Off Topic Politics Thread

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Obama was very charismatic for sure. But his policies weren't at the time considered revolutionary.

I mean people complain massively about Obamacare and Socialism but at the time most people were demanding some kind of National healthcare reform. Obama, McCain, and Romney all had them as part of their platform. And in fact Obamacare is somewhat similar to what Romney did when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Moreover, Obama was for whatever reason an absolute nut about getting a healthcare plan passed. He was actually rather willing to compromise so long as something got done. It was only after being he was elected that the GOP suddenly decided national healthcare of any kind was crazy-whacky Socialism and refused to even engage in discussions of any kind.

Obama ran a very positive campaign as far as being pro-government. "Hope and Change" was about believing we could change the system. Not tear it down. His platform was not that government is bad, but that the particular leaders and the environment in Congress we had at the time were bad. And to some extent that the specific policies were bad as well. But that he would listen to the people and get the idiots in Congress to calm down and we would all be united. Which in retrospect is pretty laughable.

Trump is the opposite end of the spectrum. His appeal so far has mostly been of a deeply cynical, scorched Earth variety. It's anti-government, anti-anyone who has ever been in charge of doing things, anti-intellectual.

It's really kind of like "Look, everyone is lying to you. It's a lot of work to actually think about these things, and yourself and you end up in these gray areas where it gets very complicated. It's only going to confuse you and make you depressed. So just go with the guy who tells you the story you want to hear. I might be a liar too, but I am a winner. And I'm lying for YOU whereas Hillary is telling lies against you."

"What do you have to lose?" isn't just his appeal to black voters, it's really his appeal to everyone so far. That's why he has such massive support from the 4chan/Reddit/Yiannopolis trolls. If you were anti-government the last thing you'd want is a "God Emperor" but it pisses off everyone else to call him that. They are fighting fire with even bigger fire. People have in their minds been telling lies and making them feel bad, so they are going to tell lies that make everyone else feel bad. It's anti-establishment on the one hand. But on the other hand, the anti-establishment is just a subset of a nihilistic anti-everything view.

If this were Dungeons and Dragons, I would say that Trump has captured the chaotic evil crowd. I don't think he realizes that he is being used as a tool by them, as opposed to being their leader. Or maybe he does and doesn't care. But at any rate, that crowd is not very reliable, because well... they're chaotic. They like entropy most of all and care more about that than any particular policy or individual.

What Trump needs to do is capture the neutral evil and lawful evil crowd.

The lawful evil crowd being the [HASHTAG]#NeverHillary[/HASHTAG] and lifelong GOP'ers who do not particularly like or trust Trump but feel like his victory still helps in the long term. The neutral evil crowd being those that may not particularly dislike Muslims or at the very least realize they aren't all terrorists, but they don't particularly care either. "I have nothing against you, but it appears to me like you coughing up your constitutional rights makes me safer. So sorry about that, tough blow, but it appears you are in my way."

The "What have you got to lose?" schtick doesn't work with them. They have a lot to lose and are very concerned about it, which is why they strongly dislike Clinton. They think things are going to pot and so the law-and-order, deportation, Muslim terrorist stuff appeals to them because they are worried about their wealth, culture/lifestyle, and safety.

But you do have to, at some point, still have to convince them that potentially-psycho Trump is less dangerous to them than a bunch of Mexican rapists or a Clinton win. Neither of which are ultimately that dangerous because they have the $$ (and often a short enough forward lifespan) to weather a mounting national debt, and to avoid sketchy immigrant parts of town. So it's a low bar, because you only have to make them happy, and screw what it means to others. But it's still a bar. And one that has become the sole remaining hurdle.

If you support Trump, then call me a jerk and biased and blind to the truth and convert my use of chaotic evil, neutral evil, and lawful evil to chaotic good, neutral good, and lawful good. But I think the general point still stands. He has to gain the support of the establishment who want to maintain the establishment (or at least the parts of the establishment that favor them), and not just the "burn it all down" crowd.

Very few people are supporting Trump because they like Trump, or believe he is a legit outsider who will spark a revolution of some type. The dude has like a 30% approval rating and even the majority of Republicans don't trust him (albeit they trust Clinton even less).

 

[ImpSaint]

Obama was very charismatic for sure. But his policies weren't at the time considered revolutionary.

I mean people complain massively about Obamacare and Socialism but at the time most people were demanding some kind of National healthcare reform. Obama, McCain, and Romney all had them as part of their platform. And in fact Obamacare is somewhat similar to what Romney did when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Moreover, Obama was for whatever reason an absolute nut about getting a healthcare plan passed. He was actually rather willing to compromise so long as something got done. It was only after being he was elected that the GOP suddenly decided national healthcare of any kind was crazy-whacky Socialism and refused to even engage in discussions of any kind.

Obama ran a very positive campaign as far as being pro-government. "Hope and Change" was about believing we could change the system. Not tear it down. His platform was not that government is bad, but that the particular leaders and the environment in Congress we had at the time were bad. And to some extent that the specific policies were bad as well. But that he would listen to the people and get the idiots in Congress to calm down and we would all be united. Which in retrospect is pretty laughable.

Trump is the opposite end of the spectrum. His appeal so far has mostly been of a deeply cynical, scorched Earth variety. It's anti-government, anti-anyone who has ever been in charge of doing things, anti-intellectual.

It's really kind of like "Look, everyone is lying to you. It's a lot of work to actually think about these things, and yourself and you end up in these gray areas where it gets very complicated. It's only going to confuse you and make you depressed. So just go with the guy who tells you the story you want to hear. I might be a liar too, but I am a winner. And I'm lying for YOU whereas Hillary is telling lies against you."

"What do you have to lose?" isn't just his appeal to black voters, it's really his appeal to everyone so far. That's why he has such massive support from the 4chan/Reddit/Yiannopolis trolls. If you were anti-government the last thing you'd want is a "God Emperor" but it pisses off everyone else to call him that. They are fighting fire with even bigger fire. People have in their minds been telling lies and making them feel bad, so they are going to tell lies that make everyone else feel bad. It's anti-establishment on the one hand. But on the other hand, the anti-establishment is just a subset of a nihilistic anti-everything view.

If this were Dungeons and Dragons, I would say that Trump has captured the chaotic evil crowd. I don't think he realizes that he is being used as a tool by them, as opposed to being their leader. Or maybe he does and doesn't care. But at any rate, that crowd is not very reliable, because well... they're chaotic. They like entropy most of all and care more about that than any particular policy or individual.

What Trump needs to do is capture the neutral evil and lawful evil crowd.

The lawful evil crowd being the [HASHTAG]#NeverHillary[/HASHTAG] and lifelong GOP'ers who do not particularly like or trust Trump but feel like his victory still helps in the long term. The neutral evil crowd being those that may not particularly dislike Muslims or at the very least realize they aren't all terrorists, but they don't particularly care either. "I have nothing against you, but it appears to me like you coughing up your constitutional rights makes me safer. So sorry about that, tough blow, but it appears you are in my way."

The "What have you got to lose?" schtick doesn't work with them. They have a lot to lose and are very concerned about it, which is why they strongly dislike Clinton. They think things are going to pot and so the law-and-order, deportation, Muslim terrorist stuff appeals to them because they are worried about their wealth, culture/lifestyle, and safety.

But you do have to, at some point, still have to convince them that potentially-psycho Trump is less dangerous to them than a bunch of Mexican rapists or a Clinton win. Neither of which are ultimately that dangerous because they have the $$ (and often a short enough forward lifespan) to weather a mounting national debt, and to avoid sketchy immigrant parts of town. So it's a low bar, because you only have to make them happy, and screw what it means to others. But it's still a bar. And one that has become the sole remaining hurdle.

If you support Trump, then call me a jerk and biased and blind to the truth and convert my use of chaotic evil, neutral evil, and lawful evil to chaotic good, neutral good, and lawful good. But I think the general point still stands. He has to gain the support of the establishment who want to maintain the establishment (or at least the parts of the establishment that favor them), and not just the "burn it all down" crowd.

Very few people are supporting Trump because they like Trump, or believe he is a legit outsider who will spark a revolution of some type. The dude has like a 30% approval rating and even the majority of Republicans don't trust him (albeit they trust Clinton even less).

Don't get me wrong. I don't support Trump nor do I support Farage but I do think the latter has forced the politicians at least in the Tory party to realise they cannot continue the "business as usual" politics that has become endemic in recent decades where the top just look after their clique and spin words at the minions.

Hillary is like our Blairites that still think you can just keep saying the right things while pushing policy that does nothing of the sort. They don't seem to be realising that the public is becoming more and more prepared to make drastic choices on the basis of singular issues. They are at the point where they will sacrifice a lot of the things that they think are important because the system has become so against them that a small few issues "might" change things.

I support a movement against the current establishment's continual speak to the poor but work for the rich policies but that doesn't mean I support the people who are heading those movements.

Farage is much more in line with my comments than Trump but there are still aspects of his party that are just biting their tongues behind the acceptable party line.

Trump is more dangerous but as with Obama his ideas will in the main be reigned in and the crazy stuff won't happen. However it could be that big shake up where he is not scared to expose the corruption within and 5 years worth of damage to the establishment's cosy setup would mean at the next election the democrats would have to go into it understanding they can't just carry on with "the third way" of pretend centrism that sounds great but is all geared to further enrich those that are at the top level while keeping the minions where they are.

Of course then if the democrats won in 5 years it would then mean the republicans would similarly have to take it on board for the future as well.

At the moment we have returned full circle to a century ago with a Dickensian world where it is almost impossible for most of the minions to advance while those with all the power and money protect their enclaves. It isn't poorhouses and such like but today is a case of making life reasonably comfortable outside the castle while removing the drawbridge to make sure the peasants can't get into the castle.

It needs to return to some semblance of you can cross the drawbridge if you have the requisite talent to do so and not you can't come across but we'll throw you some bread to stop you from starving while we enjoy our usual feast in the Great Halls.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

The system is not stacked against most of the Trump voters at all. The really poor white people in this country don't vote. Because like most poor people anywhere, they are too busy trying to make ends meet and/or dealing with massive personal issues or drug problems.

That whole thing is a myth. Trump supporters are not economically worse off than average. Most of them don't have manufacturing jobs or work in coal mines (because there are so few jobs like that anyway) and have not been adversely impacted by immigration. There are fewer immigrants in those areas compared to the rest of the US.

Do you know who voted for Trump in the primary? People who aren't like the myth of the Trump voter, but people who have family backgrounds and/or live in areas where the mythical Trump voter exists. Which, if you know about the history and culture of this country means they massively conservative people from massively conservative areas and generally areas on the wrong side of the civil rights movement. Basically, we're basically talking about racists with money. Their jobs aren't being threatened illegal immigrants or their lives by Muslims. They hardly even see those people. If you were trying to escape from a life of drugs and poverty, the last place you'd run to is say, West Virginia.

Most of these people just previously hadn't voted in primaries, because they really didn't care that much about the GOP primaries. As long as it wasn't a liberal it was fine with them so the mainstream GOP thought they could reliably count on their vote, despite them running farther to the right on most issued.

That's what's changed. Just that smallish subgroup. They no longer wish to be pulled to the center. They are pulling the center towards them. That's actually been going on for some time (really starting right about the time a black man ran for President-- not coincidence.) And that subgroup constitutes enough of the GOP base that they've succeeded in changing that Party to some degree.

But overall, Trump is still massively unpopular. Even more unpopular than Clinton among the general population, which is astounding considering how unpopular Clinton is.

The election is going to go strictly down traditional lines. Trump, if he wins, will garner an unprecedented amount of votes from the traditional GOP bloc of mostly old white dudes, while getting almost no support from anyone else. That bloc will consist of maybe 40% people who would have voted GOP anyway, but particularly responded to Trump's message in the primary and therefore genuinely like him to some degree, and 60% people who will vote GOP despite not liking him.

When a massively unpopular guy wins by getting old people who really don't like him that much to vote for him just because they refuse to ever consider someone from the opposite party... that's not any sort of revolution. That is about the most depressing, two-party, politics-as-usual, no-one-really-caring thing ever.

 

[Archers Road]

So Hilary's old man was right - it's the economy, stupid.

To complete the lesson, let's paraphrase Mark Baum from the movie The Big Short; "people will do what they always do when the economy tanks. They'll go back to blaming immigrants and poor people".

Those two quotes explain Trump and they explain Farage. We are living through an economic depression and people are looking for someone to demonise.

Of course, the pain felt by working class people un the west now is far less visible than it was in the 1930s, but it's no less real for all that. In the 30s, the yanks had Roosevelt. The Brits had a labour party in as poor a state as it is now. We all know what Germany and Italy had.

Have any lessons been learned from History, at all? To misquote Roosevelt from memory "never again must we allow an out of control, unregulated banking sector, blinded by greed, to gamble with the prosperity of our nation and the future of it's people". Yeah, right.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

It's the economy, but not the overall health of the economy, which is a bit unstable but doing well.

It's the KIND of economy and who is being left behind. I mentioned this way back a bunch of pages ago. I think ImpSaint has alluded to it as well.

People who vote for Trump grew up with a certain culture with certain values. They didn't go to college, because most middle-class people at that time didn't. They became store owners or farmers or skilled tradesman or something kind of blue collar-ish like that. But that was a perfectly fine career back then. They worked hard, they made friends in their (white) community. They built businesses. They retired mostly happy, feeling like they'd done everything right, and were justly rewarded with the American dream of a small house with the picket fence, etc.

They tried to teach their kids the same values and culture and so maybe their kids didn't go to college either. And nowadays, if you hit 30-35 and you do not have a college degree, you are really, really screwed. So their kids, or maybe their friend's kids, or maybe their town, is really suffering economically and with drug issues, etc.

So that's their world. They see white kids in their white towns who were "taught right" losing their way. Not because of the government, but because the economy has changed. These people desperately want to go back to 1960 when it seemed like everything made sense, and people with good Protestant work ethics and good Christian values were justly rewarded.

That's why they don't like immigrants. Those immigrants are not directly taking the jobs of anyone they know. But they are introducing these foreign ideas into the culture and some of them don't even speak (American) English! How can someone who can't speak the language get a job and their kids can't?!? How come gay people can get jobs and their kids can't?" These people are breaking the rules and being rewarded and that can only lead to this country going to hell in a handbasket.

These people have not really been shut out of the government. It's that they've never really made too many demands on the government. You know why? Because that's for weak, lazy people. You're not happy? Go out and work harder and pray more and things will go your way. That's how they handled biz back in the day. The Republicans will pick some nominees for offices. They will go out and vote for those Republicans. That's how it works.

Until now. When a black dude actually became President, well.. that's the last straw. When they finally get around to asking the government for something, you can bet that's because they are really scared, really frustrated, and really angry enough to resort to desperate measures. But they will demand to have their requests honored, because haven't lived their whole lives and worked 40, 50 years doing exactly what Americans are supposed to do? Why doesn't everyone have to do that?

Trump supporters are NOT poorer than average. They are however, slightly less educated. They are old. They are white. They live in massive majority white towns so are not directly threatened by immigrants or Muslims moving in.

They are voting for Trump in part because of economic issues. But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. It's a culture battle. They cannot wrap their heads around the fact that things that worked in the 50's and 60's don't work any more and there is nothing wrong with that. They are vastly afraid of what the future of America will be if we lose our "American" values. They want to Make America Great Again.

But for the kids or more likely grandkids of these people if becoming an HVAC technician or plumber and living and dying in the town where they were born, and not to try and be rich because that's high falutin' and too much, but just be safe, be middle class, buy a house and bunker down there until you die-- that is not their American dream. That America does not sound Great to them at all.

 

[Archers Road]

So what you're saying is, America is soon going to be crying out for plumbers?

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Heh.

But actually, yes. It's a problem that's been getting much more attention as of late. I believe UK has the same problem with an shortage of skilled tradesman as well. A lot of the wealthier nations do.

People aren't going to stop pooping or wanting relief from the heat and cold so there is always some need for HVAC and plumbing. And the pool of skilled tradesmen is old and aging rapidly. Young people don't have much interest in those jobs.

It's not just people. They are building gigantic server farms that output significant levels of heat, and heat can cause the servers to fail. So they need really good cooling systems in those places.

 

[The Ides of March]

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/ken-clarke-theresa-may-no-clue-shes-brexit/

Spot on Ken Clarke. Why, oh why didn't Cameron listen to the voice of this wise man?

 

[davecg69]

Heh.

But actually, yes. It's a problem that's been getting much more attention as of late. I believe UK has the same problem with an shortage of skilled tradesman as well. A lot of the wealthier nations do.

People aren't going to stop pooping or wanting relief from the heat and cold so there is always some need for HVAC and plumbing. And the pool of skilled tradesmen is old and aging rapidly. Young people don't have much interest in those jobs.

It's not just people. They are building gigantic server farms that output significant levels of heat, and heat can cause the servers to fail. So they need really good cooling systems in those places.

Which is why so many skilled tradesmen in the U.K. are now coming from abroad. Being a plumber or electrician in Poland is the same as here, except you can get paid about 3 times more. They're just as skilled and "our" kids apparently don't want to do stuff like that because it's "too menial". We should never have got rid of Tech Colleges and Apprenticeships - my brother did one and went on to a successful career as an engineer.

 

[Archers Road]

Which is why so many skilled tradesmen in the U.K. are now coming from abroad. Being a plumber or electrician in Poland is the same as here, except you can get paid about 3 times more. They're just as skilled and "our" kids apparently don't want to do stuff like that because it's "too menial". We should never have got rid of Tech Colleges and Apprenticeships - my brother did one and went on to a successful career as an engineer.

I don't think it's the case at all that our kids don't want to learn a trade. It's more a case, as you allude to further on in your post, that routes into skilled trades in the UK are limited. Even youngsters who do complete a Govt funded entry level course have to then find an employer to take them on and provide on the job training, After that they often have to take full responsibilty for their own development, certification, etc

 

[davecg69]

I don't think it's the case at all that our kids don't want to learn a trade. It's more a case, as you allude to further on in your post, that routes into skilled trades in the UK are limited. Even youngsters who do complete a Govt funded entry level course have to then find an employer to take them on and provide on the job training, After that they often have to take full responsibilty for their own development, certification, etc

Fair enough - though I have heard that some kids (not all admittedly) want big salaries immediately (I blame the "celebrity" culture, where so-called celebs throw their dosh around and show off how much bling they get) and don't realise that you have to work to attain it (mostly - god knows how some of these people do it with no talent) and start at the bottom.
I agree about lack of opportunities though - we need to sort that out.

 

[San Tejón]

Which is why so many skilled tradesmen in the U.K. are now coming from abroad. Being a plumber or electrician in Poland is the same as here, except you can get paid about 3 times more. They're just as skilled and "our" kids apparently don't want to do stuff like that because it's "too menial". We should never have got rid of Tech Colleges and Apprenticeships - my brother did one and went on to a successful career as an engineer.

Many training providers, as a result of changes made to apprenticeships, several years ago, are actively excluding the less well educated lads and lasses from apprenticeship schemes.
When the goal posts were moved, meaning an apprentice needed to have a certain level of academic skills, namely level C GCSE passes for Maths and English, in order to achieve the full apprenticeship award, (depending on the apprenticeship and it's level) training providers started turning away applicants that had lower grades, to safeguard their success percentages.
Apprentices, with lower grades, would need to achieve key skills in number (maths) and communication (English), alongside their apprenticeship, which entails the training providers having to help/teach them to improve these skills, which could ultimately lead to less money received, from funding, for failures or incomplete apprenticeships, as well as a hit to their success rate.
Effectively, the less well educated, who routinely filled these manual, but skilled, jobs, have been cut out of the equation, and left having to seek work they have little or no interest in, whereas many of the better educated don't want to do hands on work.

 

[Archers Road]

Fair enough - though I have heard that some kids (not all admittedly) want big salaries immediately (I blame the "celebrity" culture, where so-called celebs throw their dosh around and show off how much bling they get) and don't realise that you have to work to attain it (mostly - god knows how some of these people do it with no talent) and start at the bottom.
I agree about lack of opportunities though - we need to sort that out.

Everyone, unless they are very privileged, has to start at the bottom. For the present generation of 16-25 year olds, the difficulty is getting off the bottom. I don't see any reluctance to work hard and make sacrifices amongst my son and his mates. Just a generation which, for the first time since the second world war, has been presented with far fewer opportunities and far more obstacles into productive adulthood than the generations that came before.

 

[ImpSaint]

Heh.

But actually, yes. It's a problem that's been getting much more attention as of late. I believe UK has the same problem with an shortage of skilled tradesman as well. A lot of the wealthier nations do.

People aren't going to stop pooping or wanting relief from the heat and cold so there is always some need for HVAC and plumbing. And the pool of skilled tradesmen is old and aging rapidly. Young people don't have much interest in those jobs.

It's not just people. They are building gigantic server farms that output significant levels of heat, and heat can cause the servers to fail. So they need really good cooling systems in those places.

I noticed you mentioned me in the last post and to a degree I agree although you shouldn't assume I am talking about racism or immigrants per se, which you have talked of straight after mentioning me. It might be the case in the US but I doubt it is the whole case. Either way I don't know that much about the US so can;t really say if what you say is true about a large amount of Trump supporters or just a section but it most definitely is not what has happened in the UK.

In the UK there are racists and people who want to harp back to the 50s and 60s as well but it is a small quantity and the "pray to god" part is hardly there at all these days over here.

You have brushed the realities of the UK in the post I quote and the previous one but wrapped them together with a racial aspect which is not true in the UK for the majority.

What we have had is years of Neo-liberalism which has pushed the education aspect, more university places, aim higher etc. The problem here is that trades have become less and less attractive. A lot of young people want that uni paper even if it is in a "worthless" subject. They don't want to be a plumber or an electrician.

That has left a vacuum that has been filled by immigrants.

It isn't immigration that has failed society nor that people want their "white"communities back lilke they were in the 50s/60s. It is that they are seeing immigrants come freely to the country and take all the lower paid jobs (including the trades.) The government has pushed this education thing which has made youngsters think down to trades as a profession yet where was the education for trades? Why are we short of skills in these areas? Why is the choice for someone at 16 to work for NMW or go to 6th form? Why is there this gap in the middle where we are now seeing skills gaps?

The answer is that the system has ignored that middle layer. They focused on the top (i.e. getting people to uni and coming out with degrees) and then threw money at the bottom. They didn't bother pushing education at all levels.

It has been going on for 20 odd years and is far too simplistic to say people want their white communities back. That is not true at all in the UK in general although of course there are some that feel that way.

Sections of society are angry at the whole system. Not just because immigration is so high and it is consuming every lower job whether there was a vacancy or not. It is an anger that the system does not support anybody unless they are liberally minded.

The question is more "Why is it that if you are white, British, over 24, <GCSE educated that you are at the back of the queue for assistance?

Meaning if you are under 24 there is free education, re-education and retraining for the workplace. If you are over then that assistance isn't there.
If you are not white British then you benefit from positive discrimination in the name of equality which is a contradiction.
Why is it that if you are over 24 and <GCSE educated you are up the swanny if you suddenly find yourself out of work because everyone else now has an advantage over you and employers don't seem bothered about your experience anymore.

You are right that many people (like me) came out of school at 16 in an age where you could get a job at the bottom (like a trainee clerk) and work your way up and nowadays that option isn't there for those at the bottom. You need a piece of paper to do that these days.

What has most fired up most people is not that they are racist or bigoted or any of the rest. It is because if they question what the liberal mindset is the only way to do things that the liberal mindset do not bother to answer. They just say "we are doing the right thing and if you don;t agree you must be a racist bigot."

Even now everyone is warbling on about Brexit being because of some anger about immigrants. It wasn't. It was an anger about how the liberal system states what is right and will not listen to any variance of what they say is the correct mindset. You cannot question immigration because instantly a racist. You cannot be concerned about your job prospects because then you are protectionist.

It is not so much "seeing funny coloured people or people that speak in another language." It is this constant drive from both main parties of the past 20 odd years to tell everybody that this is the only way you are allowed to think and you must not question it. If you do then you are a .....ist or ....phobe.

Trump is an idiot but how many more years will people like Hillary, Blair, Cameron be allowed to further this ideology of there only being one way to think, speak, live your lives before there is an absolute explosion of anger because if it continues with these pretend liberals pushing ideologies of humanity and equality while knowingly just making policy that helps maintain their inner circle and keep everyone else down there it will only get worse.

They don't care about equality or social mobility at all. That is lip service because they need people to have these grievances to feather their nests. Their policies are there purely to treat people as numbers for their inner circle to make bigger profits from.

That is why most people in the UK voted to Leave. It is also why the Tories got back in with a majority although people didn't realise Cameron was another faux-liberal.

Forget what the BBC and other MSM keep telling you people did because they follow this same Neo-liberal narrow view and cannot see any criticism or questioning of their view as anything other than being [something]ist. There is no other way and if you disagree then you ARE [something]ist. There is no open mindedness there.

It is why there has been this relatively new phenomenon where polls are no longer something you can take much notice of. The "shy" voter. This is down to people feeling that this liberal narrow view means they should be ashamed to vote the way they are going to vote and therefore they do not tell people. They don't want to say they are voting Tory because they don't want the liberals to start shouting names at them. They don't want to say they are voting leave because they don't want the liberals calling them names. They don't want to say they are voting for Trump because they don't want the liberals shouting names at them. They either say "don't know" or lie and say someone else. That is why all these polls over the past few years have had more "don't knows" than normal and also a higher result for the losing side(s) than they actually achieved.

When the liberals will not accept any other worldview than their own without calling people names then people have started to hide their voting intentions. Not because they feel guilty because in most cases they have nothing to feel guilty about. Because of the modern liberal way which is to close down discussion, call everyone names and silence the opposition voices. That is not very liberal at all is it but that is how things work these days.

So when the BBC says that the number 1 issue that people said was why they voted out was sovereignty you can take that at face value if you like but that isn't true at all. For most people it was because they wanted this system of being told that they are all wrong because the liberal way is the only way and the EU (including the freedom of movement) is one of the worst perpetrators of this.

When you tell people that you used to work alongside a couple of hundred Brits and now it is all EU migrants working there and then the people you tell instantly tell you "No no, immigrants aren't taking your British jobs, they are only taking jobs Brits don't want to do" then it just makes people angry. You cannot give this reply to people when they are telling the truth. The politician (or the poster on a forum that is reeling off stats) is saying that your life has been a dream. It can't be so because the research says it isn't.

Most people will vote from life experiences than stats or research presented to them. Politicians can deny these things are happening all they like and present any counter as being [something]ist but at the end of the day a lot of people have had real life experience of the very things that the politicians, media (and thus people in society repeating) say haven't happened.

I said at the time it isn't anything to do with people. It is to do with policy, lots of policy that all presents only one Ayn Rand way of life and if you aren't on message you are an 'orrible person.

Trump[ism] is the same thing really. Yes he is an idiot, yes he exaggerates, yes he lies. The thing is though that he resonates with people's life experiences. Have jobs gone from the US to Mexico? Yes. Is the system rigged against the working man? Yes. All these things resonate and while the liberals might think it is fine to just factcheck and call people names that does not change people's real life experiences.

This faux-liberalism has been found out as uber capitalism that exploits people as numbers and are not bothered whether those numbers are their own citizens or someone elses as long as the $$$ or £££ result is a plus for their inner circle.

Trump will win in November. Take the current polling as Hillary being on 46 and trump on 44. That leaves 10 as don't knows. Most of those don't knows will go Trump's way. Be conservative and say 6/4 in Trump's favour. That puts them level. Then take a couple of Hillary and add them to Trump for people that said Hillary because they didn't want to be "shamed". Trump is now 4% ahead!!!

That is what happened in the Scottish referendum, the UK 2015 GE and for Brexit. Hillary will need a big lead in the polls going into voting day or she will not win. I just can't see it because she is missing the point in that Trump's statements resonate however inaccurate they are and she cannot think factchecking or name calling will change that. Does she dare address those issues head on? I doubt it because all she will be saying is that it is true but Donald's numbers aren't right.

I just hope that he puts a good team together around him because Trump in power is only marginally less scary than Hillary. HE will win though because Hillary has no way to convince people she is not continuity and in the end that is what will beat her and not Trump's (lack of) policy.

 

[ImpSaint]

Which is why so many skilled tradesmen in the U.K. are now coming from abroad. Being a plumber or electrician in Poland is the same as here, except you can get paid about 3 times more. They're just as skilled and "our" kids apparently don't want to do stuff like that because it's "too menial". We should never have got rid of Tech Colleges and Apprenticeships - my brother did one and went on to a successful career as an engineer.

Spot on. this whole attack on people "wanting to go back 50 years" distracts from the point that the modern comprehensive singular avenue is not working and we should be open to old ideas if they will work in the modern world.

You could even select at different ages not just 11. People develop at different rates and you could have differing avenues at much earlier ages than everybody going through school and only at 16 choosing the next path. Those GCSE years could be altered to include people learning trades or skills while others are moved into more academic things if that is their skillset.

The argument against grammar schools is ridiculous and very applicable to this forum. This whole talk of how it would hurt or offend children to be labelled a failure if they didn't get into the grammar school.

By that way of thinking we should get rid of dance schools, music schools, football academies!!! We must not have these schools that nurture talent because those that didn't get in might be offended or scarred for life.

There was a very telling audience suggestion last night on Question Time and that was that education these days is more geared toward turning D and E grades into C grades than it is to turning Bs into As or A+. That is very true. It is the liberal ideal of equality when in truth it isn't equality at all. It is positive discrimination and positive discrimination is anti-equality. It discriminates against people for no reason other than they are unfortunate to be born the way they are born. You will never achieve equality by discriminating against anybody.

 

[ImpSaint]

Fair enough - though I have heard that some kids (not all admittedly) want big salaries immediately (I blame the "celebrity" culture, where so-called celebs throw their dosh around and show off how much bling they get) and don't realise that you have to work to attain it (mostly - god knows how some of these people do it with no talent) and start at the bottom.
I agree about lack of opportunities though - we need to sort that out.

Archers is right but you are in a way because they do want big money straight away but its nothing to do with celebrity culture. It is to do with the fact that liberals and socialists have told them they deserve full pay straight away. This whole "slave labour" concept where in the past you earnt less but learnt a trade.

It has not helped like Archers states that the apprenticeship is now a BS waste of time scheme purely used to pay less money and not what it should be. Apprentice barman? Apprentice retail assistant? These are not trades (as such) and are purely a means to pay less.

Apprenticeships used to be where an employer paid you an apprenticeship wage but you learnt the trade AND did day release to get the relevant qualifications and at the end of it they would employ most of the apprenticeships. These days a lot of apprenticeships are full time work with no day release and at the end of the apprenticeship thats it........goodbye, where's the next intake.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Impsaint, was not implying you were a racist, or that you agreed with Trump.

I was saying that you and I have both alluded to the issue stemming from a particular sector of our respective countries.

Economy has been relatively good since the 2008 banking crisis/recession.

So the dissatisfaction is not in response to a bad economy in general or anything on a national level. It's a particular subset of the established citizenry, call it "working middle class" or "blue collar middle class" that have not fared well at all, and consequently are disappearing. I don't think they have been "ignored" by government, I think they just made bad choices. But I agree they are out there, and driving a lot of the Trump/Farage support.

The other dimension is regional. If you live in a small town that was dependent upon a steel plant, or a factory, or maybe coal mining, then your town is likely suffering. But steel and manufacturing is not going to come back. Trade protectionism won't help. Becoming a skilled tradesman won't help you. Because the economies there are just dead. No one has money to pay you. No one wants to build new buildings there.

What needs to happen is that these areas need to transition into a different economy. I do think the government bears some of the blame for not trying to help them do this. But those regions also bear a a ton of the blame themselves for resisting any attempt to help them change. They just wanted (and still want) more coal subsidies and steel subsidies to keep them going and prop up their dying industries. The game is over. They need to move on.

That plays into the immigration aspect as well. These people are not having their jobs directly threatened by immigrants (as there are no jobs). But they look at government spending, and they go "Wait. Why are we spending money to help immigrants. But we won't spend money to help me?" But to some extent the government WILL spend money to help them-- especially liberals. They just won't spend money to help them mine more coal.

 

[ImpSaint]

Impsaint, was not implying you were a racist, or that you agreed with Trump.

I was saying that you and I have both alluded to the issue stemming from a particular sector of our respective countries.

Economy has been relatively good since the 2008 banking crisis/recession.

So the dissatisfaction is not in response to a bad economy in general or anything on a national level. It's a particular subset of the established citizenry, call it "working middle class" or "blue collar middle class" that have not fared well at all, and consequently are disappearing. I don't think they have been "ignored" by government, I think they just made bad choices. But I agree they are out there, and driving a lot of the Trump/Farage support.

The other dimension is regional. If you live in a small town that was dependent upon a steel plant, or a factory, or maybe coal mining, then your town is likely suffering. But steel and manufacturing is not going to come back. Trade protectionism won't help. Becoming a skilled tradesman won't help you. Because the economies there are just dead. No one has money to pay you. No one wants to build new buildings there.

What needs to happen is that these areas need to transition into a different economy. I do think the government bears some of the blame for not trying to help them do this. But those regions also bear a a ton of the blame themselves for resisting any attempt to help them change. They just wanted (and still want) more coal subsidies and steel subsidies to keep them going and prop up their dying industries. The game is over. They need to move on.

That plays into the immigration aspect as well. These people are not having their jobs directly threatened by immigrants (as there are no jobs). But they look at government spending, and they go "Wait. Why are we spending money to help immigrants. But we won't spend money to help me?" But to some extent the government WILL spend money to help them-- especially liberals. They just won't spend money to help them mine more coal.

Which I almost totally agree with. What I am saying is that Hillary will not win by trying to say Trump is not right. Not when people listen to Trump and their life experiences say that he is.......even if his numbers and facts aren't entirely accurate. The gist of what he says resonates and no number of factchecking or debating in the usual political jargon will win Hillary the votes. She looks doomed to me because she is continuity and even if those jobs will never come back people want a change from those at the top that DO ignore them.

The UK politicians ignored them as well. They threw money at them and closed the avenues to help them help themselves forward. They don't want selective schools because it might offend those who fail. They don't see that there are more people that would fail in that selection than would succeed to be selected by a large margin however that does not mean we don't still want our kids to have that chance to succeed no matter that there is a chance they might fail. Rod Liddle was pretty similar to me last night. Nothing wrong with selective schools but not entirely happy with the 11+ being the decider.

People are tired of this neo-liberal nonsense which is widespread in politics and media and a large part of society where if you don't agree with their linear viewpoint then you are an x or y. People have had enough of that. Nothing to do with racism or bigotry or any other thing. Plenty of us are not those things but we are tired of trying to say something and being labelled for it not matching the acceptable message.

I don't suspect that anything will change in the media or society. There are a lot of nasty people that call themselves liberal or left leaning that can be very vicious. But we do need some common sense to return to government where it isn't all about SJW issues and not offending and positive discrimination.

Just some common sense that we need to give chances to all our people and then look outward. Not continually discriminate against poor Brits because the profits are better if we use migrant workforces and then lie about Brits not wanting to do that work.

Nor lieing about wars being humanitarian or encouraging revolutions because those regions are oil rich.

A government that is a UK government that looks after UK people and has sensible ideas about the world and not "who cares, how can we make the most money in the shortest time, we don't care who we upset. They are only idiot plebs."

 

[mungo]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Which I almost totally agree with. What I am saying is that Hillary will not win by trying to say Trump is not right. Not when people listen to Trump and their life experiences say that he is.......even if his numbers and facts aren't entirely accurate. The gist of what he says resonates and no number of factchecking or debating in the usual political jargon will win Hillary the votes. She looks doomed to me because she is continuity and even if those jobs will never come back people want a change from those at the top that DO ignore them.

Yes and no.

You are correct that these people strongly dislike Clinton. And that they view the government as interfering with their lives and telling them what they can and cannot do. And you are correct in that Clinton cannot tout the liberal line and win them over.

You are incorrect in that liberals have not allowed them to move forward. They don't want to move forward. They want to be able to keep grazing their cattle, or strip mining, or fishing, or fraking on what they see as their land.

You are also incorrect in assuming this is a revolution against liberals. I have no doubt they hate liberals, but they always have. They haven't been duped by liberal promises, because they never bought what liberals were selling in the first place. They haven't asked for government programs and been rebuffed because they hate government programs. They adamant about wanting smaller government (though their definition of "smaller" can be somewhat suspect when applied in practice).

The revolution that is happening is by and large all occurring on the Right. They definitely hate Clinton and liberals, but they always have. In the past however, they could be relied on to vote for mainstreamers like Jeb Bush. Not anymore. The main target of their ire will always be liberals because they are so opposed to that philosophy. But who they are mainly rebelling against is the GOP, who has been promising smaller government but in their minds not delivering. These are the "cuckservatives."

Now, there MAY be a growing mirror movement on the left where liberals actually do feel let down by those they've elected and the promises they have made. And the feeling that you have to toe the Democrat line. That's where Sanders came in. We'll have to see if that movement has legs.

But none of this so far has resulted in the kind of gestalt switch/revolution you are postulating. The red states are still voting red. The blue states are still voting blue. I am guessing those hardcore states will be redder or bluer than ever. And the election will be decided by the same battleground states that have decided every election since 2000.