UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Arlene wrote: "B J wrote: "Hi Arlene. Congratulations on surviving the last 18 months - it must have been harrowing at times."OMG you have no idea, non stop ads for over a year and because I live in Ohio (a sta..."
No, neither could we.
Marc wrote: "Defarge sounds like a cross between Donald & Farage"This morning I'm sure I heard someone say that Farage was hoping for a job as a U.S. representative in Europe. I assumed they were joking, but these days anything seems possible.
might increase his chances of assassination
Nigel Farage emerges as the only man to see a Trump victory. Doesn't say much for the rest of us. Still, an opportunity for PM May to be a bridge between Trump and the EU.
May and Trump could be another Thatcher/Reagan :)
Michael Cargill wrote: "The 'forgotten' could have voted for either Corbyn or Sanders, but they didn't.Instead they went for the men who blamed everything on foreigners and immigrants."
Wrong completely, Michael. Those dumped by the elite on life's scrapheap have voted for Sanders and Corbyn: Corbyn recently increased his majority at the failed coup, don't forget. Sanders probably got a higher number of votes than Clinton, who took the nomination by machination not acclaim. To play the racist card is to fundamentally misunderstand what's going on: it's a scream of disgust with the establishment that doesn't care about them as long as they are OK. Same as over here.
We are the 5th largest economy in the world (swapping places with France occasionally on a dollar exchange rate movement of .001). Yet we have some of the poorest areas in Europe, more deprived than bits of Romania. Here the referendum gave those communities a chance to kick against the system that drove them into and kept them in poverty - both our Governments and the EU together were guilty - and yet the elite are amazed when they take that chance, and suggest they were stupid, uneducated, to vote that way.. No, they would have been stupid if they had voted Remain or Clinton - voted for the system that treated them abysmally and gave them no hope of improvement
So it's just an incredible coincidence that these people went for the two blokes who blamed it all on foreigners?Sanders wouldn't have got anywhere near Trump as those people simply wouldn't have voted for him.
And if these people really liked Corbyn so much, they'd be behind him rather than someone like Farage.
The UK and the US have a small number of hateful, disgusting racists. Have done for years. That's a sideshow to the real problems, unless you believe, for example, that everyone who dislikes the EU's economic policies is racist. Sanders would have slaughtered Trump. Why: 1) He wasn't Hillary. 2) He could have got out the voters who wouldn't turn out for a corrupt , manipulative insider. 3) The republicans who didn't want Trump would have been happier to get behind him. 4) One reason Trump won - he got his voters out. Clinton didn't. Sanders would have made the effort.
Not all the people who voted for Brexit are racist, but all the racists voted for Brexit/Trump.As with Brexit, the debates never began with the 'elite' telling the other side they're stupid. That only happened when the issues about the EU army, Turkey, referendums being ignored, etc. where brought up again and again and again, long after they were debunked and shown to be false.
Because when you're faced with people who are fed up with listening to experts, there is little left other than to call them thick because that is what they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/...Wrong again, Michael. It's tempting to call those who rely upon the 'experts' without applying any thought themselves unthinking, isn't it? But that would be sinking to the low standards of Project Fear...
Sorry, I'm not sure what that link proves.If someone applied leeches to their arm because the doctor couldn't prevent their cold, would you not question their intellectual capacity?
You do know that leeches have innumerable medical applications across the world (including in the NHS) don't you?Look, Micheal, it isn't hard. I have expertise in my field: yet when I use that to come to a conclusion unthinking people dislike ( that the EU is actually damaging our economy, when I listen to my clients who deal in international trade and say that it impedes their ability to import and export) I am derided. I've been in business for almost 40 years, and if i got things as wrong as these 'experts' I would not be here now.
When experts in economics and polling make enormous mistakes, as shown by that piece, too many people say ' continue to believe them for they are the experts. Do not think for yourself'. Well, no.
Will wrote: "Sanders would have slaughtered Trump. Why: 1) He wasn't Hillary. 2) He could have got out the voters who wouldn't turn out for a corrupt , manipulative insider. 3) The republicans who didn't want Trump would have been happier to get behind him. 4) One reason Trump won - he got his voters out. Clinton didn't. Sanders would have made the effort. ..."If I was an American I'd have voted for Sanders instead of Trump!
I've just seen a statistic that Clinton got over 90% of the afro-american vote. That should have been enough to secure her victory - if that community had voted. Clearly they didn't.
according to BBC the exit polls showed that less Afro-Americans voted for her than had for Obama
Will wrote: "The UK and the US have a small number of hateful, disgusting racists. Have done for years. That's a sideshow to the real problems, unless you believe, for example, that everyone who dislikes the EU..Sanders would have slaughtered Trump. Why: 1) He wasn't Hillary. 2) He could have got out the voters who wouldn't turn out for a corrupt , manipulative insider. 3) The republicans who didn't want Trump would have been happier to get behind him. 4) One reason Trump won - he got his voters out. Clinton didn't. Sanders would have made the effort."
Point 3 is nonsense. To republicans Sanders would be seen as a commie pinko and they never would have voted for him however disgruntled with their own candidate
Jim wrote: "according to BBC the exit polls showed that less Afro-Americans voted for her than had for Obama"Fewer.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
:D
Will, you're defending anti-intellectualism.
It is worth pointing out that just because somebody never went to university, it doesn't make them stupid.Similarly intelligence and level of education are not related. Wealth and access to a good education are
I would describe much of the anti-establishment vote as a disarticulate howl of fury. People know their interests are not being served by governments, but do they actually express what it is they need and demand from their politicians? No, they just want to give them a kicking to let them know they are not doing it, whatever this 'it' is. I'm afraid that is not really good enough. People need to take some responsibility to at least put some meat on the bones of their grievances. Rallying behind meaningless slogans of "Make America great again" or "We want our country back" doesn't cut the mustard.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Will, you're defending anti-intellectualism."In what way, Michael? By suggesting that people should read the arguments and make up their own minds?
And it is not anti intellectual to say that if, for example, a Think Tank stuffed full of highly qualified people continuously gets its forecasts wrong then their opinions and forecasts should not form the basis of a decision. Or is it?
Does anyone ever remember a time when a Treasury forecast was actually correct? Or the IMF got it right?
They aren't reading the arguments and making up their minds, they're ignoring the arguments and sticking with what their emotions tell them.They've never read a treasury forecast and they don't know who the IMF are.
The vast majority of the population will never read a treasury forecast, they'll read a journalist's version of it. But then agricultural policy is decided by people with absolutely no experience of agriculture who bend to the wishes of single issue lobby groups, because they're vocal.
Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to discuss food, agricultural and environmental policy until they've got at least one relevant degree and have read the appropriate EU documentation?
Ah, when only people who know what they are talking about are allowed to speak the world will be a much quieter place.
I grow my own vegetables at my allotment. Does that give me agricultural experience? :)
R.M.F wrote: "I grow my own vegetables at my allotment. Does that give me agricultural experience? :)"In all candour it gives you a lot more than some who have been paid to pontificate over the years
Michael, do you know how patronising that sounds? I've seen commentators today saying that stupid uneducated people voted Trump. maybe they did, as you seem to argue for our referendum. But it doesn't mean that they voted that way out of stupidity. They voted that way because their lives were in no way enriched or improved by the policies of the liberal elite, and saw no benefit to voting for the status quo, whether that be the EU or Clinton - because for them there isn't one. And it is long past time people realised that.
People are allowed to talk about whatever they want.But I'm also allowed to call those people idiots.
I thought Corbyn's comments on the US result nailed it.Maybe there is some hope after all.
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "I grow my own vegetables at my allotment. Does that give me agricultural experience? :)"In all candour it gives you a lot more than some who have been paid to pontificate over the y..."
I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I was reading about the MoD's handling of the Iraq war, and to say it was a shambles, would be a gross understatement.
If it's any consolation, I think every government department seems to be run by inept pen pushers, and not just DEFRA, but I suspect you already know that.
Michael Cargill wrote: "People are allowed to talk about whatever they want.But I'm also allowed to call those people idiots."
Exactly. You and I are in complete agreement on this.
Jim wrote: "It is worth pointing out that just because somebody never went to university, it doesn't make them stupid.Similarly intelligence and level of education are not related. Wealth and access to a good..."
Of course, those that pointed out that there were far fewer university graduates in the older generations who voted for brexit, omitted the fact that far, far fewer people going to university when those older folk were university age.
Some very interesting newspaper front pages from around the world today, if anyone fancies a Google.
May I ask for your opinion. If Person A calls Person B 'a bigot' because their beliefs are different to A's doesn't that make Person A a bigot also?
Name calling and insults are such a 2016 way of progressing an argument...
It would depend why Person A is accusing Person B of being a bigot.
Michael Cargill wrote: "It would depend why Person A is accusing Person B of being a bigot."there's a tale somewhere about getting the plank out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in your neighbour's eye :-)
I would suggest accusations are best left to the courts where there is due process rather than just bandying insults on social media
One of the things that Farage/Trump fans claim to like about their favoured politician is that "they say it how it is."Well, that works both ways: if you say something bigoted/racist, you can't complain when someone calls you a bigot or a racist.
there's a brilliant New Yorker cartoon (sorry no link) where sheep in a field are looking up at a billboard with a wolf wearing a sharp suit with a caption about eating them & the sheep commenting 'He tells it how it is'
The problem is that a bigot is 'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'So accusing somebody of bigotry might just be displaying bigotry.
But frankly name calling is a waste of time. what's the point in calling somebody who refuses to accept the result of a democratic election a fascist (, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices) even if it may even be true
So how else are we to refer to such a person?
I've found that most people have a name, you could always use that. You might even add the fact that you rarely agree with them.
Jim wrote: "The problem is that a bigot is 'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'So accusing somebody of bigotry might just be displaying bigotry.
But frankly name calling is ..."
Accusing someone else of bigotry doesn't necessarily mean that person is also a bigot. The person doing the name calling is merely pointing out that the accused person is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. The name caller may tolerate the opinions of a bigot, but just disagrees with them. Disagreement does not denote intolerance.
I agree with that point but the irony of the usual shouting bigot at anyone who doesn't agree is increasing.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "I agree with that point but the irony of the usual shouting bigot at anyone who doesn't agree is increasing."yes that's the point I was trying to make :-)
I don't know how you could objectively measure that kind of thing.
You can't but it's a word more and more used by so many at the moment. It's so popular as a refrain it's a new trend.
There are, no doubt, quite a few bigots in the Trump camp, but I imagine the vast majority of people who voted for him had good reason not to vote for Clinton.
In the same way vast numbers of people here who are not bigots voted for Brexit.
The current revulsion against global elites has been engineered by those same elites for their profit, but they have now, and inadvertently, lost control.
I had rather Trump had not won, and I had far rather we did not Brexit, but I see the reasons.
In the same way vast numbers of people here who are not bigots voted for Brexit.
The current revulsion against global elites has been engineered by those same elites for their profit, but they have now, and inadvertently, lost control.
I had rather Trump had not won, and I had far rather we did not Brexit, but I see the reasons.
Yes, this election was about voting for the lesser evil, more so than any other that I remember. Clinton had a much better resume than Trump for this position, but Trump expressed, and brought out, the anger that so many people have apparently been harboring. That is why all the "bigots" followed him. He validated their viewpoint unlike any other candidate.
He was elected because people want someone to accomplish something. They think he is the one who can do that. I'm not convinced, but if he does, I can only hope he doesn't dismantle our Constitution while doing it. There are too many who want to cherry pick the freedoms we have instead of embracing all of them. That's what scares me most about Trump. He seems willing to do that, whether it is because of bigotry or his own greed.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
OMG you have no idea, non stop ads for over a year and because I live in Ohio (a state they usually say you have to win in order to be president) we had almost nothing but political ads 24/7. All of us just wanted this to be over. We cannot believe that theses are the two people we had to vote for.