|
Nov 2016
10:56am, 9 Nov 2016
13,626 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Indeed Teaboy.
That would be my worries, not economically, not relations between us and the US, or even us and Europe, you can work that out. It's how Trump reacts that is a problem, and the fact he'll have a right leaning senate and right wing people whispering in his ear, and how sections of American society react.
If you ask me his victory speech was let's cool it all down.
|
|
Nov 2016
11:16am, 9 Nov 2016
882 posts
|
Tonybv9
"We got a set of results we don't like. Find out why and do something about it."
Exactly. Although many people I'm sure will shut their eyes and hope it will pass.
TBH I could see this coming. The parallels with the referendum campaign were striking. Clinton called Trump supporters bigots, racists and xenophobes etc. All the same language that was heard over here. Her supporters took the moral high ground, because they love everybody.
The result was the same. A resounding FUCK YOU from people who object to being demonised and belittled because their views differ.
|
|
Nov 2016
11:33am, 9 Nov 2016
6,038 posts
|
Jambomo
"The result was the same. A resounding FUCK YOU from people who object to being demonised and belittled because their views differ."
People weren't being demonised and belittled because their views differ, its because they hold appallingly racist and homophobic views.
In America they, like us, have allowed a system to develop where they rely on a cheap workforce which is used to prop up key industries and is generally made up of people from other countries who are trying to establish themselves in the US.
Like here however, choosing to blame those people for having the jobs is stupidly ignoring those who are actually creating these problems, those employers who don't pay decent wages and a government that has no support for the poor and who allow big business to drive policy - thus taking no action against exploitative employers.
The Mexicans aren't the ones creating problems in places such as Michigan and Detroit, it was the likes of General Motors who fucked the place up for their own uses and then buggered off leaving a wasteland.
|
|
Nov 2016
11:46am, 9 Nov 2016
210 posts
|
fartlek
"People weren't being demonised and belittled because their views differ, its because they hold appallingly racist and homophobic views."
#recklessgeneralisation
|
|
Nov 2016
11:47am, 9 Nov 2016
26,075 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Where's the like button. +1 for Jambomo! Jambomo for president!  G
|
|
Nov 2016
11:49am, 9 Nov 2016
10,217 posts
|
Chrisull
It wasn't just Clinton... Trump called various groups similar epithets, Mexicans were "rapists", women "bleed everywhere" and were there to be groped, his caricature of one disabled person was grossly nasty, so it's not like it wasn't on both sides... He did and said things no other candidate could get away with. Polls said over 75% of people had made their mind up already. He was seen as sounding like "one of us" though.
He also didn't make it part of his platform that Clinton supporters took a patronising moral high ground, remember he ousted Bush as well in the primaries and I don't remember Bush supporters calling Trump supporters bigots and racists. There was an anti-establishment theme, but a conservative anti-establishment one. We have the same in Cornwall, hate the EU, but love royalty and will always vote Tory.
I - rather controversially it seems - think he would have beaten Sanders too. The S word would have been used as a bogeyman. He was a guilty pleasure it seems to his supporters. Race and immigration sits there still. It matters. 40% of people approved of the wall in the exit polls, that was taken as evidence on some TV to show how few it mattered too, I thought shit that is a large proportion that agree there should be a wall.
I think the problem is not that Clinton patronised, but the only discussion of race has been on these "you're wrong, I'm right" grounds where neither side is engaging, and currently when push comes to shove whites will outvote other ethnicities. Come 2032, that will not be the case. I think there is fear of that. It's an interesting one, a minority ethnic group in the middle ages (when they first sailed over) has gone to being the major ethnic group and now faces going back to being a minority group. How do you manage views and fears so diverse in such a large country? There has to be some common ground, and this is a wake up call that says "go and find it".
|
|
Nov 2016
11:50am, 9 Nov 2016
211 posts
|
fartlek
1st minister instead of Sturgeon surely?
|
|
Nov 2016
11:56am, 9 Nov 2016
1,478 posts
|
Spleen
Trump would have made absolute mincemeat of Sanders. At least Clinton produced a reasonably close result and will allow Democrats to play the "more Americans voted for Hilary" card for the next few years. Americans don't vote for socialists.
|
|
Nov 2016
12:25pm, 9 Nov 2016
6,039 posts
|
Jambomo
Cheers :)G
Fartlek I was generalising horribly
There was chat on the Brexit thread about a similar thing, even if you only agree with a few of your preferred candidates ideas when you are voting, you are voting in everything that they state in their election manifesto/campaign.
Whilst Trump supporters may not themselves be racist or homophobic, they are happy to support and endorse someone who is. They don't have an issue with someone being president who holds those views and that is not generally indicative of people who find those views a problem.
|
|
Nov 2016
12:33pm, 9 Nov 2016
17,668 posts
|
DeeGee
That's the problem with party politics. If party 1 says they'll give you all a thousand pounds except if you're from an ethnic minority, when instead you'll be rounded up and shot, and party two says they'll spare the ethnic minorities but set fire to everyone's house, then I reckon the bulk of people would vote for having a thousand pounds and a house that isn't aflame, even if it means they heartily disagree with the genocide. It doesn't make them racist, but you can't pick or choose the policies you want to adopt.
|
