FlyTheNest

StephenDolan wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote:

adam wrote:Don't know what's on page one of today but whatever it is my work filter blocks it because of 'intolerance'.

Someone mentioned The Simpsons.

The reference to p**** grabbing perhaps? If adam can no longer read this page then it's that

JonnyT1234 wrote:Tory George Freeman:

Number 10 policymakers are already viewing the result through the same prism as Brexit. The head of the No 10 policy board, George Freeman, tweeted: “at its heart this is about a broken contract through the failure of globalised market economics to serve the interests of domestic workers.”

He said the result was “a stunning demonstration of how disempowered low income Americans feel by Washington politics and globalisation”. “The insurgency is a big test for the constitutional protections for liberty and democracy in the UK and the US. It is clear we are living through a genuine crisis of legitimacy sweeping through western political economy”.

Note how this is already being spun: politics and globalisation. Not disdain and avarice. It's the 'elite' that are wrong, not what made them the 'elite' in the first place. Say goodbye to one elite, say hello to the next one America, because you've just been conned.

yahyah wrote:

StephenDolan wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote: Someone mentioned The Simpsons.

The reference to pussy grabbing perhaps? If adam can no longer read this page then it's that

Sorry, that was me. I'll go back and change it to kitten-fondling !

adam wrote:

yahyah wrote:

StephenDolan wrote: The reference to pussy grabbing perhaps? If adam can no longer read this page then it's that

Sorry, that was me. I'll go back and change it to kitten-fondling !

It's not the kitten fondling.

Womble44 wrote:

adam wrote:

yahyah wrote: Sorry, that was me. I'll go back and change it to kitten-fondling !

It's not the kitten fondling.

Perhaps it's because both KKK and Ku Klux Klan are referenced?

yahyah wrote:Have seen the word nativism a couple of times today. Is that a polite word for racism ?

AngryAsWell wrote:

yahyah wrote:Have seen the word nativism a couple of times today. Is that a polite word for racism ?

Nativism is the political position of supporting a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation (i.e. self-identified citizens) as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

tinybgoat wrote:I'm hoping that there's a positive side to both the Brexit vote, and waking up to find the U.S.A has been tangoed.
Both results are credited to large numbers, fed up with their current situation & voting for what's offered as being a chance for change. They may have voted for extreme policies, but what they actually want is hope & positive improvements.
If/when in the next few years, they start to feel let down, then there's a chance for more realistic & positive policies to be offered by others.
In this country, there was a lot of promises & lies made to win the brexit vote, Labour could be for now, championing these to show the Government's failure (more money for NHS, most obvious), the 'peoples will' is a fickle thing.
Don't know about Trump, I suspect most of what he says is just a lever to get into power and the actual policies will come from elsewhere. Possibly his main similarity with Reagan is his acting ability.
Hmm, Not sure if this is any reason for hope

citizenJA wrote:jesus this is awful

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Ooh this is good

https://samkriss.com/2016/11/09/how-you-lost-the-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

how-you-lost-the-world

"And then she lost. Despite it all, the vast monumental horror of a Trump presidency, it’s hard not to feel a little twinge of satisfaction
as Hillary Clinton is denied the only thing she ever wanted and which she never deserved. Trump has promised to send her to prison.
Good. It’d be for all the wrong reasons, but her crimes are many, and losing a general election to an overgrown baby should absolutely
carry a long minimum sentence. Let her rot."

citizenJA wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Ooh this is good

https://samkriss.com/2016/11/09/how-you-lost-the-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

how-you-lost-the-world

No, I don't agree.

"And then she lost. Despite it all, the vast monumental horror of a Trump presidency, it’s hard not to feel a little twinge of satisfaction
as Hillary Clinton is denied the only thing she ever wanted and which she never deserved. Trump has promised to send her to prison.
Good. It’d be for all the wrong reasons, but her crimes are many, and losing a general election to an overgrown baby should absolutely
carry a long minimum sentence. Let her rot."

I don't hate Clinton. The author of the piece does. I can live without capitalism and I'm interested in the 'radical left'
the author wants but hasn't found. There's nothing inspiring good, creative, political alternatives in the article.

Donald Trump is a fascist. We shouldn’t be afraid of the word: it’s simple and accurate, and his fascism is hardly unique; it’s just a suppurating outgrowth of the fascism that was already there. Still, this time it’s different. The fascisms of Europe in the 1920s and 30s, or east Asia in the 50s and 60s, or Latin America in the 70s and 80s were all the response of a capitalist order to the terrifying potency of an organised working class. Fascism is what capitalism does when it’s under threat, something always latent but extending in claws when it’s time to fight; it imitates mass movements while never really having the support of the masses. (In Germany, for instance, support for the Nazis was highest among the industrial haute bourgeoisie, and declined through every social stratum; look at Trump’s share of the voter per income band and see the same pattern. The workers didn’t vote for Trump, they just didn’t vote for Clinton either.) But today the organised working class is nowhere to be found. There’s no coherent left-wing movement actively endangering capitalism; the crisis facing the liberal-capitalist order is entirely internal. It’s grinding against its own contradictions, circling the globe to turn back against itself, smashing through its biological and ecological limits and finding nothing on the other side. This is the death spasm, a truly nihilist fascism, the fascism of a global system prickling for enemies to destroy but charging only against itself. There’s no silence in the final and total victory, just an endless war with only one side. It’s not entirely the case, as the slogan puts it, that the only thing capable of defeating the radical right is a radical left. The radical right will defeat itself, sooner or later, even if it’s at the cost of a few tens of millions of lives. We need a radical left so there can be any kind of fight at all.

citizenJA wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Ooh this is good

https://samkriss.com/2016/11/09/how-you-lost-the-world/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

how-you-lost-the-world

No, I don't agree.

"And then she lost. Despite it all, the vast monumental horror of a Trump presidency, it’s hard not to feel a little twinge of satisfaction
as Hillary Clinton is denied the only thing she ever wanted and which she never deserved. Trump has promised to send her to prison.
Good. It’d be for all the wrong reasons, but her crimes are many, and losing a general election to an overgrown baby should absolutely
carry a long minimum sentence. Let her rot."

I don't hate Clinton. The author of the piece does. I can live without capitalism and I'm interested in the 'radical left'
the author wants but hasn't found. There's nothing inspiring good, creative, political alternatives in the article.

Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer people; all she could give them was fear and herself. Her campaign was the most cack-handed and disastrous in recent decades, managed by a gang of simpering imbeciles pretending to be Machiavellian strategists; it was all on the flimsy depthless level of TV.

The SNP MP Gavin Newlands may not be a major global player, but is also likely to be off the Trump Christmas card list. He told MPs: “Let’s be clear, Donald Trump is an idiot. I have tried to find different, perhaps more parliamentary adjectives to describe him but none was clear enough. He is an idiot.”

JonnyT1234 wrote:So is this one:

Hillary Clinton had nothing to offer people; all she could give them was fear and herself. Her campaign was the most cack-handed and disastrous in recent decades, managed by a gang of simpering imbeciles pretending to be Machiavellian strategists; it was all on the flimsy depthless level of TV.

Miliband (D), Cooper, Kendall and the likes of McTernan et al could equally be described thus.

JonnyT1234 wrote:Not solely related to politics: this is very interesting from a history perspective on the way media, typography and imagery has changed over time in the NYT. The politics has been as duplicitous and grubby throughout btw:

New York Times Election Front Pages, 1852–2012
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... chive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill wrote:... Wrestling with MS Word ... let's just say I don't want to have to do this ever again.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote:Not solely related to politics: this is very interesting from a history perspective on the way media, typography and imagery has changed over time in the NYT. The politics has been as duplicitous and grubby throughout btw:

New York Times Election Front Pages, 1852–2012
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... chive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh yes, always worth reminding ourselves that there is very little new under the sun

gilsey wrote:The last paragraph is good.

Donald Trump is a fascist. We shouldn’t be afraid of the word: it’s simple and accurate, and his fascism is hardly unique; it’s just a suppurating outgrowth of the fascism that was already there. Still, this time it’s different. The fascisms of Europe in the 1920s and 30s, or east Asia in the 50s and 60s, or Latin America in the 70s and 80s were all the response of a capitalist order to the terrifying potency of an organised working class. Fascism is what capitalism does when it’s under threat, something always latent but extending in claws when it’s time to fight; it imitates mass movements while never really having the support of the masses. (In Germany, for instance, support for the Nazis was highest among the industrial haute bourgeoisie, and declined through every social stratum; look at Trump’s share of the voter per income band and see the same pattern. The workers didn’t vote for Trump, they just didn’t vote for Clinton either.) But today the organised working class is nowhere to be found. There’s no coherent left-wing movement actively endangering capitalism; the crisis facing the liberal-capitalist order is entirely internal. It’s grinding against its own contradictions, circling the globe to turn back against itself, smashing through its biological and ecological limits and finding nothing on the other side. This is the death spasm, a truly nihilist fascism, the fascism of a global system prickling for enemies to destroy but charging only against itself. There’s no silence in the final and total victory, just an endless war with only one side. It’s not entirely the case, as the slogan puts it, that the only thing capable of defeating the radical right is a radical left. The radical right will defeat itself, sooner or later, even if it’s at the cost of a few tens of millions of lives. We need a radical left so there can be any kind of fight at all.

SpinningHugo wrote:I don't like extremists.

Sales had risen amid concerns that guns would be harder to obtain if tougher controls were enacted, but Trump’s victory looks likely to weaken demand

yahyah wrote:The left spent more time sitting around arguing about things like whether or not the 'bourgeois' should be allowed any role in the struggle than providing a front against fascism. Sounds familiar ?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Actually it goes back further than Jez.

2010 when EM "surprisingly" beat his brother is the real fault line in many respects (no coincidence, btw, that many of his detractors within the party have long been utterly infatuated with Clinton-style "centrism" - even to the point of possessing those infamous WW box sets I referred to above) His tentative, gradualist attempts to chart a post-2008 path for the party were obstructed and derided every step of the way - aided by cynical media cheerleaders (including, lets not forget, many senior people at the Graun) When he finally lost last year, these people wasted no time in dancing on his grave - "LURCH TO THE LEFT/INSANE MARXISM" and so on and so forth. They believe they had "their" party back.

Indeed, so sure of that were they that they imagined the poor could be chucked under the bus without consequences (cf the welfare vote)

The rest, of course, is history.....