Rayvin
-
Posts
21205 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
This is an interesting one - 30% of the people who voted Trump don't agree with "most" of his policies. Now, I would normally point to this to reinforce my point about people wanting change more than anything else (and I think it still supports this), but at the same time it mentioned that 17% of Trump voters said Obama did an ok job. Which doesn't sound like the kind of thing someone who really wanted change would say. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/meet-the-pro-obama-donald-trump-voters-there-are-plenty-of-them/?utm_term=.9f3ba8426b19 I think there's two possibilities one for and one against my view. In the against, there's misogyny. It could be that a lot of people simply didn't like Clinton because she's a woman. I would say her personality could also be a factor here but tbf, Trump wins the 'awful' personality stake by any objective measure, I would argue. In the for, it's the fact that even though they thought Obama did ok, they didn't want more of the same. I personally think Obama was a good president, so I can see this argument. Although I'll stress that my view on this is perhaps different to the people who voted.
-
I think I've mentioned mind, that the UN...or maybe it was the EU... was discussing giving them human rights. Which would be an intriguing development.
-
Well until another viable rationale comes along for it, I'm considering it likely. Why do you think that specific 17% voted for him then? I'll also point out that there was a 16% swing to Trump from working class people who voted for Obama. Could those people have voted for Sanders? Is that unlikely? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-voters-who-heavily-supported-obama-switched-over-to-trump/2016/11/10/65019658-a77a-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.15fc0867d11f This is a good article that demonstrates Hillary consistently lost to Sanders in working class areas, lost to Obama in the primaries before this one in the same areas, and that these areas went and turned to Trump in 2016. Despite having voted Democrat every election since 1972, in the case of one of them in their case study. I mean come on. Why are you guys so determined to protect these failed, washed up losers? The centreground simply didn't care, and this nightmare happened on its watch.
-
Which is, as we all know, actually meaningless. I mean fair enough, don't blame them. But they're being subjected to a grassroots takeover for their incompetence right now, which actively does blame them. They lost the Presidency, the House and the Senate, and 69 of 99 state legislators. They were totally fucking annihilated. At what point do they have to take responsibility for that?
-
Heh, probably. But as I've said in other posts, 17% of the people who actually voted for Trump, did so despite him being a 'not qualified for office'. If that doesn't scream 'I'm voting for something, anything that isn't the status quo' I don't know what does. And I'm fairly certain that 17% would have gone straight to Sanders based on the same principle.
-
They would have elected Sanders, according to the polls, if he had gone up against Trump. It's the DNC's arrogance that has given us Trump. And the single reason that I get so worked up about the centre. I think the simple truth is that the centre's bread is buttered better by a right wing fuckwit like Trump than it is by someone on the left. So whenever they're faced with one of the two, they strive to take down the one on the left.
-
They'd also be hard pushed to assert that we really need him given our current league performance.
-
In the UK I think you're dead right. Brexit will be a slow burner and it'll take a long time to resolve. In the States I'm not so sure. I think Trump will be a short lived, crazy fiasco, and I think it primes the way for a really progressive, Sanders esque candidate to come in on his heels offering 'hope, freedom and never again shall we blah blah blah'. The risk with Trump is that the losers previously in charge take his rejection as tacit endorsement of what they'd been doing previously, and set the scene for a repeat. EDIT - or he forms a fascist dictatorship of course. Then we'll end up being 'liberated' by the Chinese or something.
-
You and me both.
-
Didn't they buy him for like £2m in the summer? I don't think he's worth £30m
-
Ah sorry, if it's a loan then fair enough. I thought it was a firm sale.
-
Ah sorry, I thought they would be the same thing You're right, his disapproval rating was the one I was talking about.
-
Surely that statement should give you some optimism? I suspect that this is just a pendulum swing in the greater scheme of things. We'll come out of this eventually to a better scenario as the pendulum swings back the other way.
-
On this occasion, I just meant that we all tend to read non-right wing papers.
-
Why the fuck would he go to Watford...? He's either been told he's not getting back into the first team then, or he just can't wait the 6 months it would take for him to get PL football with us. He'll go for a fucking pittance as well, no doubt.
-
It sounds like it from his speech about cutting regulations for businesses. That said, I do think he might actually make the biggest song and dance about improvements made to manufacturing. Despite a lot of what we're hearing from our preferred media sources, he seems to have a lot of support (even in the UK from the Brexit crew) for a lot of his policies. I don't think that we're anywhere near the level of majority condemnation that we need for this to go awry. That said, his approval ratings fell below 50% the other day which has now set the all time record for the fastest recorded majority disapproval rating of any President ever. He managed it in 8 days. The previous record holder was Bill Clinton on 500+
-
Pretty sure he isn't going to be impeached over this. Think about how that would go down with the many people, armed people, who voted for him.
-
Absolutely fair. My spelling has been all over the place today, really not sure why.
-
Fine, I'll reign it in for now. But to say I'm deeply mistrustful is an understatement... I'll wait for other things to come up and then ask you about them. Maybe either I'll be converted to your line of thought, or I'll prove to myself that I'm right.
-
Or I condemn Obama as much. Based on my history of views, which do you think is more likely? And again, my issue here is that the press are willfully ignoring Obama's role in this.
-
Well then that's great and exactly what I wanted to hear. I'd appreciate a link if it's possible but am happy to take you at your word (even though it's still two days after the fact). I googled the same information before getting worked up about this earlier and found nothing. Anywhere. Only in blogs by random political commentators dotted around here and there. Nothing in the MSM. Maybe it was pushed down by other news, who knows. And actually, it still doesn't answer the question about why Trump is getting grief for sticking to a list that Obama wrote up, does it? He should be and is getting grief about the severity of the action - but actually, most of the grief is about who it targets. At least in my view. And who it targets, is the people Obama felt were the biggest threats.
-
No he didn't but he did CHOOSE the countries on that list. If Trump worked to that list, and the selection was racist, then the list was racist. The policy is fucked up but that's different.
-
That first link was published 3 hours ago. The furore has now gone on for 3 fucking days. If the BBC have known that for 3 days, why are they reporting it now? This isn't comparing it to Obama in 2011, I know that's different. I'm not even comparing him to Obama - I'm not questioning that this whole situation is morally ridiculous. I'm saying that the media knew where the list of countries had come from, and spread misinformation instead. They didn't report it, instead choosing to go for 'Trump is a racist and this is Islamophobia gone mad' despite knowing that he was working to a list drawn up by the previous administration. Why weren't Saudi and other predominantly Muslim countries not included on Obama's fucking list? You tell me. Since that list and Trump's action are both aimed at the same thing, it's a fully pertinent question. Why didn't the media ask Obama that when he drew it up? This is why I have a hard fucking time trusting them man. Agendas and fucking narratives. EDIT - just to add - if you were an incoming administration, wouldn't you form such a policy based on intelligence left behind by the previous administration? That's an entirely sane thing to do. If Saudi isn't on that list, it's squarely on Obama.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/30/green-movement-greatest-threat-freedom-says-trump-adviser-myron-ebell Apparently, according to the nutjob Trump put in charge of the environment, the Green movement is the 'Greatest Threat to Freedom'. And that US voters have rejected the expertariat.... which sounds familiar.
-
I think he's running the US like a company. If reports are true that he fired all the senior managers in the state department, that's one an incoming CEO might do. Avoids internal politics. Forbidding company employees from posting or tweeting thing's that can be used against it. Another things he's doing that we see all the time from corporations. He does appear to be running the US as if it were a business. Which is not a good sign. And Gloom, I'm just asking why the media have claimed that Trumps list of countries to avoid taking incoming people from was seemingly produced at random, or worse that it included every Muslim country he didn't have dealings with, when actually it was a list drawn up by Obama in 2015 of the points of origin that the US should implement the most extreme checks from. So when Trump comes in and says he's closing the border for 90 days in order to ascertain how security is working and to make sure the US is safe, he's doing it based on Obama's list. That was produced in order to scrutinise and make access to the US difficult for people from those countries. I'm just curious why a 'fact led' media wouldn't report this.
