Geoff > Status Update

Jonathan wrote: "Jesus. To make this day even more shitty, my wife and I just grabbed hold of someone about to commit suicide off Tower Bridge at 11pm after we saw her as we were walking past, and spent the next ha..."

Good on you. A little kindness does go a long way.

Geoff wrote: "Nicole wrote: "Well, but isn't the fact that your dad is one of the voters sort of encouraging? I mean in the sense that people's worst fears of gangs of racist nazis wilding in the street are prob..."

He clearly thinks going to church on Sundays is enough to get him to Heaven. It isn't.

Insomnia again. I'm not a believer, but the Bible and Shakespeare and Homer - ancient things that have endured - give glimmers of comfort. In the day I will read Adorno but in the throes of insomnia I need something soothing... Anyway, my conclusion now is that we all need to fight hard, hard to be sure the crucial threads of civilized democratic society are not undone - unfortunately this means becoming more active politically, something I am averse to doing. I want to spend my small portion of free, non-work time being creative - reading, making music, thinking, cooking, etc. Some of that will now have to be sacrificed in the service of trying to protect what I love about my country - pretty much all of which the president-elect has promised to eliminate. I have many friends fearing for their jobs and their right to stay in this country to work, but one of my greatest fears is for the elimination of environmental and financial regulations. There will be very real, immediate consequences to a Trump presidency. No one can be aloof now. Everything depends on the good people of this country, people who still care about participating in a humanist, sympathetic, inclusive, safe and enduring future for our species - and I strongly question whether Trump supporters value that future at all - giving a fuck enough to not let this pass, to work to not make Trumpism and this man's non-vision be the destiny of our country. Get to work. Also, for fuck's sake - subscribe to a newspaper. Pay real journalists to do their jobs. A watchful, powerful media is going to be so crucial over the next 4 years.

I'm not sleeping tonight either, but definitely feel less despair.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/tr...

Great article, thanks for that.

The take I'm going with right now is that the neo-liberal establishment wing of the Democratic party is deeply fucked up and needs to be completely flushed away.

That's the real wake up call here.

I'm regretting I didn't do more for Bernie, but the fact is he's still the most popular politician in America. The Clintons cannot be allowed to have any say about anything anymore. Socialism or barbarism. Third parties don't know how to win anything. The struggle has to be within the Democratic party right now.

David wrote: "Third parties don't know how to win anything. The struggle has to be within the Democratic party right now. "

I have been thinking that the political situation is ripe for a major third party option. But who will exploit the massive disillusionment with the establishment and the failing two-party system and how. It's going to be a long ride assuming something small materializes and takes momentum over a couple of presidential terms to be a viable option. Mainstream media will put barriers in their way, not taking them seriously, laughing them off as they laughed Trump off the whole while until he became the president-elect! *spits*

We have seen in this election that middle class's problems are tied up with the question of race. There's a popular belief that blue collar white people have been 'left behind.' This vote has been based on and won by race. Majority of white male and half the white female electorate has put Trump in power. How to disentangle their legitimate concerns with the racial question is a question that will remain unanswered for now.

NO, but Trump wasn't third party. He ran as a Republican. Much of the infrastructure is already in place with the Democratic party. It would be so much easier to take it over than create a viable third party from scratch. To some extent it already is being taken over. Bernie would have won.

Did y'all see the charming tweet from France's Front National,

“Their world is collapsing. Ours is being built.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

It's not unrealistic at all to see signs of catastrophe. This is one bad motherfucking moon on the rise.

Jibran wrote: "It's going to be a long ride assuming something small materializes and takes momentum over a couple of presidential terms to be a viable option."

And I don't think we have a couple presidential terms, frankly. The neo-liberal Democrats need to be over. Now. There's already a socialist alternative brewing.

David wrote: "NO, but Trump wasn't third party. He ran as a Republican. Much of the infrastructure is already in place with the Democratic party. It would be so much easier to take it over than create a viable t..."

I didn't think Trump was third party or an outsider as he's made out to be. I wrote earlier that he's as establishment as you can get, with his corporatist background and other nasty positions that come with it. But a third party option that is not beholden to the exigencies of either party and their vast apparatus of vested interests in the establishment politics may, just may, appeal to the working class voters who have given up hope on both parties.

I often hear how Trump would be unable to follow up on his campaign promises and other wild policies due to checks in place and that his own Republicans in the House will force him back in line if he goes off the rails - basically not allow him to change traditional establishment positions on any number of major issues. The same would have been true for Bernie had he been elected. His democrats would allow him only so much space to become the socialist we think he is. The chances of a major change from within either of the two parties are very low. IMO, Americans will have to think up a third option.

The third party option really became a reality in India with the Aam Admi Party, headed by former public servant Arvind Kejriwal with no political experience, two years ago. They currently hold the Delhi assembly and may take Punjab. However, since becoming a party leader, Kejriwal has edged over into politician territory.

Yeah, I have no fucking idea how Trump is going to govern. There's been a lot of speculation that he never seriously wanted the job. He's supposed to have a two minute attention span; is he even going to try and sit through meetings with the joint chiefs of staff or whatever? I imagine he'll delegate everything to more establishment Republicans.

It's true, even if Bernie had won he wouldn't have been allowed to govern. A lot of rot needs to be cleared away right now.

Nandakishore wrote: "The third party option really became a reality in India with the Aam Admi Party, headed by former public servant Arvind Kejriwal with no political experience, two years ago. They currently hold the..."

I followed Kerjiwal's ascent for a while then lost interest. But there are dozens of parties in India with varying success at the ballot. None of the two (or three) major parties ever run the whole country right? Most central governments are coalitions because no single party wins enough seats to not need smaller partners. It's very different from the US and even UK, where a 'hung parliament' became a big issue the last time around.

David wrote: "Yeah, I have no fucking idea how Trump is going to govern. There's been a lot of speculation that he never seriously wanted the job. He's supposed to have a two minute attention span; is he even go..."

He may let Pence to help him *shudders*

Jibran wrote: "Nandakishore wrote: "The third party option really became a reality in India with the Aam Admi Party, headed by former public servant Arvind Kejriwal with no political experience, two years ago. Th..."

In India, the Congress and the BJP are the only two pan-Indian parties - and for a time, it seemed as though the country would fall into a two-party system. However, the institutional weakness of the congress and the wide cultural variety of India (which restricted the flow of BJP to the south) has ensured that we will have enough players in the mix to prevent any enforced homogeneity. The one thing we have to thank our British overlords is for providing us with the Parliamentary system - a Presidential one would have been a nightmare.

David wrote: "Did y'all see the charming tweet from France's Front National,

“Their world is collapsing. Ours is being built.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor......"

Oh fuck them. But yes, this is what I'm saying - there's a bad moon on the rise, and it's pure fucking White. Where there is no viable Left, extremism fills the void.

Apropos Marie Le Penn's jubilation over Trump's victory and the rise of religious and ethnic tensions:

Jihadist militant leaders have welcomed Trump's election.

"Trump’s victory is a powerful slap to those promoting the benefits of democratic mechanisms,” tweeted Hamza al-Karibi, a media spokesman for Syrian jihadist group descended from an al-Qaeda.

"Rejoice with support from Allah, and find glad tidings in the imminent demise of America at the hands of Trump,” tweeted ISIS affiliated al-Minbar Jihadi Media network.

"Trump reveals the true mentality of the Americans, and their racism toward Muslims and Arabs and everything. He reveals what his predecessors used to conceal. So his victory further exposes America and its appendages.” - Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, a jihadist ideologue linked to al-Qaeda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...

In India Hindutva extremists also came out into the streets to celebrate Trump's victory.
https://www.thequint.com/india/2016/1...

And everyone knows that neo-Nazis also love Trump. So do the Evangelicals in a travesty of logic I had the misfortune of reading. Something like, "He may be evil. He is evil. He owns strip clubs and brags about adultery but God can use anyone to fulfill his plan."

I'm still wondering about God's Plan.

David wrote: "NO, but Trump wasn't third party. He ran as a Republican. Much of the infrastructure is already in place with the Democratic party. It would be so much easier to take it over than create a viable t..."

Sanders would have been pulverised. More votes from white liberals in safe blue and forsaken red states is not what the Democrats need - Clinton already outperformed Obama in liberal areas. There are no extra votes there to pick up - not ones that matter, anyway. The votes that the Democrats need are in swing states, where Sanders was less popular than Clinton. Yes, Sanders might have picked up a few low-propensity farmers here and there who in our timeline voted Trump, but nowhere near enough to compensate for the huge numbers of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans who wouldn't have voted for him - very few Sanders voters ended up voting Trump, and given how few Sanders supporters there were in the first place... and the issues and character traits that Sanders voters cared about (income inequality and a candidate who 'shares my values') are not those that the Trump wave cared about (security, growth, and a candidate who is a 'strong leader'). And again, Sander's core demographic of highly educated whites already voted for Clinton - it's the less educated whites who she lost, and there's no reason to think Sanders could have broadened his appeal to include them any better than Clinton (who had a good record in that demographic) did.

You think Clinton had a rough time against Republican smears? An inoffensive, centrist, most-vetted-in-history candidate like Clinton got painted as someone who literally ordered assassinations and was sister to the mafia. You think an eccentric, self-declared socialist with thirty years of unexplored paper trail doesn't end up painted worse than stalin? Sanders escaped suspicion largely because nobody has ever seriously attacked him in the way that presidential nominees get attacked.

Ultimately, elections are won in the centre. That's why Trump was able to win, ultimately, where previous Republicans couldn't: because he could run on left-wing policies like an expansive welfare state (even if he lacks plans for how he's going to do that while removing the existing systems), trade protectionism, and tax cuts for the poor (and, of course, vastly large ones for the rich)... and by avoiding too much Republican rhetoric about slashing the size of government (eg Trump wants to get rid of Obamacare, but he also wants to replace it, whereas the traditional right-wing argument has just been to not have anything). He may be extreme on the authoritarian and cultural fronts, but economically (other than the details of his tax plans, which he didn't write and nobody apparently read) he's much closer to a Bush or a Clinton than to a Ryan or a Cruz.


How can the Democrats win? Well, running a candidate very similar to the last few times would be a help. A Biden or a Kaine would probably have won. Remember, Clinton fell short only by fractions, and actually won the popular vote (Republicans have now lost 6 out of 7 elections against Clinton/Obama Democrats, going by the actual vote count). A candidate with slightly less backstory but similar positions would almost certainly have won the electoral college as well.

Democrats need to maintain their high turnout among black voters, who generally lean further right than the rest of the party. They also need to continue their appeal to Hispanics - including more conservative Hispanics (particular in Florida - failing to sufficiently appeal to the Cuban community, despite Trump leaving the goal open for them, cost the Democrats this election). They should do their best to hold on to moderate white women in the suburbs, who Trump put into their column. Is a berniebro candidate the best person to maintain that appeal to women and minorities? Primary voting suggests not, as does looking at the stated positions and priorities of these groups. Nor is there any reason to think that a berniebro campaign would do well at appealing to non-college-educated blue collar workers - the only advantage they'd have there is the nationalist, strong-border rhetoric, but if you beat Trump by being Trump there's not much point being a Democrat. Besides, after 4 or 8 years of Trump, I suspect that many people will have realised that there's more to bringing back jobs than just waving a magic "dirty foreigners" wand. Yes, the party needs to do a better job of persuading people that cosmopolitanism is profitable, and in particular needs to do a better job at showing people a way out of dead-end industries. But that's exactly why a candidate in the mold of a Biden or a Kaine, someone with more of an appeal to blue collar workers, would find the task a lot easier than a liberal ideologue like a Sanders or a Warren.


It's natural that the left would have this discussion now. The left in Britain had this discussion in the 1980s, after Thatcher emerged. The result was 18 years out of power, and an eventual overreaction in the other direction to an overly accomodating Blair. [It would have been better to have skipped all that and gone straight to a Kinnock, Smith, or Brown]. And of course this is also the discussion that the right in America has been having. Is the Tea Party really something to emulate? Yes, it got them some gains in Congress, which they then squandered. But if Trump hadn't come along, and had everything go right for him, it would also have given the Republicans 16 years in opposition.

The response to narrowly failing to persuade enough of your opponants should be to do a better job next time, working on what has been accomplished. Take today's passion, add in a plausible moderate candidate (and let's not be delusional here, Clinton was already considerably to the left of any Democratic president since at least LBJ, if not since FDR) and a degree of disillusion with Trump and internal Republican strife, and the Democrats could make this Trump administration the last kick of a dying Republican party - because unless the Democrats give up the middle ground, the Republicans are maybe a decade away from permanent demographic impotence.

Or you could respond to narrowly failing to persuade your opponants by deciding to nominate echo-chamber candidates who let the Republican recover their centrist quarters, and consequently their respectability, and who condemn the party to a generation in opposition, with even the prospect of success muted by the knowledge that such a nominee would never be able to get their policies through congress anyway. And in the process you will help lower the civility of the political discourse and further threaten the stability of democracy.

The latter course would certainly feel more righteous and fulfilling, but I strongly suggest that the former would be more beneficial to the country, and the world, in the long run.


[Now don't get me wrong. The Clinton/Obama consensus isn't perfect, in my view. I'm deeply uncomfortable with their blase attitude toward civil liberties, for instance, and deeply disappointed that the left hasn't bothered holding them to account on that score. And instinctively I too would prefer policies to the left of what either of them were offering. But there's nothing gained by having such policies in permanent opposition. Clinton was offering higher taxes on the rich, on corporations, on inheritance and on hedge funds; a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants (which Sanders voted against on nationalist grounds); greater gun control (which Sanders voted against on being-paid-by-their-lobbyists grounds); free community college, and working with states toward no-debt university education; expansion of healthcare access; a massive rise in the minium wage, and so on. These policies were already perhaps too left-wing to appeal to the general electorate, and certainly too left-wing to easily be pushed through Congress, but she came close to winning and she may even have gotten a bit of it enacted (it helps that unlike most nominees she knew exactly what she wanted to do and put it in her manifesto). There just isn't much room to outflank her, or candidates like her, on the left, while remaining even vaguely electable!]

Jibran wrote: "I'm still wondering about God's Plan."

Dead men make no plans.

Geoff wrote: Dead men make no plans."

Living men on god's behalf can!

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/5014513...

Looking at this, I guess the US economy falls to pieces within a day of his entering office...he does have a tendency to bankrupt anything he touches, so I guess we should not be surprised...

Jibran wrote: "Geoff wrote: Dead men make no plans."

Living men on god's behalf can!"

Touché

Geoff wrote: "Insomnia again. I'm not a believer, but the Bible and Shakespeare and Homer - ancient things that have endured - give glimmers of comfort. In the day I will read Adorno but in the throes of insomni..."

As an old white male I'm nevertheless with you, Geoff, in all regards. (As is my entire family.) And I support your suggestion about newspapers for sure. There are other possibilities also: 350.org, Mother Jones magazine to name a couple.

David wrote: "NO, but Trump wasn't third party. He ran as a Republican. Much of the infrastructure is already in place with the Democratic party. It would be so much easier to take it over than create a viable t..."

About Bernie beating Trump, we'll never know. I supported him in the primaries, and was ultimately very satisfied with the way he campaigned for HC. The thing is, Bernie vs Trump, would the African American voters have felt they really didn't have a candidate? And I wonder also how many Sanders supporters did vote for HC in the last analysis. Do you think a lot of them didn't vote at all? Shame, if so.

Ted wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Insomnia again. I'm not a believer, but the Bible and Shakespeare and Homer - ancient things that have endured - give glimmers of comfort. In the day I will read Adorno but in the thr..."

Stay strong, Ted.

First thing I did? Paid subscriptions to the information publications I value.

Next? Volunteering as an escort at local pregnancy aid centers. I can give a handful of hours each month to this.

After that? Whatever I can figure out to do for the environment. Suggestions appreciated.

David wrote: "Feeling better after a long talk with an old comrade.

In times of trouble don't be afraid to lean on your Marxist revolutionary friends for support.

Another old friend posted this on Facebook, g..."

Right on !!

wow. 46.9% did not vote. There's ya first big problem right there. Trump was actually voted for by only 25% of your population.

“Bad luck alone does not embitter us that badly . . . nor does the feeling that our affairs might have been better managed move us out of range of ordinary disappointment; it is when we recognize that the loss has been caused in great part by others; that it needn't have happened; that there is an enemy out there who has stolen our loaf, soured our wine, infected our book of splendid verse with filthy rhymes; then we are filled with resentment and would hang the villains from that bough we would have lounged in liquorous love beneath had the tree not been cut down by greedy and dim-witted loggers in the pay of the lumber interests. Watch out, then, watch out for us, be on your guard, look sharp, both ways, when we learn--we, in any numbers--when we find who is forcing us--wife, children, Commies, fat cats, Jews--to give up life in order to survive. It is this condition in men that makes them ideal candidates for the Party of the disappointed People.” -William Gass, The Tunnel

Jonathan wrote: "wow. 46.9% did not vote. There's ya first big problem right there. Trump was actually voted for by only 25% of your population."

Awful. Unforgivable.

Geoff wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "wow. 46.9% did not vote. There's ya first big problem right there. Trump was actually voted for by only 25% of your population."

Awful. Unforgivable."

They need to come up with a hack-proof way of online voting or something. I am sure if it was that easy to do the participation levels would shoot up. Either that or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuls...

Yeah Vacca, The Tunnel appears to be the tome of our times.

Geoff wrote: "First thing I did? Paid subscriptions to the information publications I value.

Next? Volunteering as an escort at local pregnancy aid centers. I can give a handful of hours each month to this.

Af..."

I've seen it tossed out here once or twice already, Geoff, but 350.org is a great starting place for getting involved on the environmental front line. They can get you information on things going on in your area and there are subsidiary groups all over the world. I live where hydrofracking is literally everywhere and 350.org has offered lots of opportunities to get involved with the resistance effort locally.

Geoff wrote: "First thing I did? Paid subscriptions to the information publications I value.

Next? Volunteering as an escort at local pregnancy aid centers. I can give a handful of hours each month to this.

Af..."

Don't know what local groups are in your area, Geoff. But to nose around and get some ideas, see http://www.transitionhoco.org/ , http://chesapeakeclimate.org/ , and farther afield a local branch of the Sierra Club (in recent years heavily involved in shutting down coal-fired power plants), and as I mentioned above https://350.org/

Of course any of these orgs will be happy to take donations; but there are a lot of actions, some of them quite local, that they organize. 350.org was the group that did the Peoples Climate March in NYC a couple years ago (which I was at). Googling "People's Climate March" will get info on this sort of thing.

Hope you do find something that suits your desires.

Definitely digging around 350 - thanks so much for the recs guys!

wow. 46.9% did not vote. There's ya first big problem right there. Trump was actually voted for by only 25% of your population.

Dude, that's nothing new, that's every election. You could look at numbers for Reagan's 'landslide' in '84 and find the same thing. Not that that's any excuse, but it's the reality. Personally I would just move election day to Saturday, that would definitely help some.

And echoing comment #428, yes, Bernie would have lost 45 states. Check what country this is, it ain't Canada. There's a reason I support candidates less liberal than me, it's because I like to win and keep Republicans out of the White House. There's a reason I supported Kerry in '04 and not Dennis Kucinich, who I'm sure lines up better with my own beliefs. Kerry came within a few thousand Ohio votes of winning; Kucinich would have been another McGovern or Mondale. It starts with accepting this is not a very liberal country, and working from there.

Jonathan wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "wow. 46.9% did not vote. There's ya first big problem right there. Trump was actually voted for by only 25% of your population."

Awful. Unforgivable."

They need to ..."

I think it's too early to comment on specific turnout. Online, you can find anywhere from 51% (lowest in 10 years) to 57% (second-highest turnout since the '60s). Nobody's sure how many people voted, and they're really not sure how many eligible voters there are in the first place, so the exact numbers will take years of scholarship to determine.

But yeah, American elections have terribly low turnout, and have done ever since Watergate; they haven't actually been good since the 19th century, when fewer people were eligible.

Some things that might help:
- making election day a national holiday, with a guaranteed number of hours off during polling hours for those still working. The cost to business of one extra holiday wouldn't be that much, and may even end up a benefit (people spend money on holidays);

- increasing polling hours; there's no reason to close polls at 7pm, when people have just gotten home from work and had some food and then have to rush to join the line. Extending polls until, say, 10pm (as in the UK) reduces the length of lines and makes it easier for voters (or holidaymakers!) to vote;

- increasing the number of polling stations. There are entire US states where the average number of people per station is higher than the maximum allowed in the UK. And those averages are pushed up by low-attendance rural stations. In some urban areas, particularly with black voters, the number of voters per polling place is just insane.

- ideological outreach to persuade people voting is good, and/or a duty. In particular, there needs to be outreach to hispanic and asian communities, who have alarmingly low levels of engagement with the process (although hispanic vote increased a little this year). Black turnout is also relatively low, though that may reflect average income rather than culture (turnout is highly correlated with income for all communities); having said that, given that voting often becomes a habit (and acknowledging that the candidate wasn't black this time) it's disappointing that black turnout wasn't closer to 2012 - if it had been, Clinton would have won Michigan and Wisconsin and I'm guessing probably Pennsylvania as well.

- more early voting and/or postal voting. I don't like these things conceptually - particularly postal voting, which is known to be much more susceptible to abuse - but they would help increase the turnout, which may be a bigger issue right now.

Unfortunately, Republicans are dedicated to obstructing voting in any way possible, so these things are hard to implement in practice.

There's also one thing the Democrats could consider doing themselves next time:
- run an inspiring campaign. It's not even about the candidate - Clinton isn't charismatic, but she's not awful on screen, and she has a very compelling life story and exciting policies. It's about the way the campaign is run. Just like the Brexit campaign here, the good guys ran a campaign seemingly based primarily on fear and loathing - and the problem is, that just doesn't work. It lowers turnout for your opponant, maybe, if there's not a backlash, but it doesn't inspire moderates who lean your way. Of course, Clinton had to talk about how terrible Trump was, but she also needed (and 'she' here means the entire campaign) to do a better job giving a positive message. You can actually see that empirically: their best period in the campaign was during and after the convention, when they actually put forward that sort of hopeful, positive, exciting message, and were rewarded with sky-high poll numbers. But as the campaign went on, they seemed to be paralysed by Trump, just waiting for him to balls it up himself so they could criticise him. I suspect that if he were a stronger candidate and less of an easy target, they may actualy have run more on their own promises and done better as a result.

[it's not just good guys, either. Zak Goldsmith, last year, ran a very similar campaign for Mayor of London, based almost entirely on demonisation and scaremongering, and he too was handed a whalloping as a result.]

You know what else I'm gonna do these next 4 years? Make tons of art.

Wastrel wrote: "David wrote: "NO, but Trump wasn't third party. He ran as a Republican. Much of the infrastructure is already in place with the Democratic party. It would be so much easier to take it over than cre..."

Wastel, I gotta disagree with the dogma that centrism wins. The Trump electorate was, in large part, created by 'centrist' neo-liberal policies. The idea that Trump ran as a moderate is kind of ridiculous. The electoral catastrophe has already happened at this point. Not being able to defeat Trump, even if it was somewhat close, is a fucking disgrace. Her whole case for herself was based on the inevitably of a moderate, reasonable politician coming to power, and look how that turned out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peo...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/tr...

Not being able to defeat Trump, even if it was somewhat close, is a fucking disgrace.

Agreed, but whose? It's always more popular to blame the candidate, but I blame the voters. Clinton wasn't exciting or charismatic or 'genuine' (whatever the fuck that means) enough? Boo hoo. Against Romney or McCain or any sane Republican I might buy that. But there's no excuse choosing a serial liar, serial predator, corrupt inept businessman, misogynist, racist lunatic who has never shown any concern for any human but himself in his entire life. No, sorry, the voters don't get off the hook this time. Fuck them, as the Geoff's original status update said.

Ok, so fuck them, but then what?

We can't nominate a new people to vote in the next election.

We have to nominate a different kind of candidate

Again, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/tr...

Clinton effectively conceded the white working class vote in the midwest. There has to be some way to organize the rust belt. That's the only way to turn this around, I think.

but then what?

Wish I knew. I have no clue at the moment. Anyway, don't want to argue with those I'm in essential agreement with. All the best.

Yeah, I have no idea what then. A good part of me is hopeless about it.

Scum like Nigel Farage, Marie le Pen, and Geert Wilder are right to feel emboldened by this, but we should feel emboldened too.

David wrote: "Scum like Nigel Farage, Marie le Pen, and Geert Wilder are right to feel emboldened by this, but we should feel emboldened too."

I think I'm still in a phase where the energy to be really emboldened isn't there yet.

So. Concerning the hopelessness.

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/...

Geoff wrote: "I think I'm still in a phase where the energy to be really emboldened isn't there yet. "

Fair enough. Just sayin', fascism means war ; )

Geoff wrote: "So. Concerning the hopelessness.

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/..."

A Brit friend of mine said to me I should set up a five-star refugee camp on a part of my farm.

Applications open 1st January '17.