Rayvin

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.

He campaigned by saying 'there's lots wrong with Europe but we can change that if we remain'. Which I suspect actually was his position.

PL, I disagree. Trump just hijacked the movement - the Alt-Right alone was in ascendancy far before Trump was on the scene. Farage you may have more of a case, but again, I think the sentiment was there anyway. UKIP got 4m votes at the last election. The referendum out vote got 17m. Why did those 13m people suddenly get so motivated about Europe? People's lives just -were- shit. In my view, it was to attack the establishment. That reason alone. Immigration, economics, all of this comes into it, but it was to send a message to a group of people (in the centre) who had become entirely removed from the considerations of normal people. Would Trump have won if he'd gone up against Sanders? Polling suggests no. Sanders was a better anti-establishment message. However, Hillary was chosen (off the back of shady practices by the DNC, it would seem). She was the establishment personified, and she lost. In fact, I genuinely believe that if Trump hadn't been revealed as someone who believes in grabbing people by the pussy, she would have lost the popular vote too. Trump was an utterly terrible candidate, but he wasn't establishment. I know you guys think he is. I know you'll say 'oh he's a billionaire', and 'look who he hired'. None of that matters. Because while yes, that's a pretty establishment portfolio, he had nothing to do with the political cabal in power before him. He was an outsider, and he offered to tear the insiders down. It doesn't matter if you say 'but they should have known he'd be the same' because for one thing, he clearly fucking isn't the same. He's actually doing what he said (horrifyingly), and for another thing, this wasn't about Trump. As I said, his approval ratings even on the day he was elected were terrible. On the day he was elected, 17% of the people who voted for him said he wasn't fit to be President. And yet here he fucking is! Because the centre thought it could keep pushing the establishment and because the fucking media shot the left to shit. Moreso in Corbyn's case than Sanders. Although in fairness to the media, Corbyn stood no chance once the referendum came on the scene - he'd lost his anti-establishment moment. Brexit was something more readily available to vent anger at than a GE in 5 years time. So when I say, 'the left stands a chance' it's because this sentiment isn't (I hope) going to be fulfilled by Trump. Or Brexit. We, as a collective, have acknowledged that. You guys are worrying presumably because you think the people who voted for Trump will continue to do so, or (somewhat incredibly) that Trump will find some way of converting the US into a dictatorship in the next 4 years. And I don't think they will. I think if the left can put up a good change candidate, it'll win. Renton, you asked who this was. It's early days, but in the US I'd suggest the Justice Democrats movement. They've identified the same issue, and are planning to take over the DP and rid it of corporate funding. Their policy positions poll really well across the US. In the UK I'm less optimistic. When Corbyn goes (and he will), I've no idea what'll happen. Labour might go back to what it was, but it'll be hammered. Brexit might well take so long anyway that our generational moment for change has passed. We might need to wait until Brexit has demonstrably proven itself to be shit before we can try again.

As I've said, I was taking the piss. Out of the people who think Islam in itself is the sole reason for terrorism. You all know fine well that isn't my view. Lemme ask you guys actually. What do you think the MAIN reason Trump was elected, and that Brexit was voted for, is? One concept only.

Even on the day he was elected he had a 60% disapproval polling. This whole election was nothing to do with people being 'pro-Trump' and everything to do with people being anti-corporate, anti-establishment, and desperate for change. If Sanders had beaten Clinton, we wouldn't be here.

I was being tongue in cheek to expose some of the arguments that are raised about terrorism generally. I can't remember which side of that you were on actually, so if it's as you say then fair enough. Be amazed if you want, but I'm reasonably happy that things have developed as I expected them to over the past few months, and am therefore not concerned about some manner of dystopian future about to be realised. I think he'll bumble along for a year, lose the House in 2018, and then be paralysed until he's booted out in 4 years time to be replaced by an incoming leftwing administration that has finally realised that appealing to corporate greed isn't the way to go, and that this whole charade came about because they insisted on doing just that. The alternative is that Trump's policies stimulate growth and jobs, and the left finds it much harder to establish common ground with the voters. This could lead to the more worrying outcome.

Hang on though, we've established on here that nothing apart from Islamism forms the recruitment drive for ISIS. Moreover, if they can't actually get into the US in the first place, how does this endanger his country?

Attack on who? By who? Who is this supposed to aggravate?

At the moment though, he's blocking specific countries, right? So while yes, this is really about banning muslims, it's actually not specifically doing that yet. It's banning foreign nationals from certain countries. Also, surely this is the only adequate response to 'Islamic terrorism' if you believe that it comes about purely from being Muslim. I don't believe that, but plenty around seem to do so.

I'm saying they could. That the opportunity is there. It hinges on whether or not Trump is actually successful on the economic front. Also, on Gloom being the voice of reason - since when has the objective voice of reason been about moving to a state of absolute panic

I don't disagree there, but he's too principled for that level of pragmatism. I think we have to accept that Brexit has turned us into a one party state.

Yeah but realistically he has absolutely no means of doing that. I expect it could amount to little more than surrendering the task to Russia. That said, if he allies with Putin they'd probably end that catastrophically... so maybe you're right.

I think it'll be telling actually, how many people Trump has killed by the end of his presidency. Based on his isolationist tendencies, it's quite possible that it could be significantly fewer than Obama. Now, even with his stance on immigration, surely that would make him objectively a less destructive leader? Assuming you agree that the taking of lives is worse than preventing someone access to your country? There's potentially an argument that turning down refugees effectively 'kills' them, but all countries in the world are guilty of this to some degree, not least of which the UK. This is a good article on Trump reinvigorating the culture war, which I think has parallels with the UK post-Brexit. After Brexit, this was actually pretty obvious IMO. The only question was whether it was UK specific or Western. I thought Trump was a stronger contender for the presidency than many others specifically because of this culture war. The left (actually the centre, IMO) hasn't woken up to this yet: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/29/donald-trump-left-faces-new-cultural-warrior-in-battle-it-thought-won

But I suppose, and this is to HF, that Trump is at least an acceptable hate figure that will allow these policies to be exposed as he takes them to extremes. This means that we may, as I said, get a left wing push back that actually fucking sorts some of these problems out. We needed a Trump to come along because we were willfully blind when this sort of shit was being carried out by people like Obama. The MSM simply not giving a shit under his watch, presumably.

At the risk of needing to 'get a room' with HF again, that's a fucking good post I would also add that the wall and pipeline will support job creation and investment in the economy, thus offering a potential growth outlet. Also, I think I read that fewer Mexicans than ever are even going into the US illegally. On that basis, it's an empty gesture anyway (beyond investment in the regions the wall will cover).

That's about par for the course for her, mind. She's out of her depth really.

Why couldn't we be at the point of the revolution now? It needed something radical to happen and tbf, Trump is ticking a lot of the boxes I would look for as the initiation of actual change.

How do you figure on that last part? I can actually see the left wing rationale for supporting Brexit. Follows along the lines of the EU being a vehicle for Neoliberalism, globalisation and corporate ideals. On the other hand, the EU does a lot of good from a socialist viewpoint as well, with respect of workers rights and collective bargaining power. This is why I think Corbyn is lukewarm on it.

What about Cenk's attempts to takeover the Democratic party? If that works it could be a game changer.

You don't think the left will be resurgent after this? I know you like to back the corporatists to control everything in the long run, but they've clearly not controlled Brexit - you said many times that they would somehow and yet, here we are, about to hard Brexit. Hillary lost to Trump ffs. They got owned in 2016 and I don't think by their own design. That means there are weaknesses. I don't think it's divorced from reality to expect that, if Trump is an utterly shit president, and cracks down on various freedoms, he'll be subject to an active left wing push back. The only thing I can see allowing him to escape this, is if his policies actually do create jobs. If they do, the left is in trouble.

There's plenty of things he's doing that we need to object to - the immigration policy (which I still can't believe has been implemented as it was) and his ludicrous attempts to silence discussion on climate change. Other than those two, as far as I can remember, he hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy. I think what we're seeing at the moment is as bad as it'll get. It's the Tory modus operandi - do all the bad stuff straight off the bat, and then people will think more kindly of you when you do better stuff towards the end of the period. This will be a fantastic opportunity in the long run, assuming we survive it. Trump is going to be so right wing, that millions of formerly stupid people will be prepared to vote left. And the left can go in, tear down his wall, open up the borders, enshrine something or other into the constitution so that 'this can never happen again' and hopefully, just maybe, they'll fix the fucking system. Trump might be the enemy we need to finally kill the establishment.

The immigration policy is certainly incredible but I'm struggling to feel much sympathy for the media. It's not like they've been shut down, they're reporting on him negatively every chance they get. With good reason I might add. When they're no longer able to do that, I'll worry about it. But can you honestly, in your wildest dreams, consider that Trump would get away with shutting down the free press? He has the lowest approval ratings of any president ever, no chance he'd get away with it. If the White House wants to peddle absolute fallacies they're going to get called out on it. Every time they do it. And not just by the media, by literally everyone. I really don't think this is the world ending scenario that many seem to think. They sensationalised Bannon's quote, IMO. If there's no need to sensationalise, why do it? The pulling of funding for international groups who support abortions was another one. Every republican president that has gone before him has done that. The democrats come in and put it in, the republicans take it out. And yet we're told that this is Trump attacking women as if its an unprecedented move. Why? To sensationalise.