Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104088)

I'm not for Trump at all, they were both terrible candidates, but the bit that I'm a big fan of is the little man giving a massive **** you to people who haven't even got the decency to pretend that they matter.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104088)

Of course Trump lied, he's a politician now, but the fact that the people have stood up and said we've had enough is immensely pleasing to me.

Originally Posted by the troubadour (Post 12104095)

Good on em. Trump unlikely to prove their saviour, but the dye has been broken. Real change may well result. People before economics further down the road. Now that would be revolutionary.

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104100)

But that's the bit that doesn't make sense. The people who "haven't even got the decency to pretend that they matter" are the bankers and board members who commit fraud for money, and get away with it. And Trump IS one of them, with stated policies that he will make it BETTER for them, less tax, less controls, etc.

So there is a disconnect between what 5 mins of research would tell them, and the 'feels' that they had from the second hand car salesman.

I think there is something deeper going on, more animalistic.

I think it's that Trump was beating his chest and trying to play the alpha male. He wasn't/isn't, but to people who follow and don't lead, he looks like it, and looks more like it than Clinton, a woman. It might even be why Obama (a real alpha) made mincemeat of Clinton before.


What they have done is stood up and said "we can be conned, we aren't even smart enough to make a sensible decision". Which in turn means even less notice needs to be taken of them, just shaping of the lies that were told. That's not pleasing.

I mean hell, still no bankers jailed for the GFC frauds, and no candidate proposing that they should be. They are the winners in all this misdirected rage.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104116)

How on earth was Hillary conning them any less? What's driving you mad is that you cannot fathom the reasoning behind it. It's simple, everyone was supposed to vote Hillary, they decided not to and it has potentially changed the face of politics. They've effectively said pick the bones out of that and dropped the mic. You've just underestimated the power of stubbornness.

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104121)

Hillary was a third term of Obama - something that had been proved to not screw things up (the US under most measures is doing well). Trump was an almost total lack of sane policy, with the virtual guarantee that he IS going to screw things up (when the ex PM of Mexico says explicitly that "I won't pay for that f**king wall", you know they are pissed). As I say, 5 mins tops.

It wasn't just "throw the board in the air because you're losing", otherwise Obama wouldn't have got a second term. There's more to it, a combination of stupidity and tribalism is what I'm thinking.

That could be why Abbott got in too - he was obviously a f**kwit from the moment you saw him, but he was effectively running against a woman again.

Which makes me wonder how May will do ...

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104124)

Not stupidity, tribalism, or even good old sexism. The word you're looking for is desperation. If May doesn't invoke article 50, stand by for a UKIP government.

Love or hate Obamah he has charisma and the ability to convince people he cares, that's why he got 2 terms.

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104136)

As I say, I don't think its desperation as such. The US is doing pretty well at the moment as a whole, and the job/wages stagnation issue is something that's been happening since at least Reagan. If they were desperate 4 years ago, they could have voted someone in who was at least an order of magnitude more competent.

No, I think it was this alpha male/tribalism thing that promoted the stupidity.

Oh, and if May invokes article 50 she deserves to be hung from traitors gate - we now know enough to know that it would both be an EU massacre, and that most people in the UK don't really want it.

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 12103741)

See above post. End of.

Muslims are apparently ok if you can make billions in their countries, get them to finance your businesses, employ them as your workers and have them as customers.

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104136)

Oh, and if May invokes article 50 she deserves to be hung from traitors gate - we now know enough to know that it would both be an EU massacre, and that most people in the UK don't really want it.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104142)

That S word again Garry, it does you no favours.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104142)

They were desperate 4 years ago yes, but the democrat in the hot seat had a personality and charisma. Hillary had neither and was arrogant enough not to even have a concession speech ready.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104142)

Let's just say that May doesn't invoke article 50, the subsequent back lash will see a massive swing to the farthest of right wing achievable. Now should May be willing to accept resonsibility for that? I think so

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104156)

I also think the lesson from the Trump debacle is that Labour need to play an alpha male against May.

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104156)

Call it what it is - face the reality. It's no good thinking that voters are rational actors when it's be conclusively proved now that they aren't.



Clinton had track record (positive). Trump had track record (negative). I wouldn't say Trump's personality could be considered a positive (if you want to talk arrogant, then what do you say to "I have great words, the best words"?)

Sorry, but I think it is indeed the woman thing.


Two thirds of people oppose the blind brexit idea. I think the backlash from putting the UK in the eurocrats power would be far harder.

I also think the lesson from the Trump debacle is that Labour need to play an alpha male against May.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 12104154)

Wow. And they said that first time around. They also said Trump would not win the election.

Garry keeps getting it wrong. Should we believe you on this one too? :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 12104206)

There may well be a great deal of stupid people, stupid and irrational. How is it you think they'll feel about being called stupid and irrational, d'you think they'll take it on board or tell you to blow it out your arse? You may have the IQ advantage, but not much in the way of people skills is there?

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12104207)

Once again, you run headlong into the brickwall of fact.

People have been doing polls after the referendum. Quite a lot feel lied to (hardly surprising, they were) and when you bring in the reality of hard brexit, two thirds say "nope".

That shouldn't be surprising, how often have you heard "well I only voted brexit to send a message"?

May seems to be all at sea on the 'I've got a plan' front as well - which means unless some spectacular happens, its not a button that should be pressed.