The Donald Trump Incredulity Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

I know that this doesn't relate to rugby, but feel free to say what you want about the 45th (and presumably final) president of the United States.

A man John Oliver once described as "a large clown made of dessicated foreskin and cotton candy".

[SecretFly]

Oops Ireland is a minefield when it comes to the word Democracy. Let's not go there, lads.

[Guest]

Oops Ireland is a minefield when it comes to the word Democracy.  Let's not go there, lads.  

I wont. It was just a shot across the bow

[Guest]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

[carpet baboon]

Does anyone think Donald will actually do anything for "middle America" or the "working man"?

[SecretFly]

Well he might...might.... encourage a few big American companies back home in a bigger way; - he's talking about reducing corporate tax.  When told during the campaigning that he outsourced his business interests, he said yeah, because that's sensible business practice working under present day conditions.  So he might encourage business back to America in a bigger way.  That's gotta help in term of possible manufacturing jobs and surrounding service industries, property rental, road and construction infrastructure etc etc.....

He wouldn't have to do too much re-working of the rules to bring about real change in the hopes of middle America.  Only question now is was he genuine?  Jury is out obviously.  But Clinton never had an idea or desire to change the patterns of Golbalisation that induced and profited American companies to emigrate.  Indeed, her Party is all for increasing that global cooperation that inevitably takes more jobs out of America itself and re-sited them in low-wage (or preferable tax climate) parts of the world instead.

[George Carlin]

Does anyone think Donald will actually do anything for "middle America" or the "working man"?

No, of course not. Even if he did know how to, he wouldn't.

The Donald thinks that by tearing up international trade treaties and calling the Chinese losers, everyone will start building things in America again. Except, obviously, they won't.

My mates and I have an office sweepstake on how long it take blue collar America to figure this out.

[Sin é]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

No need for the ad hominem attacks.

I mentioned the present Stormont Gov. because it is an obvious example of not being a democratic institution. If it was Arlene and the DUP would be in sole charge and Sinn Fein would not be in government.

Now do you agree with that statement?

[carpet baboon]

But for a man who claimed to be an outsider and against wall Street hadn't he just hired a load of wall Street folk? And his tax reforms (the little detail he has given) seem to disproportionately favour the very rich?
I just can't understand how a man who has a long history of shafting smaller businesses is going to change? A man whos ex wife under oath said he raped her because he had painfully hair plugs by someone she recommended, as caring for anyone but himself. A man with a history of using his lawyers to intimidate and silence critics as some one who will be open to helping anyone at all.

[Hood83]

There is something wrong.  Firstly, a lot of it is electronic.............. that's always up for possible nobbling.

But the issue is that had Clinton won, none of these issues would have been spoken about now - it'd all be about what President Clinton  is going to do now in terms of ISIS and Syria.  

"But there are a few country uneducated folks who are protesting that the system fixed it for Clinton to get elected?!".

"Oh yeah?  Just like we expected.  Tell them to get over themselves.  They lost.  The backed a nutjob and paid the price.  Maybe next time they might think of choosing something actually resembling intelligent life."

The system always needs modernising when the Twitter generation don't like the result ....

Anticipating a loss, Trump had already said the election was rigged, a charge many of his supporters echoed until...lo an behold, they won. Now we hear it's the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' whingeing that they lost. The idea that only liberals are demonstrating hypocrisy is complete drivel.

The metropolitan elite name themselves firstly, Hood.  They're smug enough to declare themselves.  Don't present it as a sneer from the poor Republican uneducated 'older' folks - who were blamed by that very modern, educated liberal and pompous metropolitan elite for Brexit too.  "It wasn't us young and mobile fashion conscious gender fluid people who voted for the return to the Stone age through Brexit! "  They name themselves.

And on the hypocrisy.  Yeah - it's with the protesting Liberal young and fashionable college union elite  They told Trump to accept his beating.  Now they can't accept theirs.

Yeah it's a lovely idea this concept of modern, educated metropolitan types sneering at everyone else, and defining Brexit and the rise of Trump. It just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Trump did better with men with a college degree, and did worse among those lower socio-economic groups. You can point your finger all you like at city-dwelling liberals and hipsters but that's not how the vote has gone. Same with Brexit - huge numbers of people in the very affluent South East tipped the balance far more than places like Thanet.

I think Democrats voiced concern at the prospect of a presidential candidate questioning the legitimacy of the election, they're now protesting having such a person as President. Granted, what they hope to achieve I don't know.

[SecretFly]

But for a man who claimed to be an outsider and against wall Street hadn't he just hired a load of wall Street folk? And his tax reforms (the little detail he has given) seem to disproportionately favour the very rich?
I just can't understand how a man who has a long history of shafting smaller businesses is going to change? A man whos ex wife under oath said he raped her because he had painfully hair plugs by someone she recommended, as caring for anyone but himself. A man with a history of using his lawyers to intimidate and silence critics as some one who will be open to helping anyone at all.

We'll see.  His four years have to come.  We have a similar system in Ireland as regards tax for wealthy and tax for 'working class'; and we're told by the people who support the governments that keep getting elected that this process creates employment. Big business (helped by tax breaks both for companies themselves and the super rich individuals who own themor invest in them) requires a lot of other service businesses to run in tandem with them, and all these people bring business themselves then in their purchasing power etc.
They'd see it as pointless tokenism to take more tax off the percentage-wise fewer rich people to give the tax breaks to unworking or 'poor work' employees.

But we'll see what Trump does.  I think many Trump critics would love him not to try, would love him to be the con they believe him to be, would love that the rustbelt voters were as poor in four year's time as they are now.  They've love that to happen so that they could simply say: "We told you so".

My point is that Hillary Clinton would have guaranteed that the rustbelt would have remained a rustbelt. So, all those people are looking for - all they can look forward to  - is hope.  Trump was the only candidate that offered it.

[carpet baboon]

Now you see fly can't that argument be reversed. You say you know what Clinton would do based on her past, but say let's see if Donald is not his past?

[Sin é]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum. They are the ones you will find demonstrating outside abortion clinics for example and they might think that that homosexuals can be 'cured'.

Mike Pence, the new Vice President is one.

[SecretFly]

Yeah it's a lovely idea this concept of modern, educated metropolitan types sneering at everyone else, and defining Brexit and the rise of Trump. It just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Trump did better with men with a college degree, and did worse among those lower socio-economic groups. You can point your finger all you like at city-dwelling liberals and hipsters but that's not how the vote has gone. Same with Brexit - huge numbers of people in the very affluent South East tipped the balance far more than places like Thanet.  

I think Democrats voiced concern at the prospect of a presidential candidate questioning the legitimacy of the election, they're now protesting having such a person as President. Granted, what they hope to achieve I don't know.

It does hold up.  Go back over the media reports and even threads here in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.  Go back to the declared Demographic that ruined the hope of Europe for the mobile, educated urban and young go-getters.  Go back.  It was all over the media.  The uneducated old people in the rundown areas of England ruined the glorious future for their bright and educated children and grandchildren in the more salubrious areas of the Nation.  That was the call made by the media in general.

On that last highlighted point.  Yes - I say yet again - the democrats (or those citizens that thought Trump a fool) are being hypocrites.  No matter how you try to weigh it in their favour - they are proving themselves hypocrites.

[Hood83]

Well he might...might.... encourage a few big American companies back home in a bigger way; - he's talking about reducing corporate tax.  When told during the campaigning that he outsourced his business interests, he said yeah, because that's sensible business practice working under present day conditions.  So he might encourage business back to America in a bigger way.  That's gotta help in term of possible manufacturing jobs and surrounding service industries, property rental, road and construction infrastructure etc etc.....

He wouldn't have to do too much re-working of the rules to bring about real change in the hopes of middle America.  Only question now is was he genuine?  Jury is out obviously.  But Clinton never had an idea or desire to change the patterns of Golbalisation that induced and profited American companies to emigrate.  Indeed, her Party is all for increasing that global cooperation that inevitably takes more jobs out of America itself and re-sited them in low-wage (or preferable tax climate) parts of the world instead.

Yeah, but this not really how globalisation has worked. They've lost some jobs but massively gained jobs through globalisation - cheaper goods, more money for other US consumers to spend, more profits, more investment, growth, more jobs (that's not to downplay how awful that's been for some). The process has horribly stagnated at present (partly as companies won't invest due to higher risks...like lunatics being elected) and globalisation seems to have diminishing returns now, but to say 'he wouldn't have to do much to re-work the rules' seems wishful thinking. The last time the US tried isolationism it didn't really work out too good.

If he wants to invest in US jobs his infrastructure rebuilding is the only possible plus point.

[SecretFly]

Now you see fly can't that argument be reversed. You say you know what Clinton would do based on her past, but say let's see if Donald is not his past?

I know that she said America isn't in crisis - it's a lovely place to be, everyone is happy, if they'd only admit to it.  There is no division, all is good - let's keep saying America is Great! I, and the world, also know she's a Globalist - so too do the Americans who believe globalism has ruined their lives and hopes.

So yeah - Clinton might have had a Pauline conversion on the way to her inauguration, but it's a pity she never prompted her pal Obama, a fellow Democrat, to really work hard over the eight years to offer those forgotten people hope that business might be encouraged back?  Trump supporters might be idiots but they're not fools  They can read the body language.  Trump at least offered them hope.... so he got the job.

[carpet baboon]

And isn't rebuilding of infrastructure a very democrat policy?

[carpet baboon]

Now you see fly can't that argument be reversed. You say you know what Clinton would do based on her past, but say let's see if Donald is not his past?

I know that she said America isn't in crisis - it's a lovely place to be, everyone is happy, if they'd only admit to it.  There is no division, all is good - let's keep saying America is Great! I, and the world, also know she's a Globalist - so too do the Americans who believe globalism has ruined their lives and hopes.

So yeah - Clinton might have had a Pauline conversion on the way to her inauguration, but it's a pity she never prompted her pal Obama, a fellow Democrat, to really work hard over the eight years to offer those forgotten people hope that business might be encouraged back?  Trump supporters might be idiots but they're not fools  They can read the body language.  Trump at least offered them hope.... so he got the job.

Now my interest and knowledge in American politics is not great, but didn't a lot of Obama's policy's that would have helped the "rust belt" get stopped by the republicans controlling the house and senate?

[SecretFly]

Well he might...might.... encourage a few big American companies back home in a bigger way; - he's talking about reducing corporate tax.  When told during the campaigning that he outsourced his business interests, he said yeah, because that's sensible business practice working under present day conditions.  So he might encourage business back to America in a bigger way.  That's gotta help in term of possible manufacturing jobs and surrounding service industries, property rental, road and construction infrastructure etc etc.....

He wouldn't have to do too much re-working of the rules to bring about real change in the hopes of middle America.  Only question now is was he genuine?  Jury is out obviously.  But Clinton never had an idea or desire to change the patterns of Golbalisation that induced and profited American companies to emigrate.  Indeed, her Party is all for increasing that global cooperation that inevitably takes more jobs out of America itself and re-sited them in low-wage (or preferable tax climate) parts of the world instead.

Yeah, but this not really how globalisation has worked.  They've lost some jobs but massively gained jobs through globalisation - cheaper goods, more money for other US consumers to spend, more profits, more investment, growth, more jobs (that's not to downplay how awful that's been for some). The process has horribly stagnated at present (partly as companies won't invest due to higher risks...like lunatics being elected) and globalisation seems to have diminishing returns now, but to say 'he wouldn't have to do much to re-work the rules' seems wishful thinking. The last time the US tried isolationism it didn't really work out too good.

If he wants to invest in US jobs his infrastructure rebuilding is the only possible plus point.

For some.  For the percentage where the growth and high tech college education required jobs came.  But those are not the people suffering.  Trump was voted for not for symbolism.  Happy people would have had no reason to vote for him.  They voted for him because they're not happy and as the global money slides into the high tech, low employment industries, their kind of work dries up as it's sent to the far east and India.  These people aren't silly.  If they had the lifestyle that would allow them to vote for Clinton, they'd have done so.

[Hood83]

Yeah it's a lovely idea this concept of modern, educated metropolitan types sneering at everyone else, and defining Brexit and the rise of Trump. It just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Trump did better with men with a college degree, and did worse among those lower socio-economic groups. You can point your finger all you like at city-dwelling liberals and hipsters but that's not how the vote has gone. Same with Brexit - huge numbers of people in the very affluent South East tipped the balance far more than places like Thanet.  

I think Democrats voiced concern at the prospect of a presidential candidate questioning the legitimacy of the election, they're now protesting having such a person as President. Granted, what they hope to achieve I don't know.

It does hold up.  Go back over the media reports and even threads here in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.  Go back to the declared Demographic that ruined the hope of Europe for the mobile, educated urban and young go-getters.  Go back.  It was all over the media.  The uneducated old people in the rundown areas of England ruined the glorious future for their bright and educated children and grandchildren in the more salubrious areas of the Nation.  That was the call made by the media in general.

On that last highlighted point.  Yes - I say yet again - the democrats (or those citizens that thought Trump a fool) are being hypocrites.  No matter how you try to weigh it in their favour - they are proving themselves hypocrites.

By media I presume you mean the Guardian (that bastion of liberal, metropolitan elites), not the Brexit supporting bulk of the media. If you'd read further you'd have seen the second wave of comment pieces. The initial analysis was 'poor, old people in the sticks'. After actual analysis of the results, that switched to 'Affluent, older people in the shires'. Though I shouldn't need to remind anyone that an industry that consists of around 50% privately educated is also,surpassingly, not reflective of the Remain vote.

It may be that every single member of the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' voted for Remain, but many, many people in poorer areas voted that way too. Sure it doesn't fit a neat story but there you go. In the same way that every bigoted, racist, misogynist in the country surely voted for Trump, but so did plenty of people who just have a tonne of money they want to hold on to.

[SecretFly]

Now you see fly can't that argument be reversed. You say you know what Clinton would do based on her past, but say let's see if Donald is not his past?

I know that she said America isn't in crisis - it's a lovely place to be, everyone is happy, if they'd only admit to it.  There is no division, all is good - let's keep saying America is Great! I, and the world, also know she's a Globalist - so too do the Americans who believe globalism has ruined their lives and hopes.

So yeah - Clinton might have had a Pauline conversion on the way to her inauguration, but it's a pity she never prompted her pal Obama, a fellow Democrat, to really work hard over the eight years to offer those forgotten people hope that business might be encouraged back?  Trump supporters might be idiots but they're not fools  They can read the body language.  Trump at least offered them hope.... so he got the job.

Now my interest and knowledge in American politics is not great, but didn't a lot of Obama's policy's that would have helped the "rust belt" get stopped by the republicans controlling the house and senate?

Well there too - that's a usual fight back point. Don't forget that trump has as many enemies within the Republican party as he has in the Democrats. He's a maverick to both parties. He didn't toe the line, he had his own agenda, his policies (the whacky ones and the more reasonable ones) were his - they weren't handed to him by the Republican Party.

They were following along - afraid to be too aggressive in their criticism because they all hoped to leapfrog back into office on his back. But his ideas are his, not those of the Republican Party. We'll see how many he tries (wall?? ) and how many he tries to brush under the carpet.

[SecretFly]

Yeah it's a lovely idea this concept of modern, educated metropolitan types sneering at everyone else, and defining Brexit and the rise of Trump. It just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Trump did better with men with a college degree, and did worse among those lower socio-economic groups. You can point your finger all you like at city-dwelling liberals and hipsters but that's not how the vote has gone. Same with Brexit - huge numbers of people in the very affluent South East tipped the balance far more than places like Thanet.  

I think Democrats voiced concern at the prospect of a presidential candidate questioning the legitimacy of the election, they're now protesting having such a person as President. Granted, what they hope to achieve I don't know.

It does hold up.  Go back over the media reports and even threads here in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.  Go back to the declared Demographic that ruined the hope of Europe for the mobile, educated urban and young go-getters.  Go back.  It was all over the media.  The uneducated old people in the rundown areas of England ruined the glorious future for their bright and educated children and grandchildren in the more salubrious areas of the Nation.  That was the call made by the media in general.

On that last highlighted point.  Yes - I say yet again - the democrats (or those citizens that thought Trump a fool) are being hypocrites.  No matter how you try to weigh it in their favour - they are proving themselves hypocrites.

By media I presume you mean the Guardian (that bastion of liberal, metropolitan elites), not the Brexit supporting bulk of the media. If you'd read further you'd have seen the second wave of comment pieces. The initial analysis was 'poor, old people in the sticks'. After actual analysis of the results, that switched to 'Affluent, older people in the shires'. Though I shouldn't need to remind anyone that an industry that consists of around 50% privately educated is also,surpassingly, not reflective of the Remain vote.

It may be that every single member of the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' voted for Remain, but many, many people in poorer areas voted that way too. Sure it doesn't fit a neat story but there you go. In the same way that every bigoted, racist, misogynist in the country surely voted for Trump, but so did plenty of people who just have a tonne of money they want to hold on to.

It's the narratives that carry the stories and carry elections - the generalised overviews.  Of course some poor older people voted for Remain; just as some pretty hip youngsters voted for Brexit.  But the debate thinks in Generalities - and that's the climate under which elections are fought too.  So if someone blames poor, uneducated parents and grandparents for Brexit then they are claiming the other generality onto themselves.  They claim to have the support of the young, mobile elite... with the great fashion sense and the good taste in movies

[Sin é]

Now you see fly can't that argument be reversed. You say you know what Clinton would do based on her past, but say let's see if Donald is not his past?

I know that she said America isn't in crisis - it's a lovely place to be, everyone is happy, if they'd only admit to it.  There is no division, all is good - let's keep saying America is Great! I, and the world, also know she's a Globalist - so too do the Americans who believe globalism has ruined their lives and hopes.

So yeah - Clinton might have had a Pauline conversion on the way to her inauguration, but it's a pity she never prompted her pal Obama, a fellow Democrat, to really work hard over the eight years to offer those forgotten people hope that business might be encouraged back?  Trump supporters might be idiots but they're not fools  They can read the body language.  Trump at least offered them hope.... so he got the job.

Now my interest and knowledge in American politics is not great, but didn't a lot of Obama's policy's that would have helped the "rust belt" get stopped by the republicans controlling the house and senate?

Republicans don't like investing money in infrastructure.

Donald Trump has vowed to rebuild the nation's roads, bridges, airports and railways, but the path to delivering on that promise is full of potholes. When President Barack Obama tried to do it, a Republican Congress fought him at almost every turn, and Trump would have to contend with his party's deep-seated dislike for government spending and higher taxes to meet the $1 trillion tab for his proposals.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-infrastructure-spending-20161111-story.html

[Hood83]

Well he might...might.... encourage a few big American companies back home in a bigger way; - he's talking about reducing corporate tax.  When told during the campaigning that he outsourced his business interests, he said yeah, because that's sensible business practice working under present day conditions.  So he might encourage business back to America in a bigger way.  That's gotta help in term of possible manufacturing jobs and surrounding service industries, property rental, road and construction infrastructure etc etc.....

He wouldn't have to do too much re-working of the rules to bring about real change in the hopes of middle America.  Only question now is was he genuine?  Jury is out obviously.  But Clinton never had an idea or desire to change the patterns of Golbalisation that induced and profited American companies to emigrate.  Indeed, her Party is all for increasing that global cooperation that inevitably takes more jobs out of America itself and re-sited them in low-wage (or preferable tax climate) parts of the world instead.

Yeah, but this not really how globalisation has worked.  They've lost some jobs but massively gained jobs through globalisation - cheaper goods, more money for other US consumers to spend, more profits, more investment, growth, more jobs (that's not to downplay how awful that's been for some). The process has horribly stagnated at present (partly as companies won't invest due to higher risks...like lunatics being elected) and globalisation seems to have diminishing returns now, but to say 'he wouldn't have to do much to re-work the rules' seems wishful thinking. The last time the US tried isolationism it didn't really work out too good.

If he wants to invest in US jobs his infrastructure rebuilding is the only possible plus point.

For some.  For the percentage where the growth and high tech college education required jobs came.  But those are not the people suffering.  Trump was voted for not for symbolism.  Happy people would have had no reason to vote for him.  They voted for him because they're not happy and as the global money slides into the high tech, low employment industries, their kind of work dries up as it's sent to the far east and India.  These people aren't silly.  If they had the lifestyle that would allow them to vote for Clinton, they'd have done so.

I fear I'm repeating myself, but Clinton had more support from those earning less than $50k. She did better amongst those who are supposedly hurting. What you presumably mean is she did worse amongst those white, blue collar workers in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania who've seen jobs disappear. I don't know if that's true, I could believe it. But that is a small part of the electorate, it's just significant in certain areas. I certainly wouldn't call these people silly for thinking 'screw this globalisation gig'.

My point again though is that those people do not make up anything like the bulk of people voting Trump, who tend to have salaries far above the average. I could believe these people feel aggrieved because inequality has increased and they've felt left behind by peers etc., but that's a totally different driver. More people who had the lifestyle to vote Clinton, voted Trump.

Trump won because turnout for the Democrats fell, he got less votes than Romney and McCain. To pretend this is explained by a mass, nationwide groundswell of discontent amongst the working class is baloney.

[Hood83]

Yeah it's a lovely idea this concept of modern, educated metropolitan types sneering at everyone else, and defining Brexit and the rise of Trump. It just doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Trump did better with men with a college degree, and did worse among those lower socio-economic groups. You can point your finger all you like at city-dwelling liberals and hipsters but that's not how the vote has gone. Same with Brexit - huge numbers of people in the very affluent South East tipped the balance far more than places like Thanet.  

I think Democrats voiced concern at the prospect of a presidential candidate questioning the legitimacy of the election, they're now protesting having such a person as President. Granted, what they hope to achieve I don't know.

It does hold up.  Go back over the media reports and even threads here in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.  Go back to the declared Demographic that ruined the hope of Europe for the mobile, educated urban and young go-getters.  Go back.  It was all over the media.  The uneducated old people in the rundown areas of England ruined the glorious future for their bright and educated children and grandchildren in the more salubrious areas of the Nation.  That was the call made by the media in general.

On that last highlighted point.  Yes - I say yet again - the democrats (or those citizens that thought Trump a fool) are being hypocrites.  No matter how you try to weigh it in their favour - they are proving themselves hypocrites.

By media I presume you mean the Guardian (that bastion of liberal, metropolitan elites), not the Brexit supporting bulk of the media. If you'd read further you'd have seen the second wave of comment pieces. The initial analysis was 'poor, old people in the sticks'. After actual analysis of the results, that switched to 'Affluent, older people in the shires'. Though I shouldn't need to remind anyone that an industry that consists of around 50% privately educated is also,surpassingly, not reflective of the Remain vote.

It may be that every single member of the 'liberal, metropolitan elite' voted for Remain, but many, many people in poorer areas voted that way too. Sure it doesn't fit a neat story but there you go. In the same way that every bigoted, racist, misogynist in the country surely voted for Trump, but so did plenty of people who just have a tonne of money they want to hold on to.

It's the narratives that carry the stories and carry elections - the generalised overviews.  Of course some poor older people voted for Remain; just as some pretty hip youngsters voted for Brexit.  But the debate thinks in Generalities - and that's the climate under which elections are fought too.  So if someone blames poor, uneducated parents and grandparents for Brexit then they are claiming the other generality onto themselves.  They claim to have the support of the young, mobile elite... with the great fashion sense and the good taste in movies

No one needs to blame sections of the public, they just need to analyse the results. You may be right re the narratives, one powerful narrative for example is of whingeing liberals living in cities, forever sneering at the honest rural folk who just 'want their country back'. That's the one linked to the idea that any complaint is somehow an act of high treason. It's the one that's prevalent amongst the bulk of the English media.

[carpet baboon]

What really gets on my t*ts is all this "the people have spoken" shiiiite in both cases (brexit /us elections) the winner only just got a third of the total available votes.
Now I'm no mathematician but that leaves one third who we know didn't vote for them and another third never gave us there opinion .

So no the people havnt spoken.
Some have.
But no way in holy hell can you say it's what the people want

[SecretFly]

No one needs to blame sections of the public, they just need to analyse the results. You may be right re the narratives, one powerful narrative for example is of whingeing liberals living in cities, forever sneering at the honest rural folk who just 'want their country back'. That's the one linked to the idea that any complaint is somehow an act of high treason. It's the one that's prevalent amongst the bulk of the English media.

If one section of the populace create clichés about another section it's because it's been a long-time game between both - perhaps centuries in the gestation - and that other side has had plenty of time to create their own clichés about the 'other side.

Nobody is innocent. Debates happen and elections are won on clichés.  So they continue to have real power.

[Guest]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

No need for the ad hominem attacks.

I mentioned the present Stormont Gov. because it is an obvious example of not being a democratic institution. If it was Arlene and the DUP would be in sole charge and Sinn Fein would not be in government.

Now do you agree with that statement?

There was no ad hominem attack in my reply, although it was a bit strong.

You mentioned Stormont because you thought it was personal to me. It isn't because I see it for what it is. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a democratically agreed political model (Proportional Representation), and all Parties are representative according to their electoral mandate.

So no, I don't agree with you.

[SecretFly]

What really gets on my t*ts is all this "the people have spoken" shiiiite in both cases (brexit /us elections)  the winner only just got a third of the total available votes.
Now I'm no mathematician but that leaves one third who we know didn't vote for them and another third never gave us there opinion .

So no the people havnt spoken.
Some have.
But no way in holy hell can you say it's what the people want

Does 'what the people want' ever happen?  The only solution to getting what the 'people' want is to have a perpetual period of elections; and when one side only wins the usual 'not convincing for everyone' percentage, have another quick election to right the wrong.  Then another election should take place to right that wrong and end the moans on the other side.

I still don't think the 'People' want eternal elections to right the wrong result of the slim-win previous election  Sometimes you have to put your hand up and say, "we lost it by the rules we played it"

[Guest]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum. They are the ones you will find demonstrating outside abortion clinics for example and they might think that that homosexuals can be 'cured'.

Mike Pence, the new Vice President is one.

That description could apply to mainstream Christianity on either side.

I would think a 'fundamentalist' is simply someone who adheres to the fundamentals of their faith, such as the Nicene Creed, for example. Maybe that's semantics, but more accurate in my opinion.

[Guest]

What really gets on my t*ts is all this "the people have spoken" shiiiite in both cases (brexit /us elections)  the winner only just got a third of the total available votes.
Now I'm no mathematician but that leaves one third who we know didn't vote for them and another third never gave us there opinion .

So no the people havnt spoken.
Some have.
But no way in holy hell can you say it's what the people want

Well, if you're not in you can't win. The people who actually voted gave their voice, and they are the ones that count.

[carpet baboon]

What really gets on my t*ts is all this "the people have spoken" shiiiite in both cases (brexit /us elections)  the winner only just got a third of the total available votes.
Now I'm no mathematician but that leaves one third who we know didn't vote for them and another third never gave us there opinion .

So no the people havnt spoken.
Some have.
But no way in holy hell can you say it's what the people want

Does 'what the people want' ever happen?  The only solution to getting what the 'people' want is to have a perpetual period of elections; and when one side only wins the usual 'not convincing for everyone' percentage, have another quick election to right the wrong.  Then another election  should take place to right that wrong and end the moans on the other side.

I still don't think the 'People' want eternal elections to right the wrong result of the slim-win previous election  Sometimes you have to put your hand up and say, "we lost it by the rules we played it"

I agree. I have put my hand up and said yes. They are the rules and you won.
But I can not stand anyone telling me I have to just accept it say nothing. And saying "the people spoke" as justification for shutting me up. Well Frick that right out the door.
SOME people spoke and a i accept that. Now they need to accept my right to reply

[SecretFly]

To me a Fundamentalist - in anything, including religion - is someone who cannot tolerate other voices and other opinions. A Fundamentalist Christian detests the path of others who are not Christian. It hurts their sense of stability in their own faith when confronted by people who do not share their beliefs or philosophies.

[carpet baboon]

What really gets on my t*ts is all this "the people have spoken" shiiiite in both cases (brexit /us elections)  the winner only just got a third of the total available votes.
Now I'm no mathematician but that leaves one third who we know didn't vote for them and another third never gave us there opinion .

So no the people havnt spoken.
Some have.
But no way in holy hell can you say it's what the people want

Well, if you're not in you can't win. The people who actually voted gave their voice, and they are the ones that count.

So the needs of the people who didn't vote can be ignored? Those people don't count? Should they be exiled? Not given access to the NHS? They don't count right?

Now that is said in jest as I hate people who don't vote they wind me the Frick right up, as they are normally the first to.complain about the government's actions.
But. They still count. They exist. You cannot say the people have spoken it's what the people want as a way of ending debate when its clearly factually and demonstrably not the case

[SecretFly]

Stop saying things I want to respond to, you basterdes!! - I'm trying to have a down day today - and sit up and watch some TV by the f**king fire!

Now, onto important things:  

I know lots of people hate them, but these are the people whose rights I'd probably try to protect more than others.  To me the right NOT to vote is as important as the right TO vote.

There are places in the world obviously where you don't get the right to vote, so all of us that can should always realise how lucky we are.  But there are also places in the world where it is obligatory to vote.  To me that is also an imposition of State rule countrary to democratic values.  
We should all have the right to our opinions - a right to express them - and the right to Vote and NOT to vote.  Those central platforms are to me central to the notion of democracy.

[carpet baboon]

Stop saying things I want to respond to, you basterdes!! - I'm trying to have a down day today - and sit up and watch some TV by the f**king fire!

Now, onto important things:    

I know lots of people hate them, but these are the people whose rights I'd probably try to protect more than others.  To me the right NOT to vote is as important as the right TO vote.

There are places in the world obviously where you don't get the right to vote, so all of us that can should always realise how lucky we are.  But there are also places in the world where it is obligatory to vote.  To me that is also an imposition of State rule countrary to democratic values.  
We should all have the right to our opinions - a right to express them - and the right to Vote and NOT to vote.  Those central platforms are to me central to the notion of democracy.

No i agree. vote don't vote it's your choice, and your right.
I would prefer that they did.
But my point was people using the voice of the people has decided argument to stop debate when its just not true

[Hood83]

No one needs to blame sections of the public, they just need to analyse the results. You may be right re the narratives, one powerful narrative for example is of whingeing liberals living in cities, forever sneering at the honest rural folk who just 'want their country back'. That's the one linked to the idea that any complaint is somehow an act of high treason. It's the one that's prevalent amongst the bulk of the English media.

If one section of the populace create clichés about another section it's because it's been a long-time game between both - perhaps centuries in the gestation - and that other side has had plenty of time to create their own clichés about the 'other side.

Nobody is innocent. Debates happen and elections are won on clichés.  So they continue to have real power.

Sure, a fair point, I'm just trying to illustrate that some cliches (I have no idea how to do that accent thing over the e) are demonstrably false and easily disproven, like Trump voters are predominantly disillusioned blue collar workers. If the counter cliche is all Clinton supporters are latte drinking liberals, that too is fairly easy to disprove.

If the issue is Democrats and Republicans are often broad coalitions that repeat stories about one another that are inaccurate, I'm sure you're right. The main criticism of Trump supporters appears to be that they're racist misogynists. My gut feeling is they can't all be, and I look forward to someone demonstrating that is the case, because the alternative is worrying.

[Guest]

No, they shouldn't be ignored, but they literally don't count. They didn't vote. Another way of looking at it is maybe their non vote does count? A silent protest, or silent vote for Trump?

The illegal immigrants will have a voice though. Because Trump says something doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. We will wait and see how it plays out, but I believe he's going to encounter strong opposition to his immigration policy. Even he did push it through, it would be near impossible to implement. Anyway, 4 years isn't that long. The mute will have a chance to voice their opinion.

Something else worth considering is that not all immigrants voted for Clinton. Some actually voted for Trump. I mention that because there is more than two sides to the debate.

[Sin é]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

No need for the ad hominem attacks.

I mentioned the present Stormont Gov. because it is an obvious example of not being a democratic institution. If it was Arlene and the DUP would be in sole charge and Sinn Fein would not be in government.

Now do you agree with that statement?

There was no ad hominem attack in my reply, although it was a bit strong.

You mentioned Stormont because you thought it was personal to me. It isn't because I see it for what it is. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a democratically agreed political model (Proportional Representation), and all Parties are representative according to their electoral mandate.

So no, I don't agree with you.

I didn't actually. I mentioned Stormont because its an unusual setup. In Westminister, Scottish Parliament, Dail Eireann, and Welsh Assembly, elected representatives elect the PM/First Minster etc. which is usually the person whose party got the most votes.

And don't be projecting your prejudices onto me please.

[Guest]

To me a Fundamentalist - in anything, including religion - is someone who cannot tolerate other voices and other opinions.  A Fundamentalist Christian detests the path of others who are not Christian.  It hurts their sense of stability in their own faith when confronted by people who do not share their beliefs or philosophies.

Still doesn't make sense though. I know what people believe it to mean, but who came up with 'fundamentalists' to describe them? Extremists is far more apt, methinks.

[SecretFly]

And whilst I'm on a rant!
....what the hell is Sting doing opening the Bataclan when a member of the band that actually played on the night of the attack was allegedly stopped entering?!

The people who died were fans of that band, whether the French authorities want to acknowledge that or not - that band know more about the horror of that night than Sting or his fans. The guy who perhaps said too much about supposed Muslim involvement at the time had a right to lash out in anger (however misdirected it might have been) - he was obviously suffering from PTS at the time and should have been forgiven his outburst.

But nope - the forever offended allow Sting ( a guy who probably would never have considered the venue before the attack - if someone knows that he had, then by all means correct me) to promote a new Album instead and call it a re-opening.

[Sin é]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum. They are the ones you will find demonstrating outside abortion clinics for example and they might think that that homosexuals can be 'cured'.

Mike Pence, the new Vice President is one.

That description could apply to mainstream Christianity on either side.

I would think a 'fundamentalist' is simply someone who adheres to the fundamentals of their faith, such as the Nicene Creed, for example. Maybe that's semantics, but more accurate in my opinion.

What sides?

[Guest]

Any hate was already there, Sin é (hate on both sides). Maybe it's the establishment that are largely at fault for that?

If you're a democrat then you will condemn undemocratic rioting in the streets. Do you? Or are you also against democracy?

If Democracy is against Labour (and Mrs Burton 'trapped' in a car for two hours was it? - surrounded by police that could have easily extracted her in five minutes) then Sin probably might have reservations about it ...

Exactly. Democracy works by pleasing most of the people/States/Constituencies most of the time, and never all the people all the time. When it works against us we have a right to lobby against the things that we disagree with - Checks and Balances. But when we use undemocratic means to reverse a democratic choice, then we are can no longer call ourselves democrats.

Ah spare me - democracy isn't superior to human rights. If that was the case, the Nazi persecution of the jews would be justified.

You think the Nazi's prospered in a democracy? What about Mussolini's Blackshirts? Where they also part of a legitimate democracy?

Democracy isn't superior to human rights. Democracy is founded on human rights.

By the way; you just invoked Godwin's Law and I claim my prize.

I think Hitler was elected by the German people (i.e., democratic election). Mussolini was also elected. The Military Junta of Greece in the 60s/70s were not elected so wasn't democratic.

Don't be childish about Godwin's Law.

The Stormont Government of Northern Ireland isn't democratic by the way if you want something closer to home.

Ah, so you don't know your history. Thought as much. You should read up on it sometime. It's enlightening.

You've no sense of humour when you're losing.

Why bring Stormont into it? Maybe you want to get heavily into Irish history, Sin é ? I'm your man if you do.

No need for the ad hominem attacks.

I mentioned the present Stormont Gov. because it is an obvious example of not being a democratic institution. If it was Arlene and the DUP would be in sole charge and Sinn Fein would not be in government.

Now do you agree with that statement?

There was no ad hominem attack in my reply, although it was a bit strong.

You mentioned Stormont because you thought it was personal to me. It isn't because I see it for what it is. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a democratically agreed political model (Proportional Representation), and all Parties are representative according to their electoral mandate.

So no, I don't agree with you.

I didn't actually. I mentioned Stormont because its an unusual setup. In Westminister, Scottish Parliament, Dail Eireann, and Welsh Assembly, elected representatives elect the PM/First Minster etc. which is usually the person whose party got the most votes.

And don't be projecting your prejudices onto me please.

It's not that unusual, Sin é. 21 of 28 Western European countries use proportional representation.

So now you're accusing me of being prejudice? You're the gift that keeps giving, Sin é.

[Guest]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum. They are the ones you will find demonstrating outside abortion clinics for example and they might think that that homosexuals can be 'cured'.

Mike Pence, the new Vice President is one.

That description could apply to mainstream Christianity on either side.

I would think a 'fundamentalist' is simply someone who adheres to the fundamentals of their faith, such as the Nicene Creed, for example. Maybe that's semantics, but more accurate in my opinion.

What sides?

I suppose there are more than two sides, but certainly Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical.

[Notch]

If the issue is Democrats and Republicans are often broad coalitions that repeat stories about one another that are inaccurate, I'm sure you're right. The main criticism of Trump supporters appears to be that they're racist misogynists. My gut feeling is they can't all be, and I look forward to someone demonstrating that is the case, because the alternative is worrying.

Of course Trump supporters are not monsters. It's reductive and unhelpful to say they are.

We've got to get away from this idea that someone is a racist or is not. So many shades of gray. There are people who are just straight up bigots- your neo-nazis, KKK etc. No argument. Not only are they racist, they are willing to go out and physically intimidate and attack people. And they are the real, tiny minority. Very, very small in number. Then there are people like Trump, who are probably racist and willing to verbally express that to their advantage while remaining innocent of the actual dirty work. Then there are people who are generally passively racist, they hold racist beliefs and they are unwilling to see them challenged or admit they benefit from being part of a society which is not racism-free. They may treat people differently in terms of their race even if its unconscious, they may say some dodgy things about people, they may give offence- but they don't actually go out of their way to perpetuate racism themselves. Then there are the vast majority of people who matter here; they are perfectly decent people who perhaps hold some very few slightly racist views in the abstract about certain groups but would never dream of treating anyone they actually knew badly. They pay their taxes and they raise their kids and they go to Church, and when a candidate comes around like Trump they don't focus on the nasty parts of what he is saying because he is speaking to things they think are just more important. You might raise the issue with them and they'll say "Well, I don't condone that but..". They might be a little racist, they might genuinely not be very much at all, but whether they are racist or not does not matter. They just don't care. It's just not an issue that affects them. They don't care to think about it. They don't need to think about it. It's not what decides how they use their vote. They are not interested in the liberty of safety of people who are not connected to them- and, in a way, other peoples problems are abstract for all of us. They are racist, they aren't racist- doesn't matter. All that matters is that they will not balk at electing one given the right conditions and stresses.

Also- in terms of people who are in no way prejudiced, they are unicorns. Don't exist. There is no-one who has never had a racist or sexist thought on this earth, I guarantee it, and I'd say there's nobody who hasn't translated those thoughts into words or deeds no matter how insignificant. I can tell you I try my best to treat everyone the same and not be prejudiced in any way but in all humility I don't always succeed because I am a human being, and not being perfect is a function of being human. Once you hear someone say but I'm not a racist, that scares me too; because until someone admits that they, like everyone else, are a little bit prejudiced they're not going to work on eliminating that. If you are saying 'I'm never racist, ever' then that seems to say that you lack self-awareness of the times you probably have been and are.

But I'm not a racist- we're all bloody racists sometimes mate. It's woven into the fabric of our society. Only way to not be racist at all is to be aware of when you are being so. Police your own thoughts and behaviour first and foremost if you want to do something.

[SecretFly]

To me a Fundamentalist - in anything, including religion - is someone who cannot tolerate other voices and other opinions.  A Fundamentalist Christian detests the path of others who are not Christian.  It hurts their sense of stability in their own faith when confronted by people who do not share their beliefs or philosophies.

Still doesn't make sense though. I know what people believe it to mean, but who came up with 'fundamentalists' to describe them? Extremists is far more apt, methinks.

Well yes, the words we use in society might be a little muddled in terms of perfect meaning.  But cultural meaning does come into it.  
As far as I'm concerned most people regard 'fundamentalism' in terms of philosophical or Religious beliefs being intolerant of alternate views  

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

Extremism, in my opinion, is tied into the belief systems themselves.  'Extremism' within the Muslim faith, for example, would be in the more contentious cultural teachings within that book.  Extremism in Christianity would be contentious cultural issues within the Bible.  Fundamentalism would be in believers of those interpretations of the Koran or Bible being intolerant of those (Muslim or non-Muslim/Christian or non-Christian) that do not believe in such interpretations.

But I admit, it's semantics; and you can in actuality believe it to be the other way round and still gain meaning.  If you believe in a different interpretation of the word 'fundamentalism' then that's your prerogative, Munch.

[Sin é]

Just out of interest, Sin é; what's a fundamentalist Christian?

Christians who are uncompromising, conservative and who take their beliefs to the maximum. They are the ones you will find demonstrating outside abortion clinics for example and they might think that that homosexuals can be 'cured'.

Mike Pence, the new Vice President is one.

That description could apply to mainstream Christianity on either side.

I would think a 'fundamentalist' is simply someone who adheres to the fundamentals of their faith, such as the Nicene Creed, for example. Maybe that's semantics, but more accurate in my opinion.

What sides?

I suppose there are more than two sides, but certainly Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical.

Sure it can apply to anyone. Mick Pence is catholic as far as I know (well his background is Irish).

I think they do more than that. They are likely to burn down abortion clinics and be fairly militant in their beliefs. I think Pence blocked birth control on medicare for something like that.

[Notch]

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

You got a link to some examples of that?

[Guest]

To me a Fundamentalist - in anything, including religion - is someone who cannot tolerate other voices and other opinions.  A Fundamentalist Christian detests the path of others who are not Christian.  It hurts their sense of stability in their own faith when confronted by people who do not share their beliefs or philosophies.

Still doesn't make sense though. I know what people believe it to mean, but who came up with 'fundamentalists' to describe them? Extremists is far more apt, methinks.

Well yes, the words we use in society might be a little muddled in terms of perfect meaning.  But cultural meaning does come into it.  
As far as I'm concerned most people regard 'fundamentalism' in terms of philosophical or Religious beliefs being intolerant of alternate views  

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

Extremism, in my opinion, is tied into the belief systems themselves.  'Extremism' within the Muslim faith, for example, would be in the more contentious cultural teachings within that book.  Extremism in Christianity would be contentious cultural issues within the Bible.  Fundamentalism would be in believers of those interpretations of the Koran or Bible being intolerant of those (Muslim or non-Muslim/Christian or non-Christian) that do not believe in such interpretations.

But I admit, it's semantics; and you can in actuality believe it to be the other way round and still gain meaning.  If you believe in a different interpretation of the word 'fundamentalism' then that's your prerogative, Munch.

I didn't say that I believed in a different interpretation but yes, you're right, it is my prerogative.

Still not sure about how you distinct between a fundamentalist and an extremist, but maybe interpretation is the dividing line if that interpretation leads them to commit violent acts. That's always been my view on what extremism is anyway.

Anyway, it's all semantics, and I'm playing with it. We all know what each means.

[wolfball]

No, they shouldn't be ignored, but they literally don't count. They didn't vote. Another way of looking at it is maybe their non vote does count? A silent protest, or silent vote for Trump?

The illegal immigrants will have a voice though. Because Trump says something doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. We will wait and see how it plays out, but I believe he's going to encounter strong opposition to his immigration policy. Even he did push it through, it would be near impossible to implement. Anyway, 4 years isn't that long. The mute will have a chance to voice their opinion.

Something else worth considering is that not all immigrants voted for Clinton. Some actually voted for Trump. I mention that because there is more than two sides to the debate.

Also its not 4 years before the next US election, its 2. A few friends of mine have gotten their act together and are starting to get people organised for the 2018 midterms. I had a long chat with them about how in ireland politics is always local while in the US, no one even knows the name of their local reps. So they looked at themselves and realised they (two very politically active people on the presidential campaign) have done shyte-all at the local level. The electoral college will never change unless you have D controlled state legislatures. That's what they are going after. Proper canvassing is the plan. It remains to be seen if they stick to it, but every american I see on facebook signing silly "not my president" petitions or even going on a protest in NYC, I am sending them their way. With the demographic data now in, Clinton lost due to millions of mostly young people staying home. Getting those people active (whether they turn out to be R or D is up to them) is essential. Frak living through social media, get out and vote

On why I care so much as an irishman in US local elections? I have lived more in the US than ireland the last 10 years, my gf as are most of my friends american and I have business interests in the US. I also legally cannot donate to US elections as a foreigner, si encouraging activism is about all you can do. My 20 year old sisters in ireland are hard core canvassing on pretty much every issue and I love to see that activism, even when we disagree.

[SecretFly]

Global warming Fundamentalists are the people who have even gone so far as to say the death sentence should perhaps be considered for Global warming deniers - such is the seriousness of denier influence being allowed gain ground.  That to me is fundamentalism.  

You got a link to some examples of that?

Okay, here's a preliminary overview - you'll find it when you scroll down. This is the guy but I saw his comments elsewhere than wiki perhaps a year or two ago. Wiki is a quick step search though to get you going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt

[Sponsored content]