President Biden

[Dr Gloom 19824]

I love the ranting old git too. Pretty sure I've posted some of his anti Islam PTCs in the Israel or the terrorism thread before

[Renton 17767]

I think we need to put this to bed. So you understand why the fuckwits voted for Trump but don't get why Hillary is held to a higher standard by the intelligent left.

 

It isn't actually to do with standards. There was nothing she could do, say or be, in my view, that would have averted the disillusionment from the left. The problem for the left was that she was coming from the exact same line of failures who had allowed the social order to fail and wealth to be hoovered up by the top. So yeah, we didn't like Trump, but we sympathized with those who voted for him because they wanted someone, somewhere, to notice that they were pissed off.

 

Had we had a left wing populist figure, that individual could have captured the centre, the left, and a good number of the working class who desperately wanted to rage against those leaving them behind. The left wing populist would have won.

 

So really it's as PL says. And fwiw I said this before the election also. Hillary represents neoliberalist status quo.

 

My question to you is, if people at the bottom have nothing to lose, and those of us on the left can see this, and can see the tide turning, why are you still thinking that the centre left has the answers? What makes you think the centre left can do anything at all to turn this around given its comprehensive defeats?

 

Corbyn isn't going to change things himself, the democrat reinvention is also unlikely to. But IMO they are the left rebuilding itself. A proper left unblemished by the demonstrable failure of the third way.

 

That's what I'm banking on. Have been since I voted Corbyn the first time. It'll take time but it absolutely needs to happen.

What I don't think you get is that, for whatever reason, people don't want "the left" as you describe. It's been rejected for decades, and has been utterly rejected now. Reactionary politics now always leads to a swing to the right as is demonstrably true at the moment. Your optimistic vision of the future isn't based on any reality I can see.

[Rayvin 4964]

What I don't think you get is that, for whatever reason, people don't want "the left" as you describe. It's been rejected for decades, and has been utterly rejected now. Reactionary politics now always leads to a swing to the right as is demonstrably true at the moment. Your optimistic vision of the future isn't based on any reality I can see.

Well we're fucked then because they don't want the centre left either.

 

Although the left wasn't rejected this year. The centre was. The left didn't even manage to get to a point where it could be considered because the centre Blairites consider it more threatening than the far right, apparently. Same with the DNC.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26335]

Well we're fucked then because they don't want the centre left either.

 

Although the left wasn't rejected this year. The centre was. The left didn't even manage to get to a point where it could be considered because the centre Blairites consider it more threatening than the far right, apparently. Same with the DNC.

 

Who is voting for the left? 'Do-gooders' and the poor. Have I missed anyone out?

[Rayvin 4964]

Who is voting for the left? 'Do-gooders' and the poor. Have I missed anyone out?

 

Who is voting for the centre? The politically intransigent risk averse middle class who can't comprehend what is happening. Have I missed anyone out?

 

There's a larger section of our society in the 'poor' category than there used to be. According to the IFS at least.

[NJS 3978]

Clinton's policies only started to include stuff from Sanders when it became obvious he was a threat and after they wanted his endorsement.

 

I don't believe she would have implemented them for a minute.

[Renton 17767]

Well we're fucked then because they don't want the centre left either.

 

Although the left wasn't rejected this year. The centre was. The left didn't even manage to get to a point where it could be considered because the centre Blairites consider it more threatening than the far right, apparently. Same with the DNC.

Except Clinton easily won the popular vote and would have won the representational vote if it weren't for nefarious third party influences.

 

Meanwhile Corbyn is leading labour to its most catastrophic election defeat in memory and , whilst you proclaim it is the fault of the MSM, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that people (by that I mean the electorate) don't accept his message.

 

Honestly, I'm also sick of this mantra about neoliberalism, which as far as I can make out is just another term for market capitalism. We live in a capitalist system with nationalisation of certain services. Whilst I'd like to see the latter expanded, what is the realistic alternative to this system? What we need is a fairer more progressive tax system to redistribute wealth. The centre left are the only ones who can deliver this. The reason they're weak as piss now is entirely the fault of Corbyn, his sponsors, and his supporters.

[Renton 17767]

Clinton's policies only started to include stuff from Sanders when it became obvious he was a threat and after they wanted his endorsement.

 

I don't believe she would have implemented them for a minute.

Well we'll never know now. Meanwhile, enjoy Trump.

[ewerk 26335]

Who is voting for the centre? The politically intransigent risk averse middle class who can't comprehend what is happening. Have I missed anyone out?

 

There's a larger section of our society in the 'poor' category than there used to be. According to the IFS at least.

 

Well in America there's an awful lot of people voting for the centre. 2.8 million more than voted for Trump.

 

The trouble is that the poor are less likely to vote. Also, in the USA there are an awful lot of poor people who don't identify with being poor and vote accordingly.

Edited December 13, 2016 by ewerk

[Rayvin 4964]

Except Clinton easily won the popular vote and would have won the representational vote if it weren't for nefarious third party influences.

 

Meanwhile Corbyn is leading labour to its most catastrophic election defeat in memory and , whilst you proclaim it is the fault of the MSM, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that people (by that I mean the electorate) don't accept his message.

 

Honestly, I'm also sick of this mantra about neoliberalism, which as far as I can make out is just another term for market capitalism. We live in a capitalist system with nationalisation of certain services. Whilst I'd like to see the latter expanded, what is the realistic alternative to this system? What we need is a fairer more progressive tax system to redistribute wealth. The centre left are the only ones who can deliver this. The reason they're weak as piss now is entirely the fault of Corbyn, his sponsors, and his supporters.

 

Sorry but, Corbyn is only answerable for the last year and a bit of Labour. The previous 20 years they had opportunities to 'deliver' what you're talking about. This is all on them. All of it. If you think that the current shitstorm is at Corbyn and the left's feet instead of those who abdicated all responsibility for the socially vulnerable, you're utterly blind. And the real issue we have here is that people like me can't go back to the lies and failures of the centre left. People like you have too much to lose by going to the left.

 

The answer should be for both sections to split - the problem with that is, as soon as we do it (and we effectively seem to have done so already), the Tories are unopposed. You guys bang on about Corbyn being too far left to garner much support but realistically, I don't think the centre leftists would be faring much better - because people like me, the poor, and sure as fuck UKIP supporters, wouldn't be voting for your policies any more than Corbyn's.

 

So I say again - we're fucked. And we're fucked because the centre failed and turned on the left instead of the right. Probably, I would argue, because the right is safer to their bank accounts.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 4964]

Well in America there's an awful lot of people voting for the centre. 2.8 million more than voted for Trump.

 

The trouble is that the poor are less likely to vote. Also, in the USA there are an awful lot of poor people who don't identify with being poor and vote accordingly.

 

You're right but let's be honest, Trump was a shocking candidate who seemed to go out of his way to make it hard to vote for him. The stuff that came out about Trump would have sunk any other normal politician in the world. The fact that he was within 2.8m votes of Clinton despite this surely suggests that the sentiment backing his side has more popular support than Hillary's.

 

I would suggest that a good number of the people voting for Hillary did so because Trump was just so offensive. Had the far right put forward someone with charm, intelligence and charisma, Clinton would have been buried, IMO. Policies would have been the same though.

[Gemmill 34450]

Well we'll never know now. Meanwhile, enjoy Trump.

Subtext: it's somehow Toontastic's fault that he won, now reap what you sow Toontastic.

[Renton 17767]

Sorry but, Corbyn is only answerable for the last year and a bit of Labour. The previous 20 years they had opportunities to 'deliver' what you're talking about. This is all on them. All of it. If you think that the current shitstorm is at Corbyn and the left's feet instead of those who abdicated all responsibility for the socially vulnerable, you're utterly blind. And the real issue we have here is that people like me can't go back to the lies and failures of the centre left. People like you have too much to lose by going to the left.

 

The answer should be for both sections to split - the problem with that is, as soon as we do it (and we effectively seem to have done so already), the Tories are unopposed. You guys bang on about Corbyn being too far left to garner much support but realistically, I don't think the centre leftists would be faring much better - because people like me, the poor, and sure as fuck UKIP supporters, wouldn't be voting for your policies any more than Corbyn's.

 

So I say again - we're fucked. And we're fucked because the centre failed and turned on the left instead of the right. Probably, I would argue, because the right is safer to their bank accounts.

Okay, so tell me what was so terribly wrong with the country under Blair? Because from what I can tell, we had never been more prosperous. You're probably going to google some facts about inequality rising to throw at me, but from my perception, which includes having a seriously disabled sister, the country had never been in a better place in my lifetime. Tell me what was so awful domestically about Blair or Brown for that matter.

 

The problem came with the crash of 2008 which was entirely unseen and as you know (as you're not CT) not the incumbent governments fault. In fact, Brown handled it brilliantly. But then he understandably lost the next election, and Labour made a catastrophic mistake electing Miliband as leader. This has since been followed by a suicidal mistake with the election of Corbyn. This is against a toxic background of nationalist politics and social media fuckwittery.

 

We don't know if the centre left have a place now because they have no representation. Personally, I think that a more progressive left of centre leader with an inch of charisma could wipe the floor with the deeply unimpressive May. The fact that Labour are at record lows in the polls against her is simply incredible.

 

But anyway, yes. Tell me what was so bad about the UK when new labour were in power, because I'd take that in an instant now.

[Renton 17767]

Subtext: it's somehow Toontastic's fault that he won, now reap what you sow Toontastic.

Well tbf you said you favoured Trump over Clinton. Presumably you therefore think he's a better candidate. I disagree but we'll have to wait and see won't we.

[ChezGiven 0]

The most interesting thing about Trump is the shift in geo-politics in the middle east, with Russia and ultimately the economic shift towards China. I think the left / right angle will play out on the basis of how successful he is turning round the economy.

 

So far his geo-political pivot has been away from Iran towards moderate gulf states, aligning with Russia on ISIS. However, its the reversing of the Nixon-era position on 'one China' as he beefs up intentions to fight the Chinese change their WTO rules that indicates how he is looking at things.

 

A big issue in US / EU is dumping of goods by the Chinese. The WTO rules dont allow countries / companies to sell at less than cost (especially if subsidised by governments) as this is a predatory tactic that kills domestic industry and is a blatant flouting of free market rules. The Chinese as we all know dump subsidised goods on markets (e.g. Steel) and then provide data on their costs to the WTO that no one ( the EU and US) believes. However, as China is not currently defined as a free market economy (it is assumed the government is involved, as they are in their planned economy), then the WTO uses comparative cost data from other countries and then calculates fines. 

 

Trump's call to Taiwan is about resetting the relationship in the WTO as he looks to deliver on his rust belt promises. 

[Gemmill 34450]

It would be closer to the truth to say that I don't really give a shit about a situation over which I have no control. Clinton would have been less of a shitshow because she's polished and has better PR but she's no less of a cunt than Trump is.

 

Getting beaten by him will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to her, because all the shit he does will be tagged with how much better it would have been of she had won. It wouldn't.

[Rayvin 4964]

Okay, so tell me what was so terribly wrong with the country under Blair? Because from what I can tell, we had never been more prosperous. You're probably going to google some facts about inequality rising to throw at me, but from my perception, which includes having a seriously disabled sister, the country had never been in a better place in my lifetime. Tell me what was so awful domestically about Blair or Brown for that matter.

 

The problem came with the crash of 2008 which was entirely unseen and as you know (as you're not CT) not the incumbent governments fault. In fact, Brown handled it brilliantly. But then he understandably lost the next election, and Labour made a catastrophic mistake electing Miliband as leader. This has since been followed by a suicidal mistake with the election of Corbyn. This is against a toxic background of nationalist politics and social media fuckwittery.

 

We don't know if the centre left have a place now because they have no representation. Personally, I think that a more progressive left of centre leader with an inch of charisma could wipe the floor with the deeply unimpressive May. The fact that Labour are at record lows in the polls against her is simply incredible.

 

But anyway, yes. Tell me what was so bad about the UK when new labour were in power, because I'd take that in an instant now.

 

I'm not going to google shit because I've expressed multiple times in the past the exact sentiments you've just put over. The thing is this though, I thought exactly like this until the referendum because I was insulated in my bubble of relative affluence. Just because you and I were well off and enjoying things (my family wasn't actually especially well off but then I credit the fact that I ended up in University to Labour so I won't suggest that they didn't work for me on some level) doesn't mean that the working and unemployed classes were. Labour pushed the Neoliberalist mantra by offering tweaks to the social order with the idea of benefiting those at the bottom. Those tweaks were exposed as meaningless when the world came tumbling down in 2008.

 

You know I don't think the crash was Labour's fault, I've said it a million times on here. I'm not actually critical of what Blair and Brown were doing in the sense that they thought it was working (and it seemed to be at the time). Where I am critical now, with the benefit of hindsight, is in considering that anyone thinks that returning to that is what we need. They didn't 'fix' anything, they just papered over the cracks. If we get another New Labour aligned with Blair's position, we'll enjoy a decade of benefit while they're pointing at good things and hiding the serious underlying issues and then end up back in the shit again as these changes don't do enough.

 

That said, you make an interesting point in a sense, and I wonder if, had the Tories never been allowed near power, we might not be where we are. The thing that makes me think we would be anyway though, is that this issue isn't limited to just the UK. It's happening all over the place. The economic situation is the only common denominator really, unless you look at immigration I suppose.

 

How about this - globalisation (as you have identified many times) is the main problem. The centre are the most serious backers of globalisation on the political spectrum (the right hate the immigrants and the left hate the corporations) so the centre has been punished for the excesses of the globalists. The left could accept globalisation if it took more people with it, I believe. The right can't ever accept it, logically. So yes, I would head back to the centre if I could somehow be persuaded that they were actually going to change things enough to help more people. I don't believe they want to do this though, and that's my issue.

[Rayvin 4964]

The most interesting thing about Trump is the shift in geo-politics in the middle east, with Russia and ultimately the economic shift towards China. I think the left / right angle will play out on the basis of how successful he is turning round the economy.

 

So far his geo-political pivot has been away from Iran towards moderate gulf states, aligning with Russia on ISIS. However, its the reversing of the Nixon-era position on 'one China' as he beefs up intentions to fight the Chinese change their WTO rules that indicates how he is looking at things.

 

A big issue in US / EU is dumping of goods by the Chinese. The WTO rules dont allow countries / companies to sell at less than cost (especially if subsidised by governments) as this is a predatory tactic that kills domestic industry and is a blatant flouting of free market rules. The Chinese as we all know dump subsidised goods on markets (e.g. Steel) and then provide data on their costs to the WTO that no one ( the EU and US) believes. However, as China is not currently defined as a free market economy (it is assumed the government is involved, as they are in their planned economy), then the WTO uses comparative cost data from other countries and then calculates fines. 

 

Trump's call to Taiwan is about resetting the relationship in the WTO as he looks to deliver on his rust belt promises. 

 

Good post - the Trump v China thing is going to be fascinating. If he makes friends with Russia, the Chinese are going to feel really isolated.

[Renton 17767]

she's no less of a cunt than Trump is.

Honestly don't understand how anyone who has even done minimal research into the biographies could believe this. Or took any interest in the campaigns for that matter. What a crock of shit.

[Gemmill 34450]

Honestly don't understand how anyone who has even done minimal research into the biographies could believe this. Or took any interest in the campaigns for that matter. What a crock of shit.

Ask Parky. She's killed people.

[ewerk 26335]

Gemmill was in his front room on election night chanting 'Lock her up! Lock her up!' at his confused cats.

[ChezGiven 0]

She fucks young kids whilst smothering ham and pineapple pizza on her tits ffs, she's a monster.

[ewerk 26335]

She fucks young kids whilst smothering ham and pineapple pizza on her tits ffs, she's a monster.

 

Pineapple on a pizza?! That's sick.

[Gemmill 34450]

Gemmill was in his front room on election night chanting 'Lock her up! Lock her up!' at his confused cats.

The greatest moment of Trump's campaign was when he walked on a stage somewhere to the chants of "lock her up! Lock her up!", got to the mic and muttered "Lock her up is right" while nodding his head. Comedy fucking genius.

[Park Life 70]

Good post - the Trump v China thing is going to be fascinating. If he makes friends with Russia, the Chinese are going to feel really isolated.

The catch here is that Western capital is heavily invested in China and Vice versa. Mandhelson found out many moons ago when he tried to get the EU to take a harder line.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/8892d198-f1ba-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a

 

 

“The Chinese are deeply concerned and we hear now from reliable sources in Beijing who suggest the Chinese government, the Communist Party, are developing lists of U.S. interests against which they could retaliate, commercial interests, and obviously one merely has to look at top U.S. exports to China to get a quick sense of whose heads may be on the chopping block,” said one China trade policy expert who interacts closely with U.S. business.

The expert pointed out that more than 30 states have over $1 billion in exports to China and that there is over $500 billion in commercial engagements by U.S. companies in China. All of that would be at risk if China retaliated.

“That commercial engagement supports American jobs, many American jobs here in the United States,” the expert said.''

 

http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/donald-trump-business-conflict-interest/

Edited December 13, 2016 by Park Life