Agreed.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
Agreed.
JLW
Player Valuation: £70m
Yes I know about these figures, but the fact that he still had millions of votes from the remainder tells its own story that they don't buy into the media fuelled racist/sexist accusations.
Therefore he was elected by the people of America regardless of colour/creed/religion
The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
Interesting analysis of the root causes behind Trump being elected:
Guardian article by George Monbiot
The events that led to Donald Trump’s election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table. “This is what we believe,” she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek. Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism. It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Democracy, by contrast, “is not an ultimate or absolute value”. In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable, so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
Guardian article by George Monbiot
The events that led to Donald Trump’s election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table. “This is what we believe,” she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek. Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism. It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Democracy, by contrast, “is not an ultimate or absolute value”. In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable, so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
Mountfield1985
Player Valuation: £8m
I'm not saying he wasn't elected by the people of America, or that it was an unfair election. You said it was irrelevant that he lost all minority demographics. It isn't.
Can I just pick you up on "media fuelled racist/sexist accusations" - Are you implying that you don't think he has been either of those things in this campaign?
Ahem
I think you'll find it's POTUS Elect
CHANGE THE THREAD TITLE!!!!!!!!!!!
I think you'll find it's POTUS Elect
CHANGE THE THREAD TITLE!!!!!!!!!!!
Ashtonian
Banned on request
No chance of that. The TPD is being put through as standard here as we are still part of the EU so anything like that will still exist.
but the difference over this side of the water is that The UK is pushing quite a bit now because of the benefits of having it as a anti smoking Aid.
But that is a whole other discussion.
Think it explains not just the election of Trump but the rise of both right wing and left wing opinions (Bernie Sanders) and parties in Europe or the US.
Although I expect that Brexit will probably not get the UK out of the economic system he mentions it at least allows us to do that in principal, which is why I voted Brexit because there is no chance of anything changing while we are in the EU.
SNova
Player Valuation: £15m
During his campaign? No. Unless you're referring to the tape from 10 years ago.
Interesting reading here, in retrospect:
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/#more-18522
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/#more-18522
SNova
Player Valuation: £15m
The talk of protectionism is interesting to me, both Trump and Le Pen mention it.
I've personally been a big supporter of free trade for a while, but I have to say I'm starting to question the benefits of complete open free trade. My concern lies with our workers competing against cheap slave labour from abroad. They cannot compete. I question if it's really more beneficial to rob entire communities of their jobs and self worth just so that a product might become cheaper. I really don't think that's good for our workers and for the nation.
I've personally been a big supporter of free trade for a while, but I have to say I'm starting to question the benefits of complete open free trade. My concern lies with our workers competing against cheap slave labour from abroad. They cannot compete. I question if it's really more beneficial to rob entire communities of their jobs and self worth just so that a product might become cheaper. I really don't think that's good for our workers and for the nation.
The irony is that if the republicans had fielded any other candidate (all pro free trade) then Clinton carries Wisconsin Pennsylvania and the rest of the rust belt. We shouldn't underestimate just how vital his anti free trade stance was in winning him the election.
I'm not sure if I support protectionism or not. When one of our industries goes out of business it is gone for ever. Protectionism would stop that happening. Against that the industries we do have are free to expand across the world and other countries industries can move here and provide jobs.
Overall, I think, I'm against globalisation and in favour of small local solutions and democracy
Blues Harp
Player Valuation: £60m
What is the feeing about Stephen Bannon being appointed as Trump's strategic advisor ? Have the white supremacists really got a spokesman in the administration? Only going on his links with Brietbart News and the so called "alt right" movement..perhaps our USA posters could enlighten me? He does seem a tad scary
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
it's all a lie-beral conspiracy. just because you posted this, another 10,000 people changed their minds and supported Trump. racism ended in 1965.
- Status