UKC

Trump just won :(

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Indy 09 Nov 2016

What is the world coming to?

Look at all the political upheavel 100 years ago and where that led us.
Post edited at 07:43
2
In reply to Indy:

It seems to me that globalisation is taking a bit of a kicking in the West. If a man like Trump can say what he's said and still walk into the White House then serious questions have to be answered about where we go from here. I read somewhere this morning that 40 years ago 95% of Americans clothes were made in the US. Now 96% are imported. Stats like this are coming home to roost in the voting booth.

Very interesting to see what happens in France, Germany and Italy elections next year.
OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Don't have an answer but things change and people need to adapt.
2
KevinD 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Don't have an answer but things change and people need to adapt.

Thats not really an answer though. Standards of living are dropping for the masses and increasing for the few. This is likely to get even worse as off or near shoring is backed up by increased automation.
Saying just adapt really aint an answer.
The bit that baffles me though is that people believe the likes of Trump and Farage when they claim to be on their side.
3
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Or perhaps much of the vitriol heaped on Trump was unsubstantiated guff typical of election smears. The very fact that his election is being compared to that of Hitler would somewhat point in that direction.

We know next to nothing about him other than him being a pretty typical American businessman (a string of business failures, brash, obnoxious, avoiding tax, treats workers like crap, seeking publicity and enrichment at all costs, etc. etc). In other words little different to most holders of office in the US. He may not be as bad at that job as he appears to us as a person.
14
 Cú Chullain 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

The smart money has to be on Kanye West to win in 2020 now
 summo 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Thats not really an answer though. Standards of living are dropping for the masses and increasing for the few. This is likely to get even worse as off or near shoring is backed up by increased automation.

Perhaps the standard of living rise in the first place that everyone experienced was driven by borrowing and the production of goods at extremely low prices in the far east. Now we have the debt to repay and the far east isn't producing goods as cheaply as they were. Was it really a false rise in standards in the first place and we were kidding ourselves.

The poor in the UK might have slipped down the standard of living table in minute amount, but their lifestyle is one that over 75% of the world population dream of, but will never attain.

People simply didn't like the corrupt appearance of the Clinton, had she not messed up with classified emails, she would have cruised this election, but she thought she was above the law. The USA paid the price.
5
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> The bit that baffles me though is that people believe the likes of Trump and Farage when they claim to be on their side.

In Farage's case, I agree.

But you only have to take that viral clip from the Mike Moore documentary to see why Trump elicits support. He is directly and uncategorically telling people (however much that is worth from someone like Trump) that he won't let their jobs be taken away.

The mindset in the US is so different from our own. The importance of self-reliance and continuity to the average blue-collar yank should nut be under estimated.
 summo 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> The smart money has to be on Kanye West to win in 2020 now

I'd give you better odds on Clooney.
 Bootrock 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Voting for Trump is political upheaval.
 JIMBO 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

The west is revolting. Make what you will of that.
3
 Bobling 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Top tip folks - retune your radio to 5LiveSport. There's an India/England Test Match on if you want to bury your head in the sand.
1
 phja 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Did Trump not thank God during his speech, or did I miss that? Perhaps not as far a step backward as we feared!
3
KevinD 09 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

> Was it really a false rise in standards in the first place and we were kidding ourselves.

It was. When you look at it one of the main components has been steadily slipping for years.

> The poor in the UK might have slipped down the standard of living table in minute amount, but their lifestyle is one that over 75% of the world population dream of, but will never attain.

Which never works as a explanation. Well you are living hand to mouth now but at least you have some modern infrastructure around you.

> People simply didn't like the corrupt appearance of the Clinton, had she not messed up with classified emails, she would have cruised this election, but she thought she was above the law.

Well until Trump redefines the law I thought the FBI found that she wasnt breaking the law. The emails werent overly unusual. One way to dodge FOI and done by others as well. Just hyped beyond all recognition.

1
 toad 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:
I suppose Trump now has to follow through. Unlike Farage, He won't be able to walk off and leave others to clean up his mess, will he?
1
KevinD 09 Nov 2016
In reply to David Martin:

> But you only have to take that viral clip from the Mike Moore documentary to see why Trump elicits support. He is directly and uncategorically telling people (however much that is worth from someone like Trump) that he won't let their jobs be taken away.

I tend to take a practical approach to this sort of thing though and look at actual actions. In Trumps case he has been more than happy to see their jobs taken away for his profit with jobs offshored to his hearts content.

1
 summo 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Which never works as a explanation. Well you are living hand to mouth now but at least you have some modern infrastructure around you.

it does though, those 75% around the world are willing to work harder, longer, live with less if it means in the end they get a little nearer our lifestyle. We (us in the west in general) have a sense of entitlement, we aren't prepared as a rule to work and sacrifice to 'maintain' what we think is already our right.

While Europe and USA bickers, and economies slide. The east will keep growing, by less right now, but it still growing faster than we are maintaining. The West has had it's day and trump just helped slide a little quicker.

> Well until Trump redefines the law I thought the FBI found that she wasnt breaking the law. The emails werent overly unusual. One way to dodge FOI and done by others as well. Just hyped beyond all recognition.

the truth is out there, it's simply a question of if we will ever know. Many in the hidden top of FBI, CIA probably know that trump isn't the best move for the USA, so perhaps there was some backroom steering to try and get Clinton into office, by covering things up a little? We won't ever know.
4
 ClimberEd 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Straight out of the Brexit playbook.

Amazed American establishment didn't see it, probably too arrogant. Same demographic, same vote - not for Trump, or leaving the EU. They were both votes against the status quo.

1
pasbury 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

America grabbed by the pussy.
3
OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> In Trumps case he has been more than happy to see their jobs taken away for his profit with jobs offshored to his hearts content.

Exactly he didn't mind union busting or using low paid illegal immigrants to build Trump Tower.
1
 Cú Chullain 09 Nov 2016
In reply to JIMBO:

> The west is revolting.

I quite like it here

In reply to toad:
Ironically, Farage is now Trumps closest ally in the UK and probably Europe. Job offer on the way?

US ambassador for the EU? Imagine Junkers face lol
Post edited at 08:22
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Can't believe I'm defending him. But its understandable he should offshore business as that is the way of maintaining his competitive advantage over rivals. To not do so potentially means going out of business. In his support, what he is talking about is protectionist measures to prevent sectors from undertaking similar actions.
 jondo 09 Nov 2016
In reply to phja:

> Did Trump not thank God during his speech, or did I miss that? Perhaps not as far a step backward as we feared!

may the sith protect america
 JoshOvki 09 Nov 2016
In reply to toad:

> I suppose Trump now has to follow through. Unlike Farage, He won't be able to walk off and leave others to clean up his mess, will he?

That seems equally good and bad!
OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Thats not really an answer though. Standards of living are dropping for the masses and increasing for the few. This is likely to get even worse as off or near shoring is backed up by increased automation.

> Saying just adapt really aint an answer.

But you can adapt..... China and it's currency abuse, it's ignoring of WTO rules and judgements, tax rules for multi-nationals etc can all be looked at and strengthened.

Example: China is able to manipulate its currency to keep it artificially low, it steals intellectual property then uses that to dump 'cheap' goods in the West. China has repeatedly ignored WTO rulings with "China will vigorously defend its sovereignty”. No country seems willing to impose sanctions so it gets away with it.

Ultimately and hugely ironically it's Trump type supporters who are walking into a shop to buy a shirt see 1 at $15 and one at $40. They choose the $15 one and ignore the made in in China label then complain that jobs are going overseas and vote Trump to stop it.
1
 Xharlie 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Twice, this year, I've found myself staring at my browser in disbelief, my faith in the very definition of human civility and modern peace and society destroyed.

I understand the How, I just don't understand the Why.
1
In reply to Indy: "Ultimately and hugely ironically it's Trump type supporters who are walking into a shop to buy a shirt see 1 at $15 and one at $40. They choose the $15 one and ignore the made in in China label then complain that jobs are going overseas and vote Trump to stop it."

The shirt at $40 will be made in India as well, it just has a polo player embroidered on it to put the price up.
 Xharlie 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

Ok... thoughts. Actual ones. In a way this is a good thing.

Trump is a symptom; he is not the problem. The status quo created an environment condusive to this outcome. If Hillary had won, champion of the 1%, the trend towards this scenario would only have continued and Trump 2.0 would only have been worse - however inconceivable such a thing might be.

Now that Trump has won, loud, uncouth, chauvenist, black-sheep of the 1%, the problems cannot continue to fester slowly and silently like an undetected cancer - there will be blood and wailing and gnashing of teeth and the problems will either be addressed or civil unrest will erupt.

In the short term, this might be Hell on Earth. In the long term, there is yet hope.
1
KevinD 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

> But you can adapt..... China and it's currency abuse, it's ignoring of WTO rules and judgements, tax rules for multi-nationals etc can all be looked at and strengthened.

That requires a willingness to deal with it though. I am not sure if it is simply short termism or that the free market extremists honestly cant comprehend that others are simply gaming the system.
1
Pan Ron 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

Agree completely. Much like the UK with Brexit, I think the US must go ahead and martyr itself as an example to the rest of the world of where not only ignorance, but broken systems, lead.

Trump will either surprise us and succeed, or he will collapse in to a heap of unfulfilled promises, soon enough. It'll be interesting to watch.
 jkarran 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> Now that Trump has won, loud, uncouth, chauvenist, black-sheep of the 1%, the problems cannot continue to fester slowly and silently like an undetected cancer - there will be blood and wailing and gnashing of teeth and the problems will either be addressed or civil unrest will erupt.
> In the short term, this might be Hell on Earth. In the long term, there is yet hope.

America's problems won't be addressed by Trump or rioting or whatever ghastly distraction we're given when that becomes unavoidably apparent. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination a good thing. Still at least unlike with brexit a little hint of schadenfreude has knocked the sharp edges off it.
jk
1
OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Bjartur i
> The shirt at $40 will be made in India as well, it just has a polo player embroidered on it to put the price up.

The point is still the same. A multi-National is able to exploit cheap labour, lax labour and environmental laws to make a cheap product in a foreign country. It is then able to import that product tariff free into a label conscious market with a very large mark up while pushing the profit through off shore company to avoid corporate taxes. Its that imbalance that needs to be addressed.

BTW if you go to America and look at that Polo label you'll know they prefer Mexico to India for manufacture.... NAFTA?
OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> That requires a willingness to deal with it though. I am not sure if it is simply short termism or that the free market extremists honestly cant comprehend that others are simply gaming the system.

You give far too much credit to politicians.... all people need to do is think a little more, pay a little more and the problem will resolve itself without the need for a single politician.
2
 jkarran 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

> You give far too much credit to politicians.... all people need to do is think a little more, pay a little more and the problem will resolve itself without the need for a single politician.

Easy to say when you have a little more to pay with.
jk
2
 Ridge 09 Nov 2016
In reply to toad:

> Trump....follow through....clean up his mess..

<snigger>

OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to jkarran:
Look at how much we throw away each year. 1 million tons of clothes for example. Maybe if people bought a few good quality items made in the U.K. rather that wardrobes full of tat from China that go into the bin after being worn once then affordability wouldn't be so much of an issue.

3
 wbo 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

> You give far too much credit to politicians.... all people need to do is think a little more, pay a little more and the problem will resolve itself without the need for a single politician.

Says the man recently whinging about not squeezing a discount on a £5000 bike.....
1
KevinD 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Look at how much we throw away each year. 1 million tons of clothes for example. Maybe if people bought a few good quality items made in the U.K.

That falls under the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
Its not really a workable model without lots and lots of supporting services and counter advertising.
1
 Greasy Prusiks 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

If I do an FA in the next few days it's going to be named "Trump in a Hurricane" .
 kamala 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Xharlie:
> Trump is a symptom; he is not the problem. The status quo created an environment condusive to this outcome. If Hillary had won, champion of the 1%, the trend towards this scenario would only have continued and Trump 2.0 would only have been worse - however inconceivable such a thing might be.

This is indeed why Trump won: the prevalance of this sort of myth.

if you look at the actual facts of what people have done, Hillary has been the one pushing through health insurance for poor children, compensation for emergency service workers after 9/11, health services for women, etc. In other words, she's the one who has been quietly working for the underdogs of society.

Trump has just been better at self-advertisment, smearing his opponent, and promising the moon, and modern society appears to prefer appearance over substance.
Post edited at 10:12
2
 pebbles 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> Now that Trump has won, loud, uncouth, chauvenist, black-sheep of the 1%, the problems cannot continue to fester slowly and silently like an undetected cancer - there will be blood and wailing and gnashing of teeth and the problems will either be addressed or civil unrest will erupt.

...which Trump will blame on minorities. Everywhere his administration fails he will point the finger at minorities as the villains
1
OP Indy 09 Nov 2016
In reply to wbo:

> Says the man recently whinging about not squeezing a discount on a £5000 bike.....

Didn't ask for discount ( as Specialized don't allow dealers to discount without its authority) mearly asked what a resonable compromise was to swap 2 items on a purchase that would be worth nearly £7000 to a small independent bike shop. As it turns out the LBS's refused to do anything so I'm now 95% sure I won't be buying a Specialized bike.

Windy Miller a UK bike company is probably going to benefit.
In reply to Indy:

> Look at how much we throw away each year. 1 million tons of clothes for example. Maybe if people bought a few good quality items made in the U.K. rather that wardrobes full of tat from China that go into the bin after being worn once then affordability wouldn't be so much of an issue.

People don't want that. They want to buy more stuff. Shopping has become the major hobby for a large proportion of the population; desperately trying to fill the emptiness with consumer goods...
 summo 09 Nov 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> Easy to say when you have a little more to pay with
> jk

But, if no one makes an effort the imbalance only get worse. Complaining about greed on facebook, on the latest iPhone, that you bought on amazon.. isnt going to change anything.
2
In reply to Indy:
Anyone who spends £7k on a pushbike can't whinge about Trump being insane
Post edited at 11:04
1
 Pete Pozman 09 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:



> People simply didn't like the corrupt appearance of the Clinton, had she not messed up with classified emails, she would have cruised this election, but she thought she was above the law. The USA paid the price.

Maybe, given the very strange behaviour of the FBI prior to the vote, we can have more understanding of why she wanted to keep her communications private. Think about it...
1
 Pete Pozman 09 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:



> People simply didn't like the corrupt appearance of the Clinton, had she not messed up with classified emails, she would have cruised this election, but she thought she was above the law. The USA paid the price.

Maybe, given the very strange behaviour of the FBI prior to the vote, we can have more understanding of why she wanted to keep her communications private. Think about it...
1
 JIMBO 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Cú Chullain:

'Revolting' has two meanings. I wasn't expressing my opinion of the outcome but observing the deep divisions (much like with Brexit).
In reply to JIMBO:

> The west is revolting

The West? Is Kanye now the definitive article...?
 thermal_t 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Very interesting to see what happens in France, Germany and Italy elections next year.

Next up we've got the delightful Geert Wilder in the Netherlands, widely tipped to win. Currently promising to close all mosques, ban the Koran and leave the EU. Can't wait.
1
 Big Ger 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy:

As happened in the Bexit "remain" campaign, the intellectual snobs who thought they could defeat Drump / "Leave" by sneering at, belittling, looking down at, dismissing as "racist /redneck / Daily Mail/Sun/Express readers," and dismissing their thoughts and needs as though unworthy of consideration, have to take some blame.

(Mea culpa, obvs.)
5
 Jim 1003 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> As happened in the Bexit "remain" campaign, the intellectual snobs who thought they could defeat Drump / "Leave" by sneering at, belittling, looking down at, dismissing as "racist /redneck / Daily Mail/Sun/Express readers," and dismissing their thoughts and needs as though unworthy of consideration, have to take some blame.

> (Mea culpa, obvs.)

I think they should...the failure of the polls to forecast the result is also interesting, some say they were too immersed in their liberal bubble to see reality...
4
KevinD 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> some say they were too immersed in their liberal bubble to see reality...

Which shows an amazing misunderstanding of who owns and runs the polls.
Its worth noting, of course, that the polls did say it was going to be close. The thing that may have thrown it is the number going third party.
I suspect though that would ruin your ranting about the liberal elite.
2
 jkarran 09 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
> I think they should...the failure of the polls to forecast the result is also interesting, some say they were too immersed in their liberal bubble to see reality...

So what's it like immersed in the illiberal bubble? I guess you see everything with a crisp clear monochrome certainty through that oily film?

Perhaps the relatively minor errors in predicting what were excruciatingly tight polls with results further distorted by the peculiarities of our non-proportional systems had more to do with a paucity of data and research on the confounding influences when it comes to a single issue referendum or an election with masses of newly galvanised first time voters. Perhaps that has more to to do with the failure than the fact most academics and professional researchers do tend toward the socially liberal end of the spectrum.

While we're at it, would you please explain to me concisely what it is about social liberalism you so despise? It's always baffled me what there is to dislike about it. Doubtless a failure on my part and one I'm sure you can help me understand. Fair enough if you're a god hates fags fire and brimstone fundamentalist or you just can't trust them negros but with the shameful exception of a few UKIP councillors and genetically conservative American bible thumpers most people don't seem to be quite like that anymore, there's obviously more to it. So what is it, what's not to like? I genuinely do not get it!
jk
Post edited at 22:30
2
 elliott92 09 Nov 2016
In reply to summo:

idiot. a lot of us work very hard for what we have. if the west is so disgusting, why do so many aspire to come?
1
 summo 10 Nov 2016
In reply to elliott92:

> idiot. a lot of us work very hard for what we have. if the west is so disgusting, why do so many aspire to come?

never said I was against anyone working hard (care to quote?), but things are relative in that respect when you compare the working hours and conditions in the west to that of the country that almost certainly made the clothes you are wearing right now, or the IT device you posted on.

Nothing disgusting either ( again care to quote), what I said was they are more desperate to reach a higher standard of living, than we are to maintain it. The hungry fox versus the full contented one. They aspire to come because life is easier in the west than the country which they came from etc.. you may well work hard, but they will almost certainly be working hard for less.
 Jim 1003 10 Nov 2016
In reply to jkarran:
> So what's it like immersed in the illiberal bubble? I guess you see everything with a crisp clear monochrome certainty through that oily film?

> Perhaps the relatively minor errors in predicting what were excruciatingly tight polls with results further distorted by the peculiarities of our non-proportional systems had more to do with a paucity of data and research on the confounding influences when it comes to a single issue referendum or an election with masses of newly galvanised first time voters. Perhaps that has more to to do with the failure than the fact most academics and professional researchers do tend toward the socially liberal end of the spectrum.

> While we're at it, would you please explain to me concisely what it is about social liberalism you so despise? It's always baffled me what there is to dislike about it. Doubtless a failure on my part and one I'm sure you can help me understand. Fair enough if you're a god hates fags fire and brimstone fundamentalist or you just can't trust them negros but with the shameful exception of a few UKIP councillors and genetically conservative American bible thumpers most people don't seem to be quite like that anymore, there's obviously more to it. So what is it, what's not to like? I genuinely do not get it!

> jk

^ I never said I didn't like liberalism, I just said the media commentators and pollsters are so obsessed with it, they have now left the real world and cannot predict anything anymore. They just predict the candidates who support their view will in. So we now have , wrong predictions for Cameron being re-elected, wrong on Brexit, wrong on Trump. The media luvvies need to get back in the real world. I see they're still at it this morning saying basically only thick people could vote for Trump. The nasty side of the media showing, they're actually worse than Trump.
Post edited at 10:15
3
damhan-allaidh 10 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:

This report just published by the LSE is an interesting analysis of how we got here, and it may be that standards of living may be a distraction from other underlying causes.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/trump-and-brexit-why-its-again-not...
 jkarran 10 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
> ^ I never said I didn't like liberalism, I just said the media commentators and pollsters are so obsessed with it, they have now left the real world and cannot predict anything anymore. They just predict the candidates who support their view will in. So we now have , wrong predictions for Cameron being re-elected, wrong on Brexit, wrong on Trump. The media luvvies need to get back in the real world. I see they're still at it this morning saying basically only thick people could vote for Trump. The nasty side of the media showing, they're actually worse than Trump.

So you would describe yourself as liberal? Seems odd because you certainly seem do a lot of sneering at others you perceive to be!

I'll ask again, what does the real world look like, what is it you so hate about the world you believe these leftie media luvvies inhabit and the vision they project?

You seem to have a funny idea how opinion polling works, it's not just a case of someone licking a finger, sticking it in the air then making up some numbers and championing their ideal anyway. Yes of course they they can be and sometimes are used as a tool of manipulation but even then they're distorted systematically or cherry picked to emphasise anomalous headline results from small data sets. The polls have generally been a little off recently but it has only been a little off, generally within the declared margins of error. If this liberal blinkering/bias were the case, why were the polls commissioned by right wing outlets also consistently off the mark by similar margins... perhaps that suggests it has more to do with methodology and holes in the data than systematic bias. Or perhaps you view the creators of the Daily Mail and it's vile ilk as pinko liberals as well? Are the bookmakers in on this too? Bookmakers never struck me as pinko liberal hand wringing sorts.
jk
Post edited at 10:47
1
 wbo 10 Nov 2016
In reply to Indy: in general are people here basing there opinion on uk or us media sources? Us sources, polling and the media were saying this was going to run close.

Look at the turnout numbers- horrible. A battle between two uninspiring candidates , but Trumps turned out. Dont overanalyse this

KevinD 10 Nov 2016
In reply to wbo:

> Look at the turnout numbers- horrible. A battle between two uninspiring candidates , but Trumps turned out. Dont overanalyse this

I thought the figures gave a slight majority to Clinton? Just not distributed in the right places.
The number of people who simply gave up on it is worrying though. Seems to be a lot who looked and thought both are as bad as each other.
 Dave Garnett 10 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
> ^ I never said I didn't like liberalism, I just said the media commentators and pollsters are so obsessed with it, they have now left the real world and cannot predict anything anymore. They just predict the candidates who support their view will in. So we now have , wrong predictions for Cameron being re-elected, wrong on Brexit, wrong on Trump. The media luvvies need to get back in the real world.

I think the mainstream broadcast media admit that they didn't pay enough attention to what was happening on social media. It's an understandable problem, it's difficult to quantify and, frankly there's a lot of stuff out there that really doesn't need to be publicised any wider.

I heard one pollster say that a high proportion of Trump supporters were probably among the alt-Right, Tea Party, survivalist, gun culture anarchist nutters who simply put the phone down when anyone asks their political opinion since they refuse to be complicit with the liberal, globalist, Washington establishment elite (or graduates as they are sometimes known). Difficult to count them if they want to be off-grid. In a way, if they just want to isolate themselves from society, that's up to them (as long as they don't break the law) but if they start voting for nutters in numbers that make a difference, then we do need to take them on.

While I'm on the subject of social media, it's one important aspect of the fractured media culture, especially in the US but increasingly here too. Those with strong political views increasingly engage only with like-minded posters/viewers/listeners who will reinforce their prejudices and not challenge even their most outlandish obsessions. US TV is horribly polarised (the liberals too - I love Rachel Maddow but even I eventually get tired of her shooting fish in a barrel without anyone arguing back). Talk radio is the same, unhinged self-publicists not so much preaching as screaming at the choir. Most of all, the internet enables and fosters extremists who never talk to anyone who disagrees with them.

Not only do these people never get challenged but the pollsters, political parties, academics and mainstream media find it hard to figure out how significant they are and whether they will vote at all, never mind who for.
Post edited at 10:42
1
 jkarran 10 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Interesting read, thanks for the link
jk
In reply to summo:
> People simply didn't like the corrupt appearance of the Clinton, had she not messed up with classified emails, she would have cruised this election, but she thought she was above the law.

Not the case at all. I'm not sure she was guilty of any wrong doing over her e-mails and no matter how corrupt anybody might think she is, I can guarantee that Trump is a thousand times more corrupt. Hillary Clinton had a huge credibility problem with the US public long before the e-mail scandal. Going back to her time as First Lady she was widely regarded as a narcissistic control freak pulling the strings of her president husband every step of the way and she became deeply unpopular as a result. In short she was never a viable presidential candidate and the Democrats were doomed to defeat in this election the moment she got the nomination. It was only because she was up against an ogre like Trump that she didn't lose by a much heavier margin. If the Republicans had selected a more moderate candidate then Clinton may well have lost all 50 states.
Post edited at 11:07
1
 Dave Garnett 10 Nov 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Yes, actual data, what next?!

 Dave Garnett 10 Nov 2016
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> If the Republicans had selected a more moderate candidate then Clinton may well have lost all 50 states.

Possibly, and if the Republicans had chosen less of a bogeyman than Trump, Bernie Sanders might well have got the Democrat nomination.
 Pete Pozman 10 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
I see they're still at it this morning saying basically only thick people could vote for Trump. The nasty side of the media showing, they're actually worse than Trump.

If you're not thick there can be absolutely no excuse for supporting Trump. Intelligent people voting Trump cannot possibly be unaware of his utter unsuitability. Apologists in this country ( Piers Morgan and Rees Mogg for instance ) make my gorge rise.

1
Jim C 11 Nov 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> If you're not thick there can be absolutely no excuse for supporting Trump. Intelligent people voting Trump cannot possibly be unaware of his utter unsuitability.

Carefull as a majority (53%) of white women who voted , voted Trump.
It follows then that you are saying the majority of white women voters are stupid?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...