ChatterBank3 mins ago
3-0 - We're On A Roll, What Next?
90 Answers
Has Trump Made the impossible possible?
http://
Can Marine La Pen win in France?
http://
Can Marine La Pen win in France?
Answers
I got this link a couple of days ago, I post it with no comment! https://
11:21 Tue 15th Nov 2016
A question for Naomi and TTT: isn't Corbyn basically the same phenomenon? Wasn't Bernie Sanders, even if he fell short in the end?
Or, put another way, who are the public actually voting against?
I was going to go into another of my classic lectures at this point but I'll save you the trouble of deciding not to read it. But, in short: yes, this isn't going to last. It's just a phase. Because, next time, the tide of anger will be rising from the "liberal left".
Or, put another way, who are the public actually voting against?
I was going to go into another of my classic lectures at this point but I'll save you the trouble of deciding not to read it. But, in short: yes, this isn't going to last. It's just a phase. Because, next time, the tide of anger will be rising from the "liberal left".
Jim, //I was going to go into another of my classic lectures at this point but I'll save you the trouble of deciding not to read it.//
Thank you. Very considerate. See - you’ve managed to convey your message in a nice bite-sized, readable chunk this time. ;o)
//who are the public actually voting against?//
The question should be ‘what?’ rather than ‘who?’, and the answer to that is politically correct liberalism. As Theresa May said the other day no one asked the people who are directly affected by the negative effects of the immigration if they minded – but they do mind and now they’ve said so in no uncertain terms. They've had enough.
Going back to your post at 23:27 Mon, I didn’t say that ‘politics is now settled’, but this isn’t a fluke. It is happening for a reason and for a very good reason. You say ‘the closeness of the vote does matter’, but the point is if people were not sick and tired of what they see happening the votes wouldn’t have been anywhere near close. Brexit would have been firmly shown the door, as would Mr Trump. There is clearly enormous dissent in the ranks and unless that is acknowledged and properly and sensibly addressed, it isn’t going to disappear. Complaining about perceived unfair results won’t erase it.
//Support for the "anti-establishment" position was certainly underestimated. It's just as bad a mistake to overestimate support for it.//
It’s a mistake to under-estimate it – as has been illustrated.
Thank you. Very considerate. See - you’ve managed to convey your message in a nice bite-sized, readable chunk this time. ;o)
//who are the public actually voting against?//
The question should be ‘what?’ rather than ‘who?’, and the answer to that is politically correct liberalism. As Theresa May said the other day no one asked the people who are directly affected by the negative effects of the immigration if they minded – but they do mind and now they’ve said so in no uncertain terms. They've had enough.
Going back to your post at 23:27 Mon, I didn’t say that ‘politics is now settled’, but this isn’t a fluke. It is happening for a reason and for a very good reason. You say ‘the closeness of the vote does matter’, but the point is if people were not sick and tired of what they see happening the votes wouldn’t have been anywhere near close. Brexit would have been firmly shown the door, as would Mr Trump. There is clearly enormous dissent in the ranks and unless that is acknowledged and properly and sensibly addressed, it isn’t going to disappear. Complaining about perceived unfair results won’t erase it.
//Support for the "anti-establishment" position was certainly underestimated. It's just as bad a mistake to overestimate support for it.//
It’s a mistake to under-estimate it – as has been illustrated.
I don't understand your last point unless it's meant to be agreeing with me -- by implication, I've already said that underestimating support was a mistake.
You're right, though, that these results are no accident, no "fluke". I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while they were perhaps coming, the closeness shows that the trend can be reversed soon. Brexit was locked down reasonably tightly, but the margins in the US election were much tighter. I'll hesitate to put any particular figure on it as some results are still coming in, but almost certainly we are talking on the order of 100,000 people switching from one side to the other, or 200,000 people who didn't turn out voting for Clinton, in order to swing the result. With about 60 million people voting for each candidate, this is a *very* small swing.
In the event this didn't happen, obviously -- but such tiny margins often have huge effects on the narrative. We weren't all that far from "Trump's defeat shows that the American people are pragmatists at heart" or some other such headline.
It is nevertheless going to take some time to understand how to change the approach this time. It may simply be a matter of picking a candidate without so much baggage as Clinton had, if such a candidate exists. Or just waiting for Trump to fail, in one way or another. But it would be nice to find a positive way to respond.
You're right, though, that these results are no accident, no "fluke". I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while they were perhaps coming, the closeness shows that the trend can be reversed soon. Brexit was locked down reasonably tightly, but the margins in the US election were much tighter. I'll hesitate to put any particular figure on it as some results are still coming in, but almost certainly we are talking on the order of 100,000 people switching from one side to the other, or 200,000 people who didn't turn out voting for Clinton, in order to swing the result. With about 60 million people voting for each candidate, this is a *very* small swing.
In the event this didn't happen, obviously -- but such tiny margins often have huge effects on the narrative. We weren't all that far from "Trump's defeat shows that the American people are pragmatists at heart" or some other such headline.
It is nevertheless going to take some time to understand how to change the approach this time. It may simply be a matter of picking a candidate without so much baggage as Clinton had, if such a candidate exists. Or just waiting for Trump to fail, in one way or another. But it would be nice to find a positive way to respond.
Jim, why is it so difficult for you to understand that if people weren’t unhappy with what has been imposed upon them, they wouldn’t have voted for Brexit or for Trump? There is no point in arguing over results or juggling figures. We have to acknowledge that the very fact that people voted in large numbers for both Brexit and Trump indicates that very profound dissatisfaction exists and is gathering momentum. This goes far deeper than party politics.
There's a huge difference between acknowledging the fact that a lot of people may be fed up with what is perceived to be 'the establishment' and on the other hand believing that what they have opted for in so doing will actually help them. Trump's policies of isolationism and trade tariffs are likely to prove disastrous for the very people he vlsoms to want to help. Brexit, if it happens, will cause years of economic uncertainty when what the government should be doing is making good its feeble promise to roll back some of the austerity which, remember, we actually voted for folks in 2010 and 2015. No good blaming the 'establishment' for that one :-)
Luckily it's hard to see how the French voting system would let that appalling azi Le Pen into power. She is, in my opinion, far far worse than Trump who's a non politician caught in the headlights
Luckily it's hard to see how the French voting system would let that appalling azi Le Pen into power. She is, in my opinion, far far worse than Trump who's a non politician caught in the headlights
I don't know if it's difficult for me to understand. What I am trying to say is that the *scale* of whatever it is I may not understand has been exaggerated. Why, in turn, is it so difficult for you to understand that a vote next to Trump's name isn't necessarily a vote for Trump, or even a vote against the establishment?
Again, the question becomes "would Trump have won if he weren't representing the Republican party?" The answer we'll never actually know, of course, but it's pretty certain to be "no", really. At any rate, spinning this as an outright universal, rejection of Clinton and everything she stood for is stretching the truth and then some. Sure, that played its part, but it is not the whole story.
Put simpler -- I believe that the anger stems from a vocal minority, that was enough to tip the balance this time, but shouldn't be assumed to represent everyone who agreed with them at the ballot box.
Again, the question becomes "would Trump have won if he weren't representing the Republican party?" The answer we'll never actually know, of course, but it's pretty certain to be "no", really. At any rate, spinning this as an outright universal, rejection of Clinton and everything she stood for is stretching the truth and then some. Sure, that played its part, but it is not the whole story.
Put simpler -- I believe that the anger stems from a vocal minority, that was enough to tip the balance this time, but shouldn't be assumed to represent everyone who agreed with them at the ballot box.
Jim, //At any rate, spinning this as an outright universal, rejection of Clinton and everything she stood for is stretching the truth and then some.
No one said that. No spinning. Nevertheless, keep telling yourself the scale of it has been exaggerated. Brexit won and so did Trump. The Western world is changing.
No one said that. No spinning. Nevertheless, keep telling yourself the scale of it has been exaggerated. Brexit won and so did Trump. The Western world is changing.
I think it's implied by the "for" in the line "voting for Trump". Ditto Brexit, for that matter. There's also the contribution from people who didn't like Trump, but voted for him anyway out of party loyalty. I think you appear to be ignoring that contribution. And, again, it's pretty certain to be there, because of the 100% match between Presidential and senate results in states. That has never happened before, and to me suggests that partisanship is as big a factor as anything else. A lot more senators would have lost their seats if people really wanted to kick the establishment as a whole, but they didn't.
Politics is, certainly, changing, all the same. But it's a change that's reversible, to a great extent. In Trump's case, at least, in no more than eight years he'll be gone. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the US won't have been too distorted in that time.
Politics is, certainly, changing, all the same. But it's a change that's reversible, to a great extent. In Trump's case, at least, in no more than eight years he'll be gone. Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the US won't have been too distorted in that time.
In the video, the man talks about how some on the left seem to think that it's unacceptable to disagree with them. TTT agrees. So do I, as a matter of fact, although again it's a problem that's too easy to exaggerate the scope of. Plenty on the left of politics are happy to debate.
What I was suggesting is that, perhaps, there's an air of hypocrisy about TTT's post. Some on the right are just as bad at holding any opposing views as unacceptable, and the whole "anti-British Traitors" is surely a sign of this. Ditto all of the "Hillary Clinton is the devil" language in the US, and it's not too hard to find people saying that.
As an example, I thought of one particular post of TTT's, that sticks out for all the wrong reasons: http://
My question is, isn't this just as bad an example of intolerance? Shouldn't it also be up to people on the right to be a little less condemning of those who disagree with them in turn? If not, why not?
What I was suggesting is that, perhaps, there's an air of hypocrisy about TTT's post. Some on the right are just as bad at holding any opposing views as unacceptable, and the whole "anti-British Traitors" is surely a sign of this. Ditto all of the "Hillary Clinton is the devil" language in the US, and it's not too hard to find people saying that.
As an example, I thought of one particular post of TTT's, that sticks out for all the wrong reasons: http://
My question is, isn't this just as bad an example of intolerance? Shouldn't it also be up to people on the right to be a little less condemning of those who disagree with them in turn? If not, why not?
Latest Posts
Listener 4842 For Me And You By...
Crosswords5 mins ago
Mail On Sunday Prize Crossword
Crosswords6 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank7 mins ago
