Rayvin

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.

Can you tell me why the media are ignoring the Obama act that gives this whole thing some manner of legitimacy? And instead spreading 'alternative facts' about Trumps selection process? This is one of those I'll be happy to be wrong about. If I'm not then trying to make any sense of any of this see beyond pointless.

Not sure it's this Immigration policy though. Looks as though it's just an expansion of Obama's Terrorist Travel Prevention Act. All the countries he's banned are from that list. Which raises a question about why the media are suggesting he's cherry picked them based on his business interests - that certainly looks incorrect. I suspect they're more likely to get him on any behind the scenes issues in the state department, that sounded really shady.

I'm also surprised by the Mbemba news but hey, we probably could use Townsend more than him, so I guess it makes sense.

Sounds like a decent couple of signings for them, given that they need bodies more than anything else. Still unlikely to be enough though.

Oh ffs, now we really have come full circle. I'm decrying the middle class, you're decrying me on the same basis, we really are fucked. Divided and conquered. Since I've disappeared up my own arse on this one so I'll back out of it for now and wait for the hysteria to die down.

My sentiments exactly.

The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalists is not being exploited by them. Not saying the refugees are losing out. I'm just saying that Starbucks are doing it to virtue signal. And that this sort of false 'kindness' is nauseating.

They're the ones saying I'm 'finding fault' with things mate, not sure why you think any of this is news to me

I'm just a skeptic, that's all there is to it really. But honestly, it's not like Starbucks will be wringing their hands about the plight of refugees. They'll be thinking "this is a big deal, has caught a lot of international attention... how can we exploit it to boost profits". That'll be all there is to it. This is perhaps the most worrying thing I've read so far on the whole issue. I'll concede that I'm starting to come around to Gloom's line of thought here - things like this happening in the background are a concern.

I know. Better than willful approval though. I just can't vote for what I don't believe in any more.

Apparently the petition to 'Save the Queen' from Trump has now exceeded 1m signatures. Which I don't understand at all actually. Why aren't we petitioning to stop him coming altogether? And also, doesn't the Queen regularly meet despots from around the world? Why would Trump be different? Although if they don't come over here for official state visits for the same reasons then fair enough. I also note that Starbucks has pledged to hire 10,000 refugees. Which it will do because they're cheap, will accept minimum wage, and because it looks good. Not because they care. The virtue signalling is going to be painful to watch here.

To actually achieve meaningful change, you need to make sacrifices. I could not be more convinced that change of any significance is impossible under the current system. I've supported Corbyn on the grounds that if he didn't move, he would force people to choose. Rather than just pick one of two parties that basically deliver the same things with some slight nuances. The problem for me is that it's easy or me to make that sacrifice as I'm not vulnerable. Which is why I didn't vote for him last time out. That said, if there's enough people who are still desperate to force change and aren't vulnerable enough to be worn down into submission on the issue, good luck to them. I rather fancy that isn't the case though, and I expect Corbyn will be replaced soon. The problem then for me is that I'll not be able to vote for anyone. But at least we'll have a centreground approved labour government back in the mix for all of you who think that's enough.

Which is a fair enough explanation for people in your situation, but would it mean the same outcome for people whose lives actually are shit? Also, which way do you friends vote at GEs?

Department of Homeland Security refusing to comply with congressional instructions to stand down on the immigrant policy. They're taking Trump's side. Will concede that this is a worry, depending on how it resolves. We don't want a power struggle between Trump and Congress.

To be absolutely fair, I can see it being a combination of those things, as you say.

Looks like Trump is going to be forced to either thumb his nose at a lot of general pressure, or to climb down on this issue. This could be dangerous.

To be fair to May, she appears to be caving to pressure: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-condemn-trumps-us-travel-ban

Who you fist is, of course, entirely up to you.

Get a room, you sycophant!

I wasn't politically conscious in the 80s. But while it might be your experience that we have it really good, it doesn't seem to be reflected in what many other people are thinking. I can only speak for myself in my view. I worked hard at school, went to Uni and then we were hit by a financial crisis about 3 weeks after I graduated. Suddenly there were no jobs. Then wage stagnation and low growth. Zero hours contracts. The rich getting richer. The middle class being eroded. The positives of globalisation being outweighed by the negatives. And of course austerity. That's been the last 10 years. Why in fuck would people not want to change that? I can't be the only person who thinks this sorry state of affairs is fucking shit? Also, the 80s was when Neoliberalism kicked off in earnest. I don't think we understood what was happening then. We do now. EDIT - wait there's more - unaffordable housing, having to pay fees for higher education, high rental prices, less general ignorance about the way the world works. I'll add more as I think of them... You're right that this is the opportunity that the likes of Farage and Trump have been waiting for, but not, in my view, because of the internet or anything like that. Trump seems to have a love hate relationship with the internet at best. I would argue it's because they've been able to capitalise on a lack of political will in the centre to do anything other than 'maintain', and that they've harnessed widespread rage. I'm not maligning them importance of a free press. I don't think I said anything of the sort. I malign the influence of a press that follows establishment and corporate interests as you well know. Would I rather have that over no press at all? Yes. I'd snap your hand off. Would I prefer an entirely factual service that doesn't seek to influence and coerce on the political level? Infinitely more so. Identity politics is about the use of labels to break people up into groups along lines they can't change. For instance to assume that all white people vote the same way, and all women, etc. Using labels to describe political terms is entirely different and I'm a little surprised that you think it's the same? Of your list, metropolitan elite (not a phrase I can recall using, although I use 'elites' a lot - to define politicians and business leaders normally) is the closest to an 'identity' in the sense of how people are politically grouped today. The rest are self-described political positions.

Well at least we're on the same page on that front.

Fair point actually.

I disagree.