Rayvin

I'll never get to run for politics based on my posts in here, will I? I'm not strictly anti-establishment though. My concern is more that if we don't start seeing improvements in the lives of the people being left behind, and that we know that this number is increasing (thanks to the IFS and other sources), that logically, we're heading towards a place where the status quo cannot be perpetuated. That being the case, I would rather we had a negotiated climbdown rather than something drastic. The drastic action will be infinitely worse than Trump or Brexit. I was quite happy with the establishment, relatively speaking - minus the wars and so on - until it delivered us Brexit. And while there are many factors at play there, it's pointless to stick our heads in the sand and say that 1) the people being left behind don't have a legitimate grievance and 2) refuse to acknowledge that there's a lot fucking more of them than we thought, and that this isn't unique to the UK. I'm furious that we've been delivered to this point, that I was complicit in it, and that the intransigence of 'the elites' is delivering economic hardship for all of us, as they try to resist what is happening.

I think it's quite possible that he could win you know... The Republican donors have clearly sensed blood as they're now throwing money at him hand over fist for the final few days of advertising. The problem with Trump, for me, is that he's a fantastic statement to the establishment on the day he gets elected, and thereafter is a problem and a liability with no solid policies and little ability or desire to actually make any difference. What we should have had is someone equally loathed by the establishment, but who could make a decent fist of it. Which is why I continue to stick with Corbyn, for better or worse. I've said a few times, I'd far rather we get change and reconstruction of the political climate by the left than the right. It'll be the right in the end though, it always seems to be. As for Hillary, she'd just keep things ticking over, but the status quo is, as you say, disenfranchising people. How long does that go on before someone radical comes in to fix it? Unless the establishment can somehow put the genie back in the bottle again. And maybe they can, they've probably done it in the past. Still though, with their usual mouthpieces in traditional media losing influence, I think they've been caught cold this time around. If we get Trump, and Brexit, and it causes a rethink in how politics is set up, and in terms of who it is meant to serve, I reckon it'll save us a lot of grief further down the line.

Well put. And yes, I can see the sense in that argument. The thing is, I don't think any single one action is going to bring about the change we need - but lots of them might. And I think my general concern is more that if we don't get the change with these relatively tame developments, we might see less tame developments in the future. The Establishment has to lose this fight, IMO. It simply hasn't brought enough people with it to win. Maybe I'm wrong, but Brexit suggests otherwise.

Gemmill just saunters in and neuters the angst throughout the thread with one line. You can't learn that kind of forum management

Not quite sure what you mean by this comment? You mean you think we'd do better working within the established frameworks?

Aye, I've rewatched it now and he is so unbelievably right about this. Totally captures my viewpoint on it.

I'm not surprised at all by that based on what I'm reading. Unfortunately his message isn't going to get through to people who prefer their politics to be more straightforward.

Yeah it's a weird one that. Initially it looked like he was resigning over the court judgement but it actually looks like it's in response to something that government is apparently trying to do in response. Which suggests he might even be principled?

For a horrifying moment, I thought they were going to do it...

This fucking thread...

Why don't you give the True Geordie a call, he does podcasts now apparently. Seems to have several hundred thousand viewers per video, sure he'd be happy to help you out

That makes sense. If attacks on the West are a recruiting tool to get more people to buy into the ideology, then attacking bigger countries with larger Muslim populations would make sense, and wouldn't necessarily suggest an ulterior political motive. Very believable but hard to support, isn't it? Either way, surely either side of this argument makes it clear that we shouldn't be meddling in these countries, and that we'd experience fewer attacks if we weren't? Both Gloom and HF's posts support that point.

Ok sorry, but could someone address HF's Iceland point with something other than sniping? I'm keen to hear the response. And FWIW I agree with you guys that religion is the primary motivator, but I'm becoming less and less convinced with every post that goes by ducking his question. Why don't they attack Iceland? Have they ever attacked anyone against whom they had no tangible political motive? None of this changes the fact that they are religiously motivated, but it does suggest that we could avoid being targets by acting like Iceland does, surely?

I agree actually, that's a particularly strong headline. What's with the 'GIANT map of Britain' as well. Is that just to reinforce the point somehow?

The Fish has now been schooled.

"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as when Churchill vowed we'd fight them on the beaches" Right wing tabloids are the worst

That is genuinely a fucking disgrace. Fucking hell HF, why aren't you up in arms

...I think I've had my fill of this thread for today Also, Renton, I notice you never addressed my points in response to your Hillary and Obama post. Every time I post that you go quiet on it which is fine as long as you don't then bring up the same points in a day or two and claim I never addressed them

Agreed. There's no hope.

I actually don't disagree with any of this, seriously. I've said in a few posts that I can totally see Islam for what it is, and that I think the left handles it really poorly (and hypocritically). My central point, which does appear to be supported to a degree, is that we make ourselves bigger targets through meddling. I sort of wonder if, were we not meddling, we would have to take in as many immigrants as we do. We destabilised Syria, so we get immigrants. We overthrew Saddam, left a power vacuum, and get more immigrants, as ISIS surges forward with no power structures to keep it down. Yes Islam is entirely responsible for its ideology and for the actions they take. Entirely. But we are responsible for making it easier for them to do what they do. Maybe that's how I should argue this in future.

Here man, no one sees you like that I'm sure. If I've implied that in any way in my posts then, and knowing full well Gemmill will take the piss out of me for it, I apologise. I agree with a lot of your views on Islam, as I've said in this thread (which I hope is clear). Literally the only thing you and I seem to disagree on in this respect, is that I think we reap what we sow with Islam to a degree in terms of our repeated destabilizing actions in their countries - and you think they'd be attacking us anyway because they're called to do so. You're absolutely right to put your opinion down on here, and I'm personally grateful that you do. I find it allows me to challenge my views I also appreciate how you don't say you're not smart enough to appreciate how stupid I am

I think his point was more about the potential unseen motives of those leading it, and the extenuating circumstances (personal, economic, and geopolitical) that might make the attackers more susceptible to brainwashing. I don't agree with him on the first bit as I think that they're probably zealots all the way to the top, but it's impossible to know for sure. On the latter bit, I think he has a point - otherwise, as has been said repeatedly to no answer, they'd all be doing it.