US election 2016

[Dr Gloom 21566]

It's one celebrity endorsement. We're talking about media trends across the board.

 

Just because Paul Krugman has been steadfast in his unyielding support for Clinton, no-one would claim for a second she's had an easy ride with widespread media backing.... though she has had a better press than Trump.

 

As she should.

I'm talking about that too. The original point i replied to suggested the entire MSM has been against trump. Clearly he's had a tougher time than Hillary, which he fully deserves given what he's said and done, but it's not like he's had a completely free pass. He was helped to get way closer to the white house than ever should have been plausible in part thanks to the platform Fox gave him.

[Gemmill 43230]

"Look it up people. You're wrorrrng."

[Meenzer 15198]

I'd settle for a media that is powerless to control the wills of voters though - which appears to be the direction we're taking. Keep in mind that the right wing media very much played its part in creating this storm through decades of yammering on about immigrants and the like.

 

And now they're getting what they wanted. Doesn't sound like we're taking that direction much.

 

[Park Life 71]

I'm talking about that too. The original point i replied to suggested the entire MSM has been against trump. Clearly he's had a tougher time than Hillary, which he fully deserves given what he's said and done, but it's not like he's had a completely free pass. He was helped to get way closer to the white house than ever should have been plausible in part thanks to the platform Fox gave him.

Da back track begins.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm talking about that too. The original point i replied to suggested the entire MSM has been against trump. Clearly he's had a tougher time than Hillary, which he fully deserves given what he's said and done, but it's not like he's had a completely free pass. He was helped to get way closer to the white house than ever should have been plausible in part thanks to the platform Fox gave him.

 

I agree with that. Your Hannity argument does nothing to support that though.

 

Here's the data from those researchers that reflects it as a broad truth...

 

 

In Primary season, Trump got the least negative coverage of all republican candidaters, and less negative than Clinton.

 

He also got more coverage than anyone else throughout and more than the other 3 Republican candidtaes combined as the primaries approached the end...

 

 

http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/

[Rayvin 5131]

And now they're getting what they wanted. Doesn't sound like we're taking that direction much.

 

Did they want this? Certainly doesn't look like it given the graph HF posted.

[Dr Gloom 21566]

Roger Alies was advising him for the debates man - how much more evidence do you need? The editorial line may have changed since he was sacked but they were flying the trump flag earlier this year

 

...and have you not been following the Trump TV story?

 

Next time they might not even need Fox

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/donald-trump-tv-media-empire-ailes?client=safari

[Dr Gloom 21566]

Da back track begins.

I only ever said he was given a platform and had Fox as his cheer leaders. Nothing's changed there

[Gemmill 43230]

"Wrorrrng"

[Happy Face 29]

Isn't "look it up people" one of Trump's lines? If it isn't, it should be. Gloom is transforming before out very eyes.

 

GLUMP.

 

[Rayvin 5131]

On a slightly different note, for those of you who don't think like me, what do we expect the outcome of a Hillary election will be? I guess this is aimed at Gloom and Renton; how do you think she will bring about the progressive change that will satisfy the apparently quite large number of people in the States who have had enough of the system?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3742]

On a slightly different note, for those of you who don't think like me, what do we expect the outcome of a Hillary election will be? I guess this is aimed at Gloom and Renton; how do you think she will bring about the progressive change that will satisfy the apparently quite large number of people in the States who have had enough of the system?

 

She won't bring about any progressive change at all.

[Happy Face 29]

On a slightly different note, for those of you who don't think like me, what do we expect the outcome of a Hillary election will be? I guess this is aimed at Gloom and Renton; how do you think she will bring about the progressive change that will satisfy the apparently quite large number of people in the States who have had enough of the system?

 

She won't, and in 4 years there'll be more extreme versions of Trump/Sanders who will get more votes.

[Rayvin 5131]

Two viewpoints I entirely agree with. HF's view actually being fully identical to my own in terms of the perils of the establishment continuing to ignore populist anger.

[Gemmill 43230]

Hillary is to Renton what Obama was to black America. Hope.

[Happy Face 29]

Two viewpoints I entirely agree with. HF's view actually being fully identical to my own in terms of the perils of the establishment continuing to ignore populist anger.

 

You'll like this podcast then...

 

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/b/a/6ba597cadba10760/cswdcd10.mp3?c_id=13038436&expiration=1478608482&hwt=07183bf626a05699f54499cd57596d40

 

What happens if our nation’s problems become too large to realistically imagine our politicians solving? What if voting doesn’t help? Dan reminds us that he’s not a moderate, and that you probably aren’t either.

[Rayvin 5131]

You'll like this podcast then...

 

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/b/a/6ba597cadba10760/cswdcd10.mp3?c_id=13038436&expiration=1478608482&hwt=07183bf626a05699f54499cd57596d40

 

What happens if our nation’s problems become too large to realistically imagine our politicians solving? What if voting doesn’t help? Dan reminds us that he’s not a moderate, and that you probably aren’t either.

 

Thanks, I'll give it a listen over lunch.

[Renton 20619]

She won't, and in 4 years there'll be more extreme versions of Trump/Sanders who will get more votes.

Possibly but I do think after this there will be a need to be at least seeing to do something. I've already said the problems the world faces are incredibly complex. The US isn't going back to heavy manufacturing. They have worse welfare system and health coverage than us. What are all these blue collar workers who have been replaced by technology or the Chinese going to do? It's a huge problem.

 

So I didn't by see it as the fault of the system so much Rayvin, I see it as even more fundamental than that. Wealth inequality has reached ridiculous levels though and I would hope changes to taxation and welfare can partly address that. But really, a bigger vision is required. I agree Clinton doesn't have it, but who does? I'm just hoping a non-violent solution is found. I'm not optimistic though.

[Renton 20619]

Hillary is to Renton what Obama was to black America. Hope.

Simply not true. I think she's a decent politician and from her pre-political work probably a decent person. I don't think she is inspirational or has the answers. I just belief she is infinitely preferable to the alternative, both as a person and policy wise.

[Rayvin 5131]

Possibly but I do think after this there will be a need to be at least seeing to do something. I've already said the problems the world faces are incredibly complex. The US isn't going back to heavy manufacturing. They have worse welfare system and health coverage than us. What are all these blue collar workers who have been replaced by technology or the Chinese going to do? It's a huge problem.

 

So I didn't by see it as the fault of the system so much Rayvin, I see it as even more fundamental than that. Wealth inequality has reached ridiculous levels though and I would hope changes to taxation and welfare can partly address that. But really, a bigger vision is required. I agree Clinton doesn't have it, but who does? I'm just hoping a non-violent solution is found. I'm not optimistic though.

 

If all of that is true, then you agree with my view on Neoliberalism. You're just not using the label. I can't really see a way forward either, with the exception of technological regression which is obviously totally undesirable. When you talk about globalism and the loss of heavy manufacturing, you're talking about things that occurred due to Neoliberalism. Same for wealth inequality.

 

Even a violent solution wouldn't be a solution... I don't think, anyway. But to be fair, I don't think it'll come to violence - we're a way from that yet. I think the establishment will lose (not because I want it to, but because the demographics aren't stacked in its favour anymore when you take identity politics out of it).

 

The bigger vision, if there is one, needs to be a lurch back to the left, towards socialism, to reign in the excesses of the Neoliberals. I think there's a happy medium somewhere but we're way too far away from it at the moment. The centre moved too far right, and needs to be hauled back. Hence, as much as you don't like him, Corbyn (or someone with his politics) is the much better alternative. It's going to be people like him or Trump (indirectly, and probably through unifying the left and the centre once more) that steer us back. It won't come from the 'centre'.

[Renton 20619]

If all of that is true, then you agree with my view on Neoliberalism. You're just not using the label. I can't really see a way forward either, with the exception of technological regression which is obviously totally undesirable. When you talk about globalism and the loss of heavy manufacturing, you're talking about things that occurred due to Neoliberalism. Same for wealth inequality.

 

Even a violent solution wouldn't be a solution... I don't think, anyway. But to be fair, I don't think it'll come to violence - we're a way from that yet. I think the establishment will lose (not because I want it to, but because the demographics aren't stacked in its favour anymore when you take identity politics out of it).

 

The bigger vision, if there is one, needs to be a lurch back to the left, towards socialism, to reign in the excesses of the Neoliberals. I think there's a happy medium somewhere but we're way too far away from it at the moment. The centre moved too far right, and needs to be hauled back. Hence, as much as you don't like him, Corbyn (or someone with his politics) is the much better alternative. It's going to be people like him or Trump (indirectly, and probably through unifying the left and the centre once more) that steer us back. It won't come from the 'centre'.

But no country, not even the US, exist in isolation, whatever Trump may tell you. That's why I fear the issues are immutable. Also, you've got to understand that the US will never accept any meaningful socialist. It's culturally abhorrent to them. They only way reactionary politics will go is the right, then further right.

[Park Life 71]

Power isn't going to give anything back to the people. They aren't going to be allowed to get it via politics either. Over time they will forget there was even a choice....Once...

[Rayvin 5131]

Fully agree on the toxic implications of the word socialism in the US. That's really unfortunate. However, they do now seem to have cultural marxism taking root, and that's a fascinating development. Almost a re-brand. Obviously that's an identity politics term, but still, it's taken hold, even in the US.

 

The whole reason Neoliberalism is so successful is because it spans the globe though, so yes, I can see your point about countries existing in isolation. They govern the world through trade agreements, international governmental bodies and organisations like the IMF and World Bank. This prevents against any single country derailing the process.

 

However, they seem to have failed citizens in so many countries at once, that these international organisations are beginning to lose their clout. The UK (and let's be honest, we must be one of the most reliable, most predictable and least reactionary countries from a Neoliberal perspective) delivered a blow earlier this year that by all accounts, they totally didn't expect. Now the US is on the brink. France, the Netherlands, Austria, etc are all in the grip of a rise in the hard right.

 

But similarly, people moved to the left - Labour is the biggest political party in Europe and as much as you may think they're totally off the radar as far as the British public go, it's demonstrable proof that more and more people are looking for change. I would suggest that the more we support the left, the better for all of us.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5131]

Power isn't going to give anything back to the people. They aren't going to be allowed to get it via politics either. Over time they will forget there was even a choice....Once...

 

It's not looking like power is going to have much of a choice at this rate. They'd have to start changing democratic structures wouldn't they? If they can't control through the MSM, which is certainly losing its influence, then how else can they keep people from voting against them?

[Park Life 71]

Fully agree on the toxic implications of the word socialism in the US. That's really unfortunate. However, they do now seem to have cultural marxism taking root, and that's a fascinating development. Almost a re-brand. Obviously that's an identity politics term, but still, it's taken hold, even in the US.

 

The whole reason Neoliberalism is so successful is because it spans the globe though, so yes, I can see your point about countries existing in isolation. They govern the world through trade agreements, international governmental bodies and organisations like the IMF and World Bank. This prevents against any single country derailing the process.

 

However, they seem to have failed citizens in so many countries at once, that these international organisations are beginning to lose their clout. The UK (and let's be honest, we must be one of the most reliable, most predictable and least reactionary countries from a Neoliberal perspective) delivered a blow earlier this year that by all accounts, they totally didn't expect. Now the US is on the brink. France, the Netherlands, Austria, etc are all in the grip of a rise in the hard right.

 

But similarly, people moved to the left - Labour is the biggest political party in Europe and as much as you may think they're totally off the radar as far as the British public go, it's demonstrable proof that more and more people are looking for change. I would suggest that the more we support the left, the better for all of us.

Europe/UK and America are very different. The mix of ideas in Europe mainly due to its long history and identity does allow from time to time for some re-balancing. There are huge pensions, welfare state, social programmes and checks on the political apparatus with regard to elections and finance as well as media accountability (this has been eroded though). 

 

Outlying groups in Europe and the UK can suddenly wield much influence with reg to say Brexit, Belgium and Germany partially blocking TTIP...The rise of populism and the far right are symptoms of vast swathes of the population becoming disenchanted with the status quo ie the 'the center'.

 

This has only just begun to take shape in the U.S. and the longer there is no or little change the greater the pressure will become from the disenfranchised. For now they are pretty much blocked by big finance and big politics....Something will give and it might not be nice.

 

Don't imagine the Globalist don't have a plan for the rise of the unruly...the 'deplorables' if you like. America has a massive control apparatus and it ain't just Homeland security it is a militarized police force and so on.......

Edited November 8, 2016 by Park Life