blacks and will be willing to treat them fairly. Especially if the infrastructure blitz revitalises dying cities and towns. He thinks if Trump is able to deliver the $600bn package blacks will benefit because they live in the most rundown areas. 10-12% might turn into 25% in 2020 if he can deliver.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Really the best you can come up with pedantry because I didn't quote directly and there is debate about the attribution? How about addressing the point of the post?
Shows that median incomes have risen considerably in the long run from the 80s... but that they still have not recovered from the depths of the global recession.
Either way- doesn't feel like stagnant is the right way of describing that graph.
I said 20 years, your graph bears that out give or take a couple of years, median incomes peak was 1999
You'd think they would but I haven't yet seen any sign that the people who didn't get it before now get it.
There are a whole bunch of news articles and comment today saying that the NSA in Trump's hands is a danger.
I don't think Trump will have heard of it. The NSA (as any internal Government Organisation) is a danger - and was a danger when under Obama's control. Basically we now seem to be entering the era of left-wing conspiracy theories. I mean the IRS was used by Obama as a tool of repression against 'right-wing' opponents.
Who was it who said "The worst thing a citizen can hear is someone announcing themselves as "Good morning, I am from the Government and am here to help you" - or words to that effect?
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
Biden has run twice before and flopped both times. Why would he have won this time? It can't be because he would have run as an outsider against the establishment because he is the sitting vice-president. He is the Establishment.
I think Obama would have been stronger for him and there would have been fewer Dems feeling that a vote for him required a nose peg.
Because he could say he was from Scranton, Penn. Because he would have used his ability to turn angry and passionate in speeches to give Trump both barrels.
A lot of people here keep going on the theme "but they have no answers, they will fail that is why voters shouldnt have voted for trump/brexit/whatever comes next"
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Well, some fashioner of cod Einstein quotes nailed it. Hopefully he/she received some award for services to internet banality.
Really the best you can come up with pedantry because I didn't quote directly and there is debate about the attribution? How about addressing the point of the post?
Shows that median incomes have risen considerably in the long run from the 80s... but that they still have not recovered from the depths of the global recession.
Either way- doesn't feel like stagnant is the right way of describing that graph.
Working lifetimes are circa 45 years and for those working in the past 15 years they have seen median incomes remain below 1999 for 15 years. That is 1/3 of their "earning years" and for the younger ones will be for all of their working life to date.
A state by state breakdown would be more interesting, it's the stel workers of Ohio and the miners of Pennsylvania that matter most here.
Also it's the incomes of the age bracket as it ages. If high paid jobs now go to young, tech people then the median goes up but not for this age group.
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
We don't need to wonder, Biden would have won, easily. So would Bernie. Just look at the statement Bernie released today as an example of why he was the right candidate and the DNC shenanigans to gift the nomination to Hillary has come back to bite them in the bum.
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.”
Sanders added: “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.”
It concluded: “To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
“To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 4h4 hours ago "Sanders could have won". They're not voting anti-establishment. Corbyn's anti-establishment. They're voting right-wing anti-establishment.
I think Bernie would have been slaughtered, personally. I suggest Biden would be a different matter.
Obama was not loathsome but he was certainly no friend of the UK.
Absolute tosh. He took a stance on the Scottish referendum when he didn't need to. I'm sure his comments on Brexit would have been co-ordinated with No.10. As for getting a trade deal with Trump, unfortnately it doesn't just require Donald to shake hands on it but Congress to agree wth all the vested interests and donors they represent.
People genuinely believe that the they get the truth from 'news' sites like Brieitbart and or The Canary.
The Corbynite Labour forums frequently have real comments complaining about the right wing Guardian. The Morning Star is even a bit too right wing for some.
Feels connected to the unreality that drives vulnerable people who cannot sing onto the X Factor, convinced they are the new Elvis.
Is there a news outlet that you regard as agenda-free? I can't think of one. The sensible reader reads a few different outlets and filters it through their own ideas to come up with an informed view on world events.
There's something particularly devious about both the Canary and Brieitbart though. If you think of news print. We have the quality broadsheets that hold an agenda but at least try to put an alternative view. Specifically the Times and the Guardian, then you have the Independent and the Telegraph who are a bit more keen to editorialise news items and not just keep it to comments. We have the mail and express who do the same thing but are much more proficient in it. Their writing moves away a bit from the truth and are no strangers to deliberately and knowingly distorting their news items. Then we have the political tabloids like the sun and mirror who hold lower standards again, but respect to the latter, while they editorialise pretty much any politically related story they almost always contain the actual factual information at the bottom of the story which very often is at complete odds to the headline and first couple of paragraphs.
But with the Canary and Brieitbart there is absolutely no effort at putting a counter argument, and connections to the truth are very loose. They are essentially a news agency based on clickbait and facebook memes. They are designed to generate outrage and traffic at all costs without any kind of semblance of journalistic integrity.
That is your view, and I must say I disagree. When there's no serious dog in the fight, The Times seems measured. But when you get a situation like Syria, or Iraq, and a view somewhere is clearly taken (no doubt based on the direction of the US authorities) that Assad or Sadam are to be ousted, it becomes little more than a propaganda sheet. I will not be lied to. I will not be told that we should deliver power in another country into the hands of Islamists that we would not comfortably invite into our own. I do not accept double standards whereby the Saudis, and of late Erdogan, are treated with admittedly sardonic dissaproval, but others considerably more palatable get shreiks of outrage and beating of war drums. It is an insult to my intelligence.
You'd think they would but I haven't yet seen any sign that the people who didn't get it before now get it.
There are a whole bunch of news articles and comment today saying that the NSA in Trump's hands is a danger.
I don't think Trump will have heard of it. The NSA (as any internal Government Organisation) is a danger - and was a danger when under Obama's control. Basically we now seem to be entering the era of left-wing conspiracy theories. I mean the IRS was used by Obama as a tool of repression against 'right-wing' opponents.
Who was it who said "The worst thing a citizen can hear is someone announcing themselves as "Good morning, I am from the Government and am here to help you" - or words to that effect?
Oh dear, Dan Hodges wondering the same thing as me:
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
Biden has run twice before and flopped both times. Why would he have won this time? It can't be because he would have run as an outsider against the establishment because he is the sitting vice-president. He is the Establishment.
I think Obama would have been stronger for him and there would have been fewer Dems feeling that a vote for him required a nose peg.
I think you underestimate just how popular Bernie was with grassroots Dems and how ready the DNC establishment would have got on board with him if he had won in a fair fight vs Hillary. Just as they did for Obama in 2008 when he beat Hillary. Bernie would have been able to hold the Obama coalition together and add lower propensity younger voters. Remember that Bernie funded his primary campaign with small donations rather than getting big donors on side, he was very, very popular, and not in a Corbyn is popular kind of way.
Going back to the conversation with the Dem friend from yesterday, he mainly seemed worried that whatever people said about Trump's supporters, the man himself doesn't seem exercised by blacks and will be willing to treat them fairly. Especially if the infrastructure blitz revitalises dying cities and towns. He thinks if Trump is able to deliver the $600bn package blacks will benefit because they live in the most rundown areas. 10-12% might turn into 25% in 2020 if he can deliver.
Re infrastructure blitz. This is surely a good idea (given what is frequently heard about the state of US infrastructure, esp outside cities) but how much is shovel-ready? Even if Trump were POTUS for eight years wouldn't it be the end of his term before pretty much anything gets built - what are the timescales here?
But with the Canary and Brieitbart there is absolutely no effort at putting a counter argument, and connections to the truth are very loose. They are essentially a news agency based on clickbait and facebook memes. They are designed to generate outrage and traffic at all costs without any kind of semblance of journalistic integrity.
But both seem to be run by people who genuinely don't believe that. That think the MSM are out to get them. Conspiracy theorists. People linking to these sites should think more carefully.
I think people making posts like yours above should think more carefully. What you're suggesting is the stifling of free speech.
Comments
TrumpHitler won because WhiteHitlers imposed their fascism on Jewmerica.
Mildly amused by the apparently widespread protests. Reminiscent of those here when the Conservatives won the last election. Or the views of some fringe Remain voters, who think democracy only counts when it agrees with them.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/richard-spencer-trump-alt-right-white-nationalist
Presumably he has not argued with their statement that he invented the term.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
How he'd get on against a sensible woman with a practical leftist programme is another matter. One term Presidents aren't unknown.
Perhaps Lord Sugar should have a crack here
ALOT more chance than Corbyn anyway
But he didn't win it by much.
LOL
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/796656214247673856
Trump, is fair game, people who voted (and we know a significant number of Latinos and Asians did as well as educated white women) are not...rather perhaps they should try to understand why they voted for Trump and / or people didn't vote Clinton.
Like Brexit, yes those that are really racist voted that way, but a lot of normal folk who aren't did as well.
It'll only make Trump's support more resilient.
'Of course, when you think about it, it was inevitable, says some smart-arsed twat
THE election of Donald Trump was inevitable and obvious, according to some smug, smart-arsed twat.
The twat, Martin Bishop, used words including ‘disenfranchised’, ‘swamped’ and ‘angry’ to bolster an argument which was later described as ‘obvious’ and ‘rubbish’.
Bishop said: “White working class, ignored, globalisation, elite.”
He added: “Politics of emotion, social media, ignored, globalised, ignored, elites, ignored, ignored, ignored. This doesn’t really affect me.”
But Professor Henry Brubaker, from the Institute for Studies, said: “It’s because Hillary Clinton was a shit candidate.
“Are we done?”'
http://tinyurl.com/j9sh5kp
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/796408594929516544
1) They have no right of reply.
2) They have been presented with a limited choice of options. Brexit, was yes or no, not well I would like this to change but to stay as part of single market. POTUS was a giant douche vs a turd sandwich.
3) It reinforces their attitude / position e.g. Cameron "Little Englander" comment was probably one of the worst things he could have said. I know a lot of people who said well I was on the fence then he basically called me a racist, a) screw him and b) is that the best argument he can put up for staying.
Does everybody in Britain think that's OK? Does anybody in the Labour Party think maybe it might be the kind of thing that would justify waking Jeremy Corbyn up from his extended snooze?
Also given that a lot of intercepted data is retained it is not only the next candidate you need to worry about, but all conceivable candidates.
This is either the World's worst acting or the FUNNIEST THING I have Evah seen! Haha! ::Deep Breath:: BWAHAHAHA!
https://t.co/kobP3IvNbF
Let me advance a different view. We have had 20 years of the like of Clegg,Cameron,Blair,Obama , Merkel etc.
In that time the majority of this country though probably not most on this boards have seen their incomes staying stagnant while the cost of living going through the roof.
We know Clegg, Cameron, Blair dont have the answers. They proved it over the last 20 years but you think we should keep on with them? Maybe you are right and Brexit/trump wont be an answer but at least we are trying something different as we know damn well what we have now is a failure for most people
Einstein nailed it
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Their politics is obviously very centrist and somewhere between Blairite and Cameroon.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/796653507692679168
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3h3 hours ago
I wonder what would have happened if Biden had run, (and won the nomination).
I need to seek therapy :-)
They are going to have to bling that up before the Donald will use it!
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.”
Sanders added: “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.”
It concluded: “To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
“To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-harnessed-anti-establishment-anger
But with the Canary and Brieitbart there is absolutely no effort at putting a counter argument, and connections to the truth are very loose. They are essentially a news agency based on clickbait and facebook memes. They are designed to generate outrage and traffic at all costs without any kind of semblance of journalistic integrity.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Shows that median incomes have risen considerably in the long run from the 80s... but that they still have not recovered from the depths of the global recession.
Either way- doesn't feel like stagnant is the right way of describing that graph.
((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 4h4 hours ago
"Sanders could have won". They're not voting anti-establishment. Corbyn's anti-establishment. They're voting right-wing anti-establishment.
A Condoleezza Rice figure would have won at a canter.
Hillary was tainted by being too Establishment, and her big meme "I've got ovaries," was lost by being her husband's wife. More Tammy Wynette than an Emily Pankhurst.
I hate to say it, but the best person probably won, despite all his obvious faults.
Stop crying, children. If that's the best Democrats can do, they deserved to lose.
Going back to the conversation with the Dem friend from yesterday, he mainly seemed worried that whatever people said about Trump's supporters, the man himself doesn't seem exercised by blacks and will be willing to treat them fairly. Especially if the infrastructure blitz revitalises dying cities and towns. He thinks if Trump is able to deliver the $600bn package blacks will benefit because they live in the most rundown areas. 10-12% might turn into 25% in 2020 if he can deliver.
Who was it who said "The worst thing a citizen can hear is someone announcing themselves as "Good morning, I am from the Government and am here to help you" - or words to that effect?
Also it's the incomes of the age bracket as it ages. If high paid jobs now go to young, tech people then the median goes up but not for this age group.
"I think they voted anti-PC anti-establishment rather than right wing."
Spot on.
And the same with Brexit. You can't order people to be polite or reasonable - both subjective judgements. It irritates even those who are.