Rayvin

why? Whether now or in 4 years I thought this was inevitable remember? They're just doing what I thought they would.

This too. I did fucking say...

This in a nutshell. But seriously. I didn't expect to see this - not yet. I didn't think the establishment had fucked it this badly yet. Wow.

Well it sounds pretty clear cut to me. As much as it'd be amusing to see this go close, the papers seem quite relaxed about it. Clinton and the status quo. The fabled third term will be achieved. All will be right in the middle classes. And after all, isn't that what matters, in the end?

The Guardian is showing Trump ahead in Florida... not sure how accurate their information is or exactly how this works though. EDIT - it's by district, so is entirely meaningless at this point. False alarm for ewerk

And some possible good news, for a change - the EU has tabled a motion to consider letting British nationals remain EU citizens if desired. I'd be happy to pay tax towards that, frankly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-freedom-of-movement-passport-how-to-keep-parliament-live-move-abroad-a7405196.html

If there's one thing we excel at as a species, it's breaking through the glass floor of degradation. It'll be someone as bad as Trump but more articulate, IMO.

In the short term, yes. I agree. It's the long term I'm fearful for. Also the tax bit - looks to me like she's eliminating loopholes and making sure the wealthy pay the same as the middle. That's not progressive, that's the minimum standard surely. Progressive would be if she rolled out a tax hike... Have I misread it?

They're really conflicted. They think he's a brave, whistleblowing abuser of women

That's bit strikes me as definitely true. He certainly loves the attention. It's a bit of a shame really, as he could have handled himself much better than he did. Snowden for instance, has managed to avoid getting embroiled in any illegal activities other than his whistleblowing. I think I just see him as a necessary evil. And enjoy that he makes people in power uncomfortable.

The other alternative is that actually, they're all just misogynistic racists and that Neoliberalism has nothing to do with it. That's safer. I hope it's that.

Neoliberalism is the framework for turning everyone into consumers first, people second; cutting back the welfare state; maximising profits and the ultimate belief that the markets can do no wrong. She does stand for it because it's the framework that all major political parties in Western countries operate on. What does the bit about it just being a label mean, exactly? Nazism is just a label, does that mean it's not descriptive of a very real thing? Anyway my point isn't about aptitude. You and I both agree that she's a better candidate than Trump. The problem is that we have widespread populist anger at the Neoliberals. Hillary is a Neoliberal. She won't be able to have a positive impact on peoples lives unless she abandons Neoliberalism and heads back to something closer to socialism. What you have described as her policies are a move in that direction, but I sorely doubt they will be enough. That said, if you believe that they'll be enough to persuade tens of millions of disaffected Americans that the centre is right again, fair enough. If she doesn't though, we get a rerun of this in 4 years time with someone potentially more dangerous than Trump.

He's in a pretty diverse fucking team as well. How will his comments go down with his colleagues? Absolute knacker. Who was he being knob to? Do we know yet?

It's just that he fights the man, really. Forces their shit into the spotlight. As a character I'd broadly agree, but as a pain in the arse to governments everywhere, he should be praised.

Oh ffs. Why on earth would any footballer do something like that in this day and age.

I think it's too late for Sanders to be of any use, he's being seen as a sell-out now. The framework I meant was Neoliberalism, just trying to mix it up a bit I think if Trump loses badly, the GOP might manage to do what you've proposed. But if he doesn't, if it's close, then this is going to rumble on unresolved. What we really need is someone on the left to come along with policies that speak past identity politics (which the left has found itself ridiculously hamstrung with) and just talks about improving things for people of all genders, races and creeds - someone rational, credible, and with left wing values. That person, I think, would obliterate the centre and the right. Instead though, we're getting a total idiot, and a dyed in the wool Neoliberal, the former who can see the perverseness of the system and who is capitalising on it with a load of standard right wing xenophobia and bigotry, and the latter who either can't see it's failings or who just doesn't care. Either way, it'll be Clinton, so we'll get to see if I'm right or wrong one way or another.

So your view is that she'll put in charge a progressive Justice, and will tax the wealthy more - and that this will stem the tide of populism. Fair enough... not convinced I have to say Thinking about it, I'm not sure what she could possibly do within the framework she adheres to.

Does that not sound like all the same nonsense we normally get, and which makes absolutely no difference though? Is it just that I'm too jaded to see the benefit here? Will those things be enough to bring the Trump backers back from the brink?

Nice

Can't wait for the Mail's take on that

That reminds, me, I made this graph measuring attendance against success the other day. Just thought it was worth setting out here...