U.S Election 2016

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Damien

What is anti-democratic about the protests?

If you're talking about the anti Trump protests then I despair.....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think some of this though has been overplayed. In fact the whole right/left thing seems to be breaking down and turning into something else. Globalists vs Nativists maybe. There was a sign at one of those protests yesterday having a go at protectionism, a left-wing protest was opposing protectionism.

I see a lot more of that in the Trump and Brexit votes than identity politics. The biggest support for both of these came from industrial areas of their nations where jobs had either stagnated or fallen as jobs moved overseas. The biggest support for the other side came in urban areas who've largely benefited.

If it did have an impact I would say it was in distracting people 'on the left' (although I think many Tories and Republicans missed it too) were paying too much attention to those kinds of issues rather than the fact areas of their country were collapsing. No one in power paid attention to what was happening.

I think you touch upon an interesting point. As Aaron Banks, key funder of Leave.EU says, “Our future lies in a different kind of politics, neither left nor right but radical. We believe there’s a great scope for an online movement that can embrace people from all across the political spectrum. There’s a change in the wind . . . Social media has transformed everything.”

Originally Posted by Pierre

Funny that, as unless I dream't it, all the anti- globalisation protests of the last few years have been strictly left-wing.

Yes. One of the big 'left-wing' things was to be against the 'neoliberal' view of the world. The W.T.O has enemy no 1. Now I don't think they've all become pro-business liberals but I think that the lines are blurring and people are shifting.

I haven't quite crystallised it in my own head yet. But look at Trump. Some of the things he has been saying are not conventionally Republican. He is quite protectionist, he wants to put up tariffs to 'save American jobs', he wants to spend a lot of money. Look at Labour. It used to find it's support though a collection of traditional working class, labour, type voters and (for want of a better world) metropolitan liberals. Now they seem to be sitting on the biggest divide in politics.

Like I said it's hard to know exactly but I think things are changing.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

If you're talking about the anti Trump protests then I despair.....

I am talking about yesterday's protests, not the ones on the day of the inauguration, protests are part of a democracy and violence isn't.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes. One of the big 'left-wing' things was to be against the 'neoliberal' view of the world. The W.T.O has enemy no 1. Now I don't think they've all become pro-business liberals but I think that the lines are blurring and people are shifting.

I haven't quite crystallised it in my own head yet. But look at Trump. Some of the things he has been saying are not conventionally Republican. He is quite protectionist, he wants to put up tariffs to 'save American jobs', he wants to spend a lot of money. Look at Labour. It used to find it's support though a collection of traditional working class, labour, type voters and (for want of a better world) metropolitan liberals. Now they seem to be sitting on the biggest divide in politics.

Like I said it's hard to know exactly but I think things are changing.

Traditionally the TTIP was something that broadly speaking the left were against and the right were in favour of. In the US, the right as represented by Donald Trump are against it whilst the left represented by the Democrats are in favour of it.
I think in the UK, the left are still broadly against the TTIP. The cliche about the Conservative Party in the UK is that it is stuck between the self-made who favour free trade and those who have family wealth and are opposed to it but this ignores its appeal to many other people. I think there's an element of truth to the cliche as the Conservative Party have attracted the free trade business people who would have favoured the Whigs before that party was sidelined by the emergence of the Labour Party.

[Pierre]

We'll soon all be bored of this minute by second reporting of everything Trump does.

Can we all just park it for a bit, give it 6 months, see we where are?

Originally Posted by martyh

i quoted your post so nothing was made up ,you can't keep accusing people of making stuff up when you are called out on your posts

I can and I did and you did.

Originally Posted by martyh

You made it perfectly clear that you think the women protesters where "mindless anarchists"

No I did not make it perfectly clear at all. Already told you you're wrong on this. Please use the search facility on this thread topic and show us, where I said in the same sentence and accused the women who were protesting in the march on Saturday, were 'Mindless Anarchists'. Only time I have said this is when I was talking about those clowns who were smashing windows in DC on Friday, on the day of the Inauguration, I was saying these were mindless anarchists. Get your facts straight.

You see, you're seeing things that are just not there, a serious problem you have martyh.

Originally Posted by martyh

you think that the platform she was protesting for is "invalid" because she (Madonna) is involved which to be perfectly blunt is complete bollocks ,one has nothing to do with the other

Yes it does, both what she said and Trump said are sexual terms, Madonna said hers in public I might add. They are BAD things to say, even if joking and then Madonna, turns up to a rally/protest/demonstration, about respect for women, I cannot respect a woman who does such a thing, so no it is not bollocks.

Just agree to disagree with me instead of trying to have the last word as always, because I DO NOT agree with you.

Originally Posted by martyh

Womens rights,gay rights ,black rights,everybody's rights are always valid regardless of who decides to get up and speak for them

They are not valid, when they cannot practice what they preach, which is my whole point.

Madonna was a bad example for a womens rights group to put up after some of the frankly stupid stuff she has come out with and didn't win them any favours. I honestly think it's stupid to judge trumps presidency at this point lets wait and see what he does now he's in office.

Not a surprise but Trump has rolled back on his promise to publish his tax returns after the election and after an audit is completed: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...122-story.html

Originally Posted by Mick

I can and I did and you did.




No I did not make it perfectly clear at all. Already told you you're wrong on this. Please use the search facility on this thread topic and show us, where I said in the same sentence and accused the women who were protesting in the march on Saturday, were 'Mindless Anarchists'. Only time I have said this is when I was talking about those clowns who were smashing windows in DC on Friday, on the day of the Inauguration, I was saying these were mindless anarchists. Get your facts straight.

:

Then you should make it clear instead of just spouting rubbish .You gave the impression that you don't think the women should be protesting because of a few violent protesters and the fact that a women you don't like stood up and spoke for the cause .You have constantly used Madonna as a reason why the entire womens equal rights movement and gay rights movements are "not valid" .

Just agree to disagree with me instead of trying to have the last word as always, because I DO NOT agree with you.

Why should we allow people with your sexist attitude to go unchallenged .If you don't like it when people challenge you and disagree with you then maybe running a discussion forum is probably not the best the thing for you

[papa smurf]

I didn't really mean 'blow up the White House', says Mad onna: Singer claims she was speaking in 'metaphor'

In an Instagram post on Sunday she stated that she 'spoke in metaphor' and did not intend it to be taken literally

what is blow up the white house a metaphor for exactly

Metaphor Examples. The definition of a metaphor is "a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another. For example, "the curtain of night" or "all the world's a stage."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-s-speech.html

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

For example, "the curtain of night" or "all the world's a stage

Or drain the swamp (rather than hire straight from it) or grab 'em by the pussy, oh no that's not a metaphor it's what he claims he does, my mistake

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I honestly think it's stupid to judge trumps presidency at this point lets wait and see what he does now he's in office.

Also worth judging him by what he doesn't do too eg:

Originally Posted by Damien

Not a surprise but Trump has rolled back on his promise to publish his tax returns after the election and after an audit is completed: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...122-story.html

Trump is an unknown and it will be interesting to see how he fares over his term. More interesting than any other US president that I can remember because his stated populist policies don't follow traditional left-right party lines.

Every journalist in the country will be trying to get those tax returns. I'm impressed they didn't come out before the election.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Every journalist in the country will be trying to get those tax returns. I'm impressed they didn't come out before the election.

The only organisations able to put their hands on those would be the IRS and the KGB. It's in neither's interests to reveal them.
Again, I don't think it's Trump's tax returns are the issue, it's the dishonesty. I appreciate that does not make him unique amongst politicians but as someone who promised a new approach he's just conforming to the very establishment he likes to attack.

Wow, so people protested, because they didnt get who they wanted.

Unless I missed something, he got elected, so clearly enough people wanted him.

Btw, just for those who seem a bit confused, he is president of the United States, not the United Kingdom.

How about people wait and see how his presidency goes, rather than judge him after 1 day.