Rayvin

Suppose it depends on how favourably it compares to elsewhere. Let's be honest though, the PL has always been shit at this with a couple of exceptions.

Thanks xx

Why, does that make them less susceptible to corruption? Or does it somehow imply capability. I know a lot of very rich morons, all self made.

I'm in my 30s and still livid there's hope for us all. Though I'll be 38 by then... I'd run for office myself but my TT posting history would be used against me i think.

Agree with Renton, this is a good point... Fuck. The right it is then.

His net worth is c.$500,000 as far as I can tell. But yes, I take the career politician bit. I'm not saying he was perfect but he ticked more boxes than Hillary. I have nothing really against them personally. I thought Bill was ok to be honest, I'm rather surprised by a number of the things that have come out about him in recent weeks. But then, I thought he was ok about the same time I thought Blair was doing a good job. And now, years on, when I'm looking at where it's left us... I'm no longer so sure. Take the point on them being self made though, that's fair enough and indeed is admirable. Not sure it makes them beyond being bought or in other people's pockets though.

Perhaps I've been too enthused by what's gripping Europe, maybe the US really is impenetrable to change. It feels like it'd be easier over here.

Well, I guess we'll see. Another 5 years of Neo-Liberal bullshit await, and it'll be interesting to see the lay of the land when it comes to the next election. ...yes? Is this where you zing me about the millions that were supporting his campaign? I meant more personal wealth and the connections it buys, but I've checked, and he raised $234m. Hillary has managed $740m, more than even Trump. I'm pleased to see he raised as much as he did.

Between Trump and Clinton, I agree. I'd prefer her by a long shot. Trump is fucking loopy. Between Clinton and someone who isn't a career politician with millions on the side - essentially the type you've just described - I'll take the alternative.

People voting for a change in a system that doesn't work for them should be encouraged. Although I can't imagine many of them would countenance voting for Trump now. I'd far rather the left overhauls the establishment personally, but sometimes you feel like either side would at least move things forward. Trump, however, is not the person to do that. You're probably right that Sanders wouldn't have gotten much of his legislation through - but the fact that he was voted in, and that he was trying, would have been a significant step. Opinions can only shift when the unthinkable becomes normal.

How can you be struggling with the specific, I've been posting about it all day... the bit about how she's a vote for the status quo and the kicking down the road of the metaphorical can? And how the longer the status quo clings on, the more Brexit style shit we'll get? This is a fair point, although compared to Sanders she's minted. His personal net worth is something like a $300k. Hers is about $31m. (With Bill it's $111m)

I've told you repeatedly why I dislike her. I've not trusted her since she claimed to land under sniper fire in Bosnia and was actually greeted by a small girl holding a flower or something like that. And more generally, it's the stuff about the centreground, prolonging the inevitable, the establishment and the ultimate downfall of Western civilisation

True. Both Trump and Clinton are arguably too old for this anyway. Although you could say the same about Sanders so there wasn't really much choice this time around.

That's awesome.

That's a shame actually, because her gender has been a sideshow to the whole thing and been an easy thing to use for deflecting criticism of her. Annoyingly though, the Democrats could have had Warren (I remain amazed that Hillary didn't choose her as VP). Warren would have been a much more supportable candidate.

I don't see her as the antichrist (who does?) I see her as a liar and standard bearer of the establishment. They may not be big issues to you, but they are to me. For the things you've mentioned, I've googled a bit to see if I can help you out with why other people take issue with her: Her bid to prevent her emails from causing her problems by pressuring the FBI certainly doesn't look good. The mass deletions of emails, coupled with the fact that the FBI found she and her associated had been deleting classified emails and claiming they were personal and therefore not of interest, is problematic. The FBI didn't charge her for that in the end, but called her extremely careless, and set out that no reasonable person could have been ignorant of what she was doing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-accused-of-collusion-and-corruption-over-secret/ This article in the Economist on the Clinton Foundation is also worth a look - it sounds problematic at best: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains-4 Put it this way, if she was David Cameron, and he had the kind of financial infrastructure and corporate lobbying bods around him, we'd be crying foul all over the place. Not sure why Hillary gets a free pass. There are of course plenty of crazy theories as well, but these two seem to have some credence. She's certainly a member of the super rich elite, and one of the most powerful families in the the US.

What would you consider to be 'worrying dirt', out of interest?

Hah, the cyborg future. Is it weird that I've thought about how convenient it would be to be able to pull back the top of my finger and plug it into a usb port

Hm, I've not see that one but maybe the principle is very similar. I'm sure the one I'm thinking of was more of a modern throw away sci fi of the 'Minority report' ilk. It wasn't the core of the film either, just something they used for a couple of scenes as context. Either way, my thinking is kind of that if you were able to do this, and others you know could do this too, you could live your later years out as 'young' people once again. Kind of depressing and sad from an outsiders point of view, but also probably quite desirable for elderly people with very little left in their lives.

Yeah that's true - I suppose it's easy to think '£500k isn't a lot of money' in a footballing sense, but it'd be a big contribution towards the academy. Also, we've had some amazing success stories on that front (Carroll) so we should really see the value in it more than others.

I hope it takes off since I'm wedded to the idea of being able to upload myself into a virtual world in my old age, and relive my youth. There was a film that covered this as a concept but I don't remember what it was called. A sci-fi of some description. People took a hallucinogenic drug to prevent them from being 'aware' that they were in the game. When I'm 107 and have finally retired, it's the first thing I'll do. In the more immediate future, if it offers improved immersion I'm all for it

I'd agree with that - economic policy failure gave us the whole thing. This is perhaps where that article Chez posted has weight though, if it sets out that actually, this was inevitable.

Appreciated. This is all just my opinion of course, I'm not saying it's gospel. Maybe I'm being a bit too strident.

I agree to an extent... but the MSM has led people around by the nose in this country for decades. Look at the legions the Sun can call on to vote whichever way it tells them. And the Mail. They keep hitting people with the same stuff until eventually they've penetrated multiple generations of the same family, each affirming the other's views, thus giving rise to the echo chambers that are now popping up all over the internet (Facebook and so on). Social media has had its part to play as well, but I would wager that media used to be much more restrained and much less pervasive in the pre-Murdoch era. I don't know for sure though, maybe someone can enlighten me? This is a side point though - really I just mean that the 'facts' of the matter seem less important now. We need change for the sake of releasing some of the pressure on our political consciousness before we do any more stupid Brexit style shit.

I didn't mean your argument, I meant the overall consideration of the success/failure of Neo-Liberalism and where we're headed. I've tried to set out why there is a movement towards the fringes on both the right and left, and assumed that your contribution was effectively to state that people who think turning away from the centre-ground is the answer are misinformed, as nothing better waits beyond the horizon. I've then simply stated that the reality of that, whether true or not, isn't what we're talking about anymore. The Economist ran an article a few weeks back setting out that we're in a post-truth era. We absolutely are. The MSM have dragged us down there and now public distrust for media outlets and institutions is low enough that people are very literally making their own truths. I think my real point here is that I can only see this being reversed by the current political powers being forced into retreat, and some of the populist options being given a try. Sadly, this means things like Brexit. But then, if the establishment had listened to people's concerns, hadn't pushed austerity, and had perhaps looked at integrating immigrants into communities better, maybe we wouldn't be where we are on that front. The lack of trust people now have in the status quo is considerable. I suspect too much damage has been done. Then again. I was thinking the other day in another post that, like us with Ashley at NUFC, if the establishment were to pull something out of the bag that gave enough positive change to enough people (Rafa) maybe they'd quieten things down. I'm just not sure they have it in them when they're conspiring to keep centre left options like Corbyn and Sanders out of power while calling them 'extreme left'. Disagreeing doesn't help much on it's own, no. But thanks? Not sure how you can disagree with an analysis of people's perceptions unless you think I'm just making up a number of the complaints people have, or that these people don't understand their own minds. Unless you're disagreeing with my assessment of what the article is saying. If so, I'd welcome the opportunity to learn where I've gone wrong, as ever.