Rayvin

Let's be honest, who here hasn't wondered that from time to time?

Shit like this is exactly why Brexit caught the establishment cold. Bet they wish Toblerone had come out with this bombshell the day before the referendum...

Thought HF might appreciate this How the PL table would look if you took into consideration, and scored appropriately for, which teams have played harder opposition and which teams had goals that were against the run of play and therefore not justified: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/nov/08/premier-league-table-liverpool-top-burnley-west-ham Burnley move up to 6th, West Ham would be bottom.

He does indeed I've just finished it. Well worth the listen, and interesting to hear about the more systemic problems facing American voters. Agree with his stance on tactical voting as well.

It's not looking like power is going to have much of a choice at this rate. They'd have to start changing democratic structures wouldn't they? If they can't control through the MSM, which is certainly losing its influence, then how else can they keep people from voting against them?

Fully agree on the toxic implications of the word socialism in the US. That's really unfortunate. However, they do now seem to have cultural marxism taking root, and that's a fascinating development. Almost a re-brand. Obviously that's an identity politics term, but still, it's taken hold, even in the US. The whole reason Neoliberalism is so successful is because it spans the globe though, so yes, I can see your point about countries existing in isolation. They govern the world through trade agreements, international governmental bodies and organisations like the IMF and World Bank. This prevents against any single country derailing the process. However, they seem to have failed citizens in so many countries at once, that these international organisations are beginning to lose their clout. The UK (and let's be honest, we must be one of the most reliable, most predictable and least reactionary countries from a Neoliberal perspective) delivered a blow earlier this year that by all accounts, they totally didn't expect. Now the US is on the brink. France, the Netherlands, Austria, etc are all in the grip of a rise in the hard right. But similarly, people moved to the left - Labour is the biggest political party in Europe and as much as you may think they're totally off the radar as far as the British public go, it's demonstrable proof that more and more people are looking for change. I would suggest that the more we support the left, the better for all of us.

If all of that is true, then you agree with my view on Neoliberalism. You're just not using the label. I can't really see a way forward either, with the exception of technological regression which is obviously totally undesirable. When you talk about globalism and the loss of heavy manufacturing, you're talking about things that occurred due to Neoliberalism. Same for wealth inequality. Even a violent solution wouldn't be a solution... I don't think, anyway. But to be fair, I don't think it'll come to violence - we're a way from that yet. I think the establishment will lose (not because I want it to, but because the demographics aren't stacked in its favour anymore when you take identity politics out of it). The bigger vision, if there is one, needs to be a lurch back to the left, towards socialism, to reign in the excesses of the Neoliberals. I think there's a happy medium somewhere but we're way too far away from it at the moment. The centre moved too far right, and needs to be hauled back. Hence, as much as you don't like him, Corbyn (or someone with his politics) is the much better alternative. It's going to be people like him or Trump (indirectly, and probably through unifying the left and the centre once more) that steer us back. It won't come from the 'centre'.

Thanks, I'll give it a listen over lunch.

Two viewpoints I entirely agree with. HF's view actually being fully identical to my own in terms of the perils of the establishment continuing to ignore populist anger.

On a slightly different note, for those of you who don't think like me, what do we expect the outcome of a Hillary election will be? I guess this is aimed at Gloom and Renton; how do you think she will bring about the progressive change that will satisfy the apparently quite large number of people in the States who have had enough of the system?

Did they want this? Certainly doesn't look like it given the graph HF posted.

Agreed. But it won't happen since it would hurt the Neolibs.

With respect, what you want at all times is a media without an agenda that reports on facts. Impossible, but that'd be the goal. I'd settle for a media that is powerless to control the wills of voters though - which appears to be the direction we're taking. Keep in mind that the right wing media very much played its part in creating this storm through decades of yammering on about immigrants and the like.

I don't think anyone is saying that this specific point isn't true... just that Hannity clearly doesn't speak for Fox in entirety. And that the graph HF put forward shows that only 30%ish of their coverage was positive towards him. Maybe that 30% was Hannity? In general though, they've been opposed by a margin of two stories to one.

Those stats do appear to suggest you're wrong on the MSM coverage mate... Looks pretty clear cut that they were against Trump. I mean, that doesn't mean very much except that the media are losing control of the situation now as well. Which is actually a good thing - if they're less penetrating in terms of persuading people to vote one way or another, that is good news for democracy.

Ok, I thought they were in the 'conflicted Republican' camp. Where Trump has done well is with the Alt-Right; so their (less mainstream) media is picking up the slack for him a bit.

Fox News wasn't hugely pro-trump either, was it? Didn't he have some manner of spat with one of their anchors?

Agree with this - it's not about the candidates this time, really. It's about the message.

Well yes, me too. I struggle to think where it can lead us unless one group wins a decisive victory over the other. I kind of wonder if we're seeing the twilight years of Western civilisation here, to be quite honest... certainly if there is a swing to the right, and it holds, that's a total disaster. The lunatics taking over the asylum, and so on.

Fully agree.

It's ridiculous isn't it? You know, the blame for this has to be with identity politics. Divide everyone up by making them fit into random groupings based on shared physical traits and pit them against each other. I mean, Trump made this inevitable as well, since he's played identity politics from day one (white, male) but all this bullshit serves to do is to prevent the far more numerous people at the bottom of the social order from voting in their own interests. Not that there is an option for their own interests at this election, but there could have been.

I've set it out multiple times now and you disagree with it - which is totally fair enough. But I don't see the benefit in rehashing it. Besides, it doesn't really matter. Hillary will win and ultimately, that will be good for those of us who are doing ok. More people will slide out of our group over time, as is happening already, and so the number of disaffected will rise, but as long as there's more of us than there are of them, we should be ok. On the historical context bit - yeah fair enough. I can see the sense in that. Can the millions of people being left behind? Doesn't look like it. My points here aren't some kind of strategy for improving the world man, it's purely observation based. I think things will happen in the way I put across, I'm not saying that I would like these things to happen.

I posted the article yesterday but it was just a Guardian article with a reporter who followed a Trump supporting Democrat around his neighbourhood canvassing opinion, so not something to read anything into beyond my point. I was basically just wanting to demonstrate that I'm not alone in my liberal position but dislike of the 'liberal' option. Also, it could quite conceivably mean zero on both sides

I've made my position clear on this. I'd prefer he was elected for a day for the two fingers moment, and that he was then removed from office somehow Given that this scenario would never happen, I'd prefer Clinton. But that doesn't change the fact that Clinton cannot address this problem by nature of what she represents. She's tainted by the establishment and the powers that be, and unless she's able to oversee an incredible shift in wealth between those who have and those who have not, she's going to address fuck all. My concern is that the longer this wealth gap continues, and the longer the centre believes it is the one true way and that nothing will ever cause it to reflect or change, the harder the eventual successful backlash will be.

Exactly. The fact that there are as many Trump supporting Democrats as Hillary supporting Republicans suggests that a decent number of liberals can now see the problems in this system. It's all relative though, and most of us are going to be sufficiently insulated in our middle class bubbles that we just assume everyone else can see and is happy with how things are. But the reality is that the working class aren't looking back through time and comparing their situation to those who have gone before ffs. They're looking at us and comparing themselves to us. As they fucking should be. There is no simply solution though, you're right. Clinton is no solution at all, and Trump's only purpose would be to shake the career politicians to their core - beyond that he'd be useless too.