Rayvin

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.

True, and it certainly could play a part. Comey is screwed if it does though. In fact he's probably screwed either way now.

Yeah Trump's statements are on a similar level to the right wing press in this country and their ramblings about high court judges blocking brexit. Except arguably worse because Trump supporters have guns. On the plus side, all the polls seem to suggest that Hillary has this sewn up, and while I won't relish seeing her take power, it'll be a relief compared to Trump. The US will at least be in a holding pattern for a few years.

Wasn't aimed at you, more the general sentiment in response to the FBI debacle.

Ok, but then at best we can say is that he's a total idiot. I genuinely think that if this is some manner of vote rigging scenario by the FBI then they're a bunch of total amateurs. The only scenario to my mind here where people as allegedly smart as the FBI let themselves get into this position, is that the new emails came to light and they realised that they had to gamble. If they sat on it and Trump won, they were stuffed. If they released it and Hillary won, they were stuffed (assuming it contained nothing of substance). I could see that scenario forcing them into this position. But to suggest that this was an attempt to control voting and that they didn't foresee the 'pressure to resolve asap' coming as soon as they went public is a bit of a stretch IMO. Unless they actually aren't all that smart or professional, I guess.

Surely he'd have kept it running until after the election if he wanted to maximise the damage? What does Comey gain from settling this now, if he's rigging the election? Also, the evidence seemed to be that this new information about emails didn't affect voting much and only entrenched people's pre existing biases. She's still gonna win ffs, settle down.

That is a good stat...! Hard to imagine anyone beating him for the foreseeable as the league's all time top scorer. Rooney certainly won't...

I've always been staggered by that. The ads they get with people who've lost limbs, who would evidently benefit from a more socialist healthcare system, talking about how they'd resist it with their last breath. Staggering stupidity, but I guess the extent to the cold war era propaganda goes very deep in the US psyche.