Rayvin

I've made my position clear on this. I'd prefer he was elected for a day for the two fingers moment, and that he was then removed from office somehow Given that this scenario would never happen, I'd prefer Clinton. But that doesn't change the fact that Clinton cannot address this problem by nature of what she represents. She's tainted by the establishment and the powers that be, and unless she's able to oversee an incredible shift in wealth between those who have and those who have not, she's going to address fuck all. My concern is that the longer this wealth gap continues, and the longer the centre believes it is the one true way and that nothing will ever cause it to reflect or change, the harder the eventual successful backlash will be.

Exactly. The fact that there are as many Trump supporting Democrats as Hillary supporting Republicans suggests that a decent number of liberals can now see the problems in this system. It's all relative though, and most of us are going to be sufficiently insulated in our middle class bubbles that we just assume everyone else can see and is happy with how things are. But the reality is that the working class aren't looking back through time and comparing their situation to those who have gone before ffs. They're looking at us and comparing themselves to us. As they fucking should be. There is no simply solution though, you're right. Clinton is no solution at all, and Trump's only purpose would be to shake the career politicians to their core - beyond that he'd be useless too.

Sort of get the point here but if there was ever a demonstration of the rich protecting the establishment that made them rich, it's celebrity endorsements of Clinton. Nauseating that people need to be told how to vote by people whose IQs are probably in the Sub-80 range.

He is elitist though. Shocking commentator. He was pleading with people on the left to forego their principles and vote for his in the name of compromise not long ago. Hugely partisan guy.

Fuck the idea of Trump winning, the overthrow of the Neoliberalist establishment, the impending re-run of Nazi Germany... just let him win Florida

How well hidden...

I can't wait to see if Parky is actually right about any of this stuff.

It's not a strategy, although I see what you're saying... it's just my interpretation of what's actually happening. The establishment isn't going to back down, and the disaffected working class aren't going to either. So it's really all down to chance in my book, whether we get the tame right wing lurches now, or the serious ones later. Neoliberalism is a word to describe a philosophy - one that is fairly hidden considering that in our educational landscape we're very familiar with feminism, communism, fascism, socialism, etc. Curious that the one we live by is the least well known. It's an idea, more importantly, and it probably does need to be re-made. The elites and the establishment I kind of agree, although I use those terms to mix it up a bit so that my posts read better But yes, the solution isn't to rip anything apart - which I've said previously, a few times. I'd prefer a staged withdrawal (or progressive change, as you call it). But the trust isn't there for that to be led from the centre - as can be seen by the fact that Hillary is getting such a kicking - so it needs to come from outside of the 'establishment'. I would have infinitely preferred someone on the left...

Ok maybe I've not explained myself well. I'm not sure I see fascism as an endpoint as such, but I can completely see an eventual and continuing lurch to the right if the centre continues to ignore people's legitimate concerns. I don't see this as good, I see it as inevitable. Things like Trump and Brexit seem like huge losses to us now, but if they weren't allowed to happen, I fear we'd end up with worse outcomes in the longer term. Basically, as I've said, the centreground neoliberal elite need to be seen to lose. Then at least they can go away, learn from their mistakes, and hopefully come back with a fairer model for social structure (while at the same time allowing the right wing nut jobs to demonstrate to the world that they're no more interested in people than the neoliberals are, but less competent). If they don't, and the status quo perpetuates, we'll end up with violence in the long run. The only thing that ever staves that off, is that people believe they have the power to change things through the system that already exists. The longer the status quo persists, the more the anger, pressure, and belief that the structures will never allow for meaningful change, will build up - and the bigger, I would argue, the eventual backlash.

Well yes, absolutely. That's what appears to happen when the centreground fails. Which is why, IMO, it's so important that the pressure building up is released...

Palin is also a fairly terrible human being (although I've had my terrible person radar realigned in the Trump era). But she'd be a far superior candidate to Trump. The Republicans didn't want him man, the GOP hate the guy. This (Trump's movement) is about anti-establishmentarianism and a backlash against fake leftwing politics (identity politics/neoliberalism/humanitarian intervention).

If that's really what this is about then that's a deplorable state of affairs. And it would mean I've entirely misread this. But I can see reasons to vote for an anti-establishment candidate ahead of Clinton, and I've spent this entire election wishing that Palin had run instead of Trump. If she had, we'd be able to dispense with this identity politics sideshow and the useless wing of the left would have to contend with the fact that actually, Clinton just isn't offering people anything that they either believe in or want.

Would Sarah Palin be getting the same shit as Clinton? Or Warren? Doubtful...

I think the Alt-Right is a big factor. And to be honest, there's a lot the Alt-Right says that holds water. “It’s almost like a French revolution at this stage. People everywhere are waking up. We’ve lost freedom of speech through political correctness. All of a sudden you’re scared and you can’t say what’s on your mind,” he adds. Which is why I feel that this is more about people looking past the candidates than the candidates themselves. Hillary has been incidental for me other than what she represents. Seems like a lot of people feel this way.

Another interesting experience from their door to door canvassing: The anti-Trump Republican appears just as often as the pro-Trump Democrat.

The Guardian has an article here as an insight into why people are voting Trump. It's not just the rabid racists either, some of the people in there are quite reasonable: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/05/donald-trump-supporters-door-to-door-campaign-pennsylvania “Donald Trump is not my first choice,” says Pozzi as he steers his Buick through the suburban streets. A registered Democrat (he voted for Obama twice) and former Bernie Sanders fan, he’s now an active member of the alt-right. But rather than the Twitter troll stereotype, he’s friendly and open, immediately willing to let me tag along with him and regularly cracking jokes. Pozzi believes the entire system of government is corrupt, and this election has radicalized him. “That’s why I’m here. We have owners,” he says. Pozzi believes certain billionaires – such as the Rothschild family and George Soros – are the “owners” of society and chose Obama as a candidate because he was black and therefore guaranteed to lose, ensuring Clinton would become president. He thinks a similar thing happened in this election: the owners chose Trump as a candidate, assuming he had no chance of winning against Clinton.

Who do you trust? Politicians like Hillary or someone who will confirm your own biases back to you? We all live in echo chambers to a degree, these people are just seeing theirs validated at the moment.

I'd say that's about right as well. People really hate Clinton though - if she was up against almost anyone else... in fact, I'm tempted to say that if she was up against your average punter in the street at this point, she'd probably lose.

I think people are looking past the candidates to a degree. That's actually a good thing, normally... not so much in this election.

Do you really think it'll come to that? The average US citizen is a bit less mundane than the average UK citizen, but they're a long fucking shout from overthrowing their government. They'd need a figurehead anyway, and if it looked even remotely like Trump was going to be that figurehead, they'd have him shot.

Possibly, but his failure to get in might just intensify the extremism. I thought the old adage was that you need to give these things a platform in order for them to look ridiculous, rather than suppress them and force them down. If we give Trump a platform, the right is going to look plenty fucking stupid.

I kind of want to see how in hell he'd build that freaking wall, while at the same time getting Mexico to pay for it... Would it be The Great Wall of America?

I see what you're saying, but in a perverse sense, he's actually claiming in the highlighted bit to be the same as people like Clinton, Obama and Bush. They did all those things.

The election? I agree tbh. Although if Trump wins, it might restore the pound a bit.

The global stock markets are going to take a battering if Trump wins I maintain that I'd prefer Hillary to be in power generally, but my ideal scenario would be for Trump to win for just that first day alone to see the whole world lose its collective shit, and then for someone to come forward and say that there was a miscount and that actually Hillary won.