RugbyRebels

cashead wrote: You might want to keep that in mind.

You might not want to assume people don't

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: You might want to keep that in mind.

You might not want to assume people don't

The way you've been posting, I'd say it's a fairly safe assumption.

Pilger, as usual, was right all along.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: You might want to keep that in mind.

You might not want to assume people don't

The way you've been posting, I'd say it's a fairly safe assumption.

You may want to actually look at some stats, those on lower incomes it would seem were more inclined to go for Clinton. Which suggests your narrative isn't quite on the money, or at least lacks nuance.

Seems like there was no Trump surge, more of a Clinton slump. Maybe we can stop with the "voice of the oppressed" stuff and how the unheard have found their voices? Democrats fwced up and swing voters turned away from them. Simples.

Donny osmond wrote:

Seems like there was no Trump surge, more of a Clinton slump. Maybe we can stop with the "voice of the oppressed" stuff and how the unheard have found their voices? Democrats fwced up and swing voters turned away from them. Simples.

In this country we have the media making up people's minds for them,.....watching the vox-pops it does seem that a lot of Trump supporters are desperate to name check God in the political process. I was just wondering about the Tele-vangelists/self-appointed religious leaders role in the US political sphere...?.
Is there any legislation preventing them from voicing their political opinion..?.

On the bright side, and in the short term, I'd rather that Trump won and Clinton supporters protested as a mob than vice versa.

Donny osmond wrote:

And then there's this one, on the percentage of the population of the USA who voted for the eventual winner:

This one doesn't include the 2016 election (yet); but it's back down around 20%*; which would be its lowest in a century (before women were allowed a vote)

* I will go ahead and assume that I'm using different figures to the author of that graph; maybe they're only including those of voting age, or citizens rather than population, or something.

ETA: 25.5% of eligible voters voted for Trump - bear in mind that in the USA you're inelgible if you live in the wrong place, have been imprisoned, or don't have a photo ID; so the number of eligible voters is much lower than the number of US citizens of voting age (by a good 30+ Million).

Lizard wrote:On the bright side, and in the short term, I'd rather that Trump won and Clinton supporters protested as a mob than vice versa.

You thinking of all those private armies in the sticks? Its a fair point.

I wonder how many of those who are protesting voted (assuming they are eligible).

Donny osmond wrote:

Seems like there was no Trump surge, more of a Clinton slump. Maybe we can stop with the "voice of the oppressed" stuff and how the unheard have found their voices? Democrats fwced up and swing voters turned away from them. Simples.

I saw this earlier.

It is quite damning of Clinton & the Dems that they failed to get their vote out.

see more at http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index. ... for-trump/

I also saw the turnout was a mere 53%

It would be interesting to compare the republican total votes for the Bush years. Were they higher then and dropped off, with Trump being equally uninspiring or is that more or less a set level?

Interstingly, Bush polled 62 million voters in 2004 and 50 million in 2000. Its quite surprising how much the democrat votes changes; was this purely down to the Obama effect?

Sandydragon wrote:Interstingly, Bush polled 62 million voters in 2004 and 50 million in 2000. Its quite surprising how much the democrat votes changes; was this purely down to the Obama effect?

Bush 2004 would have been the 9/11 effect.

Clinton's vote this time is down to how deeply uninspiring she is. I think the democrats that voted did so in fear of the alternative, there was very little positive about her.

I'm just going to Hunter S. Thompson the next 4 years out.

Buy the ticket. Take the ride.

morepork wrote:I'm just going to Hunter S. Thompson the next 4 years out.

Buy the ticket. Take the ride.

As your lawyer I would strongly suggest you stay away from the ether. ....you mad dribbling fool.

Trumpism seems a custom-made antithesis to Obama politics, which never really happened anyway. America elected Obama because he was the antithesis to his infamous predecessor, and now they've swung back and elected Trump for precisely the same reason. So the good news is, next time they'll pick someone sensible

Meanwhile, I need to pick up a lottery ticket. After the Canes Super Rugby Triumph, Fiji's gold in Rio, and Clinton not winning, this seems to be my year.

rowan wrote:Trumpism seems a custom-made antithesis to Obama politics, which never really happened anyway. America elected Obama because he was the antithesis to his infamous predecessor, and now they've swung back and elected Trump for precisely the same reason. So the good news is, next time they'll pick someone sensible

Meanwhile, I need to pick up a lottery ticket. After the Canes Super Rugby Triumph, Fiji's gold in Rio, and Clinton not winning, this seems to be my year.

Your happiness that the US military industrial complex has lost........is kind of strange. It's freaking me out a bit.
Are you not somewhat concerned that this guy clearly has the lowest intelligence of any world leader, ever..?.

On a similar thread,.....I heard an arts journalist on 5live today. Her biggest concern was that the Donald had barely mentioned the arts throughout the campaign.

Strange that I'm relieved we're not all going to perish in WWIII over Syria?

Strange that I'm relieved a serial war criminal has not been rewarded with the US presidency?

Strange that I'm relieved the Wall Street globalization project may just have hit a snag?

Oookay...

rowan wrote:Strange that I'm relieved we're not all going to perish in WWIII over Syria? Oookay...

Mmmm....I think Hils is probably enough of a student of politics to understand what Kennedy did about Bay of Pigs.
I think you overstate her war-mongering. Actually, scratch that,...killing Gadhafi has been a disaster.

kk67 wrote:

rowan wrote:Strange that I'm relieved we're not all going to perish in WWIII over Syria? Oookay...

Mmmm....I think Hils is probably enough of a student of politics to understand what Kennedy did about Bay of Pigs.
I think you overstate her war-mongering.

In that case, you are not aware of her record as Secretary of State nor her intentions as a presidential candidate. I suggest you do some research. Just google it, because it's all there in black and white.

My personal view is that there is a tendancy among both American and British commentators to grossly understate the war crimes of their politicians. They treat the deaths of hundreds of thousands as though this were some trivial detail, a pesky inconvenience that only some fixated lunatic would be deeply concerned about. Easy from a distance, & that's precisely why America and Britain have gone on committing horrendous war crime after horrendous war crime against innocent women, children and men in their multitudes.

rowan wrote:

kk67 wrote:

rowan wrote:Strange that I'm relieved we're not all going to perish in WWIII over Syria? Oookay...

Mmmm....I think Hils is probably enough of a student of politics to understand what Kennedy did about Bay of Pigs.
I think you overstate her war-mongering.

In that case, you are not aware of her record as Secretary of State nor her intentions as a presidential candidate. I suggest you do some research. Just google it, because it's all there in black and white.

My personal view is that there is a tendancy among both American and British commentators to grossly understate the war crimes of their politicians. They treat the deaths of hundreds of thousands as though this were some trivial detail, a pesky inconvenience that only some fixated lunatic would be deeply concerned about. Easy from a distance, & that's precisely why America and Britain have gone on committing horrendous war crime after horrendous war crime against innocent women, children and men in their multitudes.

You're right. It's disgusting.

Have you seen the list of who's going to get the top jobs now,.....even the bbc's 'freelance experts' are calling many of them 'extreme right-wing'.

I'm not performing cartwheels across the living room over Trump's election. He could well turn out to be disastrous. But Clinton was a mushroom cloud waiting to happen. & it would have sickened me entirely to see her effectively rewarded for destroying Libya; once Africa's most prosperous nation and now another war-torn hell-hole teeming with terrorists. That's because I care about the multitudes of women, children and men who have been butchered as a result. Clinton (and others) should have gone to the Hague, and certainly not the White House. So I salute the American people on the latter count.

I did hear a Scottish guy on the radio today talking about how Donald always did everything to the very best standard. He knows him quite well. He was particularly strident on this point that Donald always did things to the very highest standard. Very strident, in a fairly posh highlands accent. At the time I just thought 'twat'....but given my current half-cut sense of optimism,....maybe those people who have so avidly watched the 'you're hired' stuff in the UK and US (I've never watched an entire episode of either) might have a point.
......If Trump actually went for a sum of the talents, apolitical, business based cabinet and ruled it like a reality tv show,.....it might just work.


<pictureofthechoreographerintheproducerssaying'anditwillwork'>

turn,turn,kick,turn.

kk67 wrote:I did hear a Scottish guy on the radio today talking about how Donald always did everything to the very best standard. He knows him quite well. He was particularly strident on this point that Donald always did things to the very highest standard. Very strident, in a fairly posh highlands accent. At the time I just thought 'twat'....but given my current half-cut sense of optimism,....maybe those people who have so avidly watched the 'you're hired' stuff in the UK and US (I've never watched an entire episode of either) might have a point.
......If Trump actually went for a sum of the talents, apolitical, business based cabinet and ruled it like a reality tv show,.....it might just work.


<pictureofthechoreographerintheproducerssaying'anditwillwork'>

turn,turn,kick,turn.

You utter bell peice

What the fuck is the actual point in that statement about standards?