He made it worse. I can never vote for somebody who was literally elected by these idiots. I can vote for left leaning party not for a trade union in government
Trump and Brexit: What has happened to the world?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
He made it worse. I can never vote for somebody who was literally elected by these idiots. I can vote for left leaning party not for a trade union in government
He wasn't elected by those 'idiots', he was elected by a huge mandate of ordinary people across the country and has been credited with making Labour the party with the largest number of registered members in Europe.
Why?
Electoral reform is essential. FPTP or Electoral College is just gerrymandering. Clinton won the popular vote but not the presidency. Hell, I'm a remainer and think it's wrong for UKIP to get 12% of the vote and 0.2% of the seats.
Amazing really that both US and UK conservative governments have been installed into power by working class people.
That Labour, Liberal and Democrats who are supposed to know this demographic have completely misread people's thoughts and values. They have ignored the shift from socialist left to right of centre and they have a lot to do now to get anywhere near power again.
It's an absolute mess and my hope now is these "checks and balances" do what they're supposed to do.
Scary times ahead I feel and it's astonishing the a population of 290 mill cant find two better candidates than Clinton/ trump.
Can't be going down the nationalist route are we? People are more educated than that, surely!
Did see a tweet today which lightened the mood a little.
"I've not been this concerned about the right wing since Jamain Pennant"
That Labour, Liberal and Democrats who are supposed to know this demographic have completely misread people's thoughts and values. They have ignored the shift from socialist left to right of centre and they have a lot to do now to get anywhere near power again.
It's an absolute mess and my hope now is these "checks and balances" do what they're supposed to do.
Scary times ahead I feel and it's astonishing the a population of 290 mill cant find two better candidates than Clinton/ trump.
Can't be going down the nationalist route are we? People are more educated than that, surely!
Did see a tweet today which lightened the mood a little.
"I've not been this concerned about the right wing since Jamain Pennant"
Cause they only care about their own, not the people as a whole. Take the union of the tube trains as an example. Their working conditions and salaries are way over the norm. Its ridiculous
i fully agree with that
So, I gather Hitler won then?
I disagree
Anyway, back to important things. I see England have had a good day in the cricket
Setting aside bizarre examples like that one, there is indeed a very good reason why polling is getting worse, and it's not because of vested interests. With the decline of landlines, its becoming harder and harder for pollsters to reach a statistically appropriate range of subjects. Some top US pollsters have openly said that the cost and the difficulty of reaching mobile owners (they pick up unknown numbers at a vastly reduced rate apparently) is increasing year on year and they simply don't know how to correct it effectively.
I agree that it would be best to achieve positive change for everyone and not just a group but don't you think it's possible to fight for both at the same time? I obviously don't know what the trade unions in the UK are like so I can't comment on them in particular.
But in general I don't really see a problem fighting for better conditions in your own job and at the same time trying to achieve a change for everyone.
I mean it's pretty hard to change society as a whole / improve the situation for everyone but you wouldn't want to be stuck with crappy working conditions because of that, right?
True, but young people today are getting a pretty crappy time of things compared to the baby boomer generation with sky high rents, far more limited opportunities to get on the housing ladder, and now an older generation who decided it was ok to remove their right to freely work and move around Europe. There is a resentment building and its not going to go away if the boomers don't start realizing that no things aren't the same anymore, and yes young people are facing problems they didn't have to.
I'm not a millenial btw.
I believe that a politician should have a social conscience. However I am against a politician being control by external forces whose agenda is different than national interest and irrespective if its a business lobby or a trade unions. Jeremy would be a nobody without his unions. That does sound like the US politicians in the 50s who were elected thanks to union lobbying.
LBC has right wingers on their main broadcasts (breakfast, drive). What I've heard of Talk Radio is the same.
I'll give you chanel 4 news. I won't give you the Beeb
100%. Intellectual laziness.
Desperate people (they've been genuinely let down) and they've made desperate choices. Hopefully it works out better than we fear.
Yeah, but, Hilary got more votes from the people than Trump, that just isn't how the US elect a president. So it's a majority in terms of how the US carve up the states and attribute their votes but in terms of voter volume, Hilary comes out on top.
So, yes, I and many others can moan about it.
Its the treaty of Versailles all over again. Put people into a ridiculous situation and they will take ridiculous decisions.
I can kind of see your point but being controlled by them just means the people who organize themselves in unions vote for him, right?
It's this kind of vitriol that makes you the classic example of a keyboard warrior.
It advances your cause not one bit.
Don't understand the issue with the electoral college system - in general I mean. A popular vote would be just as unfair - dense cities just dominate the vote then surely? What about the rest of the country?
People opposed to the current system also don't seem to acknowledge these states (their leanings) change over time.
People opposed to the current system also don't seem to acknowledge these states (their leanings) change over time.
That's a unions job, to represent their members. Labour exists to extend it to the rest of the work force. Why you hate it I don't understand
Oh and over-population. That's a big factor in all of this. Too many people competing for too few resources. Conflict over these resources was bound to happen and the disenfranchised will take increasingly drastic measures to try and roll back the inevitable. Throw in a hefty dose of climate change and jobs being lost to new technologies and you have an awful lot of people in a very bad place, with very little to lose.
Richly ironic that all of this has resulted in a US president who denies that climate change is actually happening, surrounded by cronies who will stamp down any efforts at population control in case that infringes on "family values". You couldn't make it up...
Richly ironic that all of this has resulted in a US president who denies that climate change is actually happening, surrounded by cronies who will stamp down any efforts at population control in case that infringes on "family values". You couldn't make it up...
You make Unions sound sinister
and most are. I happen to be quite versed with unions. They care about
their own interest > their members interest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>national interest
That's fair enough but I wouldn't want them to mix with politics or have any influence in it let alone having the PM in their pockets
We're going backwards as far as humanity is concerned. These results are based on one thing and one thing only, no matter how many people dispute that.
But his evil was not the typical slime associated with politicians, that was relegated to the background. His evil was more personal.
But that's why they are connected to the Labour party, it's the unions/workers voice in politics. Also there's not a lot to suggest Corbyn is in the unions pockets at all, as it's been mentioned Corbyn has the backing of Labour members - which includes a range of people, some from the unions but others like myself have no connection to the any union.
Anyway since we talking about Left Labour MPs, I think this quote is well worth repeating today
Last edited:
Old people. You should lose your vote aged 60
What falls in between millenial and baby boomer? Cause I don't have a pension, and I'll be damned if I ever join snapchat.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/08/trump-transition-lobbyists/
@Pogue Mahone
I've been posting these articles for ages. He does the same sleazy shit that all politicians do.
But you look at his opponent, and then you realise why she would never make it a talking point.
@Pogue Mahone
I've been posting these articles for ages. He does the same sleazy shit that all politicians do.
But you look at his opponent, and then you realise why she would never make it a talking point.
I am a few years older (not many
) than @Penna and experienced life before and after the EEC. It was not easy getting on the housing ladder then either, especially with interest rates much much higher than they are now and property prices were rocketing then far more than they are now.More people own property now than they did 40 50 or 60 years ago. Council houses were sold off.
When I first bought a property I really struggled to pay the mortgage and we didn't have mobile phones, sound sytems, massive TVs, computers and all the rest
that people now take for granted. Just to live and eat was a struggle. The Uk was not a bed of roses in the 60s and 70s.
As you know I am a strong EU supporter and the problem is that the older generation remember the good things that happened but don't remember the struggles. It is more a question of education and not being able to distinguish between lies and reality plus people believing what they wanted to believe.
Even the immigration issue was similar then with resentment of the colonial immigrants of the 50s and 60s.
Nothing really changes, other than now it is more acceptable to voice one's prejudices
Agree with that. Although would make it 65
Haven't read through the thread so it's probably been discussed already, but one thing is very clear - Westerners have had it with mass immigration and the emotional blackmail that goes with it being forced on them (NB - this is NOT my personal viewpoint). Call them racist, intolerant throwbacks, but it's simply human nature, and if you're not willing to quit your country over it then you're going to have to learn to live with it. No societies in human history have been able to absorb the level of immigration from often extremely different cultures that the West has since WW2 without some kind of upheaval occurring in reaction to it. 'Moderate' politicians all over Europe will be taking note and adjusting their programs accordingly.
That's putting it a bit strongly isn't it? All black and white; one view or the opposite, talk of quitting countries - very few will do that. These results simply do not mean that the whole of either the US or the UK is suddenly anti-establishment or anti-immigration. Leave won marginally. More people will have voted for Clinton than Trump, despite it obviously being harder representing the incumbent over a long period of real terms recession.
Glad you support Free Speech
Just to clue in the 'progressive' folks here: removing the vote from old people is ageist discrimination. I suppose you consider yourselves liberal, but only when it suits you.
Prejudice is more acceptable in 2016 than in the 50s/60s? Riiiiiight. You're a good loyal servant of the established order, Paul, but that ivory tower of yours must have an obstructed view. We have protections in place now than ever before, and our societies and life experience more open than ever. The biggest factor here is financial circumstances and the pace of change.
Prejudice is more acceptable in 2016 than in the 50s/60s? Riiiiiight. You're a good loyal servant of the established order, Paul, but that ivory tower of yours must have an obstructed view. We have protections in place now than ever before, and our societies and life experience more open than ever. The biggest factor here is financial circumstances and the pace of change.
Top GOP guy outlines this strategy in the 80s:
And they stick to it in 2016:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...out-how-few-black-people-were-able-vote-early
https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-...-a-racial-gerrymander-1de42efeb2db#.m2o1gxogg
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolina-insight-idUSKBN12Y0ZY
But even with the potential for intimidation at the polls, by far the greatest challenge to this year’s election will come from state and local governments themselves. The widespread, unfounded talk of election fraud pushed by Trump has been “a distraction from the real problems that voters face in communities around the country,” Clarke said. “There are voters in certain communities that are particularly vulnerable this election cycle in the wake of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.”
This election marks the first presidential race since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states and several jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to secure federal approval before changing election laws and procedures.
That decision was followed by a rash of measures across the country — some proposed within hours of the court’s ruling — restricting voting access for the minority voters the Voting Rights Act was originally intended to protect. Many of those measures have been challenged in court, some successfully, but uncertainty over the new election rules has left voters confused and voting rights advocates scrambling to litigate every new attempt at restrictions.
At least 14 states have new restrictions in place this year, including voter ID laws, changes in registration requirements, and cuts to early voting options. In Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, officials closed 70 percent of the polling sites, causing long delays during the primaries and prompting a DOJ investigation. In Florida and Ohio, officials tried to purge thousands of mostly black voters from their rolls. As The Intercept has reported, Missouri legislators even proposed changing the state’s constitution — which unlike the federal one includes an affirmative right to vote — in an effort to pass stricter voter ID laws. The proposed amendment will be on the ballot on November 8. The NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund maintains a regularly updated tally of voter suppression efforts that is more than 100 pages long.
Not incidentally, the states that in recent years have been most adamant about restricting access to the polls are those that were previously covered by the Voting Rights Act’s federal oversight, as well as those seeing the growing political participation of minorities. According to research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, six have new restrictions in place, and of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, seven passed laws making it harder to vote.
In light of the Shelby County decision, the DOJ has significantly scaled backits election monitoring. In 2012, the agency’s observers monitored elections in 13 states. This year, they will be inside polls in only four states, only one of which, Louisiana, is in the South, where historically the federal government exercised broad oversight over voting rights.
This election marks the first presidential race since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states and several jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to secure federal approval before changing election laws and procedures.
That decision was followed by a rash of measures across the country — some proposed within hours of the court’s ruling — restricting voting access for the minority voters the Voting Rights Act was originally intended to protect. Many of those measures have been challenged in court, some successfully, but uncertainty over the new election rules has left voters confused and voting rights advocates scrambling to litigate every new attempt at restrictions.
At least 14 states have new restrictions in place this year, including voter ID laws, changes in registration requirements, and cuts to early voting options. In Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, officials closed 70 percent of the polling sites, causing long delays during the primaries and prompting a DOJ investigation. In Florida and Ohio, officials tried to purge thousands of mostly black voters from their rolls. As The Intercept has reported, Missouri legislators even proposed changing the state’s constitution — which unlike the federal one includes an affirmative right to vote — in an effort to pass stricter voter ID laws. The proposed amendment will be on the ballot on November 8. The NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund maintains a regularly updated tally of voter suppression efforts that is more than 100 pages long.
Not incidentally, the states that in recent years have been most adamant about restricting access to the polls are those that were previously covered by the Voting Rights Act’s federal oversight, as well as those seeing the growing political participation of minorities. According to research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, six have new restrictions in place, and of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, seven passed laws making it harder to vote.
In light of the Shelby County decision, the DOJ has significantly scaled backits election monitoring. In 2012, the agency’s observers monitored elections in 13 states. This year, they will be inside polls in only four states, only one of which, Louisiana, is in the South, where historically the federal government exercised broad oversight over voting rights.