Trump
The name calling from the left isn't the problem, it's the attempt at silencing dissent through shame .
Urban elites and champagne socialists are just petty insults .whilst calling people xenophobic, rascist and uneducated....now that's flat out denigration . Less a swipe and more of a wholesale slur on your character.
As you said yourself, Stu , the left used to be about the working class whereas now it ignores and denigrates them in support of " humanity " as you coined it .
As in anyone that's not white or working class.
Shortens statement today about supporting Australians for Australian jobs over immigrant workers was a step in the right direction.
It's as though they're paying attention all of a sudden.
Agree with what you say for the most part Stu and Blowin.
I think people are talking more than ever, it's just that people seem to be less inclined to listen these days.
Coaster, I dont know if Ray Hadlee was all that succesful before his media days.... I think Media has been his success......
I also think the "died of shame" really was a dead give away. Cheers, man.
actually they all have skeletons in their closet...except corbyn and sanders...they're about the only boring stalwarts left standing after a period of appraisal surrounding the panama papers and the like.
twiggy is not my ideal, Just saying if we're gonna have our own little anti tax paying, populist non politician I'll take twiggy over hanson anyday, especially because of his record with aboriginals and engaging them in the real economy
I almost posted that vid yesterday, but figured I'd made my position pretty clear. I think the vid is spot on...of course.
when did it become an insult to call someone a lefty?
this is aimed at no one in particular, but it has become increasingly clear to me, on here, and especially in guardian comments, that people take this as an insult these days even if you leave out the 'wanker' bit, and people take reall offence, justifying their position and shit, distancing themselves, explaining the desth of left and right etc....snowflake generation? political correctness gone mad? breitbart becoming cool?
most right wing people don't seem to go into this death spiral of distancing themselves and self justification when confronted. I can see chardonnay socialist as being mildly offensive, as it pins someona as being bourgeois in a system of thought that condemns that class but seriously offensive?
these terms use nice words (mainly) to portray an image, and point out contradictions and stereotypes. just sounds exactly like the left's passive agressive polite name calling routine they practice, whilst constantly calling for a more civil debate.
as to where do the deplorables hang out? should they be a nice neat accessible group? isn't their whole gig that they are a subversive group slipping through the cracks, lurking in the shadows? a mismatch of prepping rednecks and sophisticated libertarians and everything in between?
as to media, they have created their own, motivated by a disdain for the conventional sources, both left and right.
I hate to go there, but breitbart have nailed it. they've made a very contemporary, challenging, flashy and even glamorous site that captures the zietghiest of our time. not whole-ly, philosophically or comprehensively. but in terms of capturing the right mix of dubious internet conspiracies combined with just enough credible stories to keep the mystique, interest and questions flying.
if I was to compare it to a contemporary left group, 'get up' is the only one that springs to mind, and they come actoss as a bit of a mash up of hillsong meets mummy bloggers....not exactly cool...unless you're a non gender specific bisexual roller derby mum
the left seems to have missed the boat on that one
This guy does have some good points , his delivery suuuuckks though . Bloody geezers .
https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71/posts/10154692710991171
This is a better edit for those on FB .
I didn't even finish this article, it drifts into just the empty words on a page of some political analyst that's spent too much time crunching numbers rather than actually doing any work and making a plan for the future
and that is the problem with the clinton campaign, and possibly the left more broadly, it's all about obtaining and maintaining power at any cost, rather than standing up for what you believe in. it's about stopping those bastards from the other side unwinding your 'progress' rather than presenting ideas and opportunities.
so calculated and contrived, so cynical, so far removed from what politicians should be spending their time on it's criminal
while naomi Klein can come actoss as a bit naive and idealistic, she's right in saying the left needs some bigger picture, inspiring all encompassing goals
reading freerides post about trump was a little depressing, as he (rightly) pointed out trump's shortcomings. but as soon as someone starts whingeing about climate change and the environment and what a disaster trump is going to be. I just switch off, not purposely, the words just don't gel, because I look at clinton and what her ilk have achieved in this regard and just shake my head....empty rhetoric
the davos class has failed miserably and are very very poor living examples
as trump so astutely pointed out...you've had 30 years to do something...but you didn't....too busy gaming the system...most uninspiring
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-identity-politics-couldnt-cl...
It's absolutely astonishing that now that Trump has been elected no-one, not his own party, not the democrats, not the media has the slightest fcuking clue what he is going to do or what his presidency is going to stand for or accomplish.
Already he's backtracked, jellywobbled and equivocated on almost every position he took to the election.
This could be the biggest con ever perpetrated on a human population. A man who said whatever it took to get elected and then backtracked on everything.
Almost certainly the victory has been social and cultural.
Political correctness, identity politics, feminism, environmentalism: all crushed.
Doggy what I meant about neo-liberalism is that it is not exclusively a right-wing project/ideal. Centre-left governments have been just as enthusiastic, if not more, that centre-right, right wing governments.
In Aus it was the Hawke-Keating govts that really bought in the neo-liberal/free-trade reforms that transformed the australian economy. Keating remains the chief philosophical proponent of globalism/free trade in Aus.
I think in Australia we are incredibly lucky that our neo-liberalism was ushered in by a labour/centre-left goverment because unlike Thatchers England and Reagans America we at least had a govt committed to inclusion and fairness- one that maintained the safety net and advocated for workers rights and a fair share of the increased wealth. That is primarily why we are such a better country that either the UK or US.
No doubt though, the conservatives want us to go more the US way, god knows why, the USA is a basket case and no-one in their right mind should be using that as a template to build a society. Unless, of course , you are already wealthy and want the wealthy to get even more wealthy at the expense of the ordinary person.
Economically it looks like Trump is going to run the Reagan program. Tax cuts for the wealthy, massively increased military and infrastructure spending (financed by deficit spending) ......this will generate economic activity, no doubt. It's classic keynesian economics but it'll blow the US debt into the stratosphere. Thats not such a problem for the US, seeing as China is the biggest debt holder in US currency and Trump has already signalled where his main "enemy" is going to be.
In fact it changes the equation in favour of the US.....in the same way that if you owe the bank a thousand the bank owns you but if you owe the bank a million you own the bank.
@FR, want to read this ..........
http://www.theage.com.au/business/little-right-much-wrong-with-trumponom...
Ross Gittins is no bleeding lefty (its become fashionable here to use that term apparently), in fact he is the chief economics editor for the Herald.
By the way Jeff Kennett former Liberal (??) premier here in Vicco went way further than Thatcher ever went ... flogged off everything - power, water, gas, public land, tendered out public transport and sacked 50,000 public servants including thousands of nurses and teachers ...... rather ironic he now heads up Beyondblue.
From Ross Gittins: "The bitter joke is that the populist promises he made to keep out Muslims, Mexicans and Chinese imports would do little to make the mug punters better off, whereas many of his more conventional economic policies will do much to further fatten the pockets of the 1 per cent the punters so resent."
Yeah but at least the punters will be free to say whatever they want.
Hah! Twiggy for PM?! C'mon, is that straight from the "Peter Dutton school of comedy"?
Freeride86, concur somewhat with your Hawke-Keating analysis. I said as much a coupla pages back. Though I think Keating was more reactive/proactive in the face of the rampant Thatcherism/Reaganomics wave, and the pressure it was bringing to bear globally. I've always liked to imagine if the Hawke/Keating era was swapped with Lil Winston's. Imagine if Howard had the reins in the time of his ideological idols! Fuck-a-duck!
It's been said before on here somewhere it'd be 'interesting' to see how the 'lucky country' holds up when the good luck runs out, and the LNP is in charge.
As for Trump, he really is Andy Griffiths in the old film 'A Face in the Crowd' or the protagonist in Sinclair Lewis' 1930s book 'It Can't Happen Here'.
Stephen Bannon as his “chief strategist and senior counselor”?! The world according to Breitbart. Huzzah! When Pauline or Pato gets in over here, they can have Andrew Bolt or John Roskam in the same role!
IPA! IPA!*
*chanted to the ol' 'USA! USA!' call to arms.
Don't forget the guns, Stunts. The inalienable right to shoot shit up!
NRA! NRA!*
*chanted to the ol' 'IPA! IPA!' call to arms. Or is it 'USA! USA!'? I get confused. Yeeew!
One of the better articles on the election I've read yet. Rather than punters who explain the win as being driven by a certain agenda this fella is far more tempered and takes in the scope of the event, including what may come next.
TT ,its funny when the right is seen as the gun toting majority , whereas the Hispanics and Blacks say come to our cities with your guns and we'll see who has the balls to use them!
what a great state of affairs , everyone is going to be pissed at Trump as he promised everyone something , and he can't deliver virtually any of his promises without serious compromise , already Fox news's illuminati , are seething at , "where and when the wall and lockup Clinton!" Ain't going to happen , so they are already pissed off , as is everybody else .
our great hope in Australia is that Pauline Hanson will be able to heal the rifts and govern for all the people , Just like the Don!
I agree. Sharkman. Was Don, was good.
Don Dunstan.
Is don..is good!
Pity the pant suit didn't learn from the safari suit
Pink short-shorts and long walking socks please. Bernie in boardies?
And Sharkman, how's the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party result in the Orange by-election on Saturday? Poor old Nats. Giddy up.
Ahh, Stu, the article you suggest makes too much sense and thought. I would say it also applies to Aus in many ways. Also relevant is the by election in NSW, Orange - 30% swing and yep, you can quests which way.
One of the deplorables
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/muslim-silent-voter/index.htm...
...and an ex-Murdoch employee, makes the conservative vote a touch less surprising though I'm fully aware of her other traits that aren't in keeping with voter stereotype. Good on her for attempting to reconcile a difficult position.
I don't know Stu, I've read a few articles like that. (your Mitch Albom one above)
They are basically a hail mary, acknowledging Trump has been a massive cunt and ran one of the most divisive and apocalyptic campaigns in history but hey, lets hope he suddenly turns into a good bloke now he's got the presidency.
Just like George W Bush......yeah, what a great prez he turned out to be.
Also, comparing the reaction to Trump with the reaction to Obama, or even Reagan, is just bizarre. It's a comically poor analogy.
As he said: "I will state right here that I have no idea what will happen with a Trump presidency."
Thats not just the USA but the whole fucking world saying that, and that is truly scary when you see a guy with Trumps record and campaign rhetoric in a position of incredible power.
This is no time for the press to be backing off, as he insinuates, saying a hail mary and hoping Trump turns out OK. Now, more than ever, this guy needs to be under the full scrutiny of the press.
freeride, I so agree with your last comments
FR, I don't think you could scrutinise Trump any further than whats just been done over the last few months. The 'scare' is already tempered. The point of the article is that the press (and most) have failed to scrutinise Trump. The next couple of months will tell more as his puts the team together. Yep, a bit of 'Hail Mary', I suppose.
What's your thoughts on voter motivation, Steve? That despite his 'apocalyptic' campaign he was the antidote to those sick of political correctness?
The reaction to Trump reneging on his election promises will be fascinating.
What's sad is the fact that once again, here is a politician literally saying whatever it takes to win office, winning, then changing their tune almost immediately. Same as it ever was?!?
so the struggling middle class in the US choose a BILLIONAIRE to help solve their woes when a black man of relatively modest financial upbringing couldn't help them.
voter motivation stu? ill buy into that one. run a better popularity contest on social media and you win. a donation to the FBI might have had something to do with it too.
calling nick and disco, helllooooo???......you been watching Trump backtrack? howd ya like them apples!
Happy writes "calling nick and disco, helllooooo???......you been watching Trump backtrack? howd ya like them apples!"
Yep...... And Trump has just backed gay marriage, saying the supreme court has already settled it....
Ooohhhh man this is gonna be a fun ride, whatever way you look at it.
Had nicko's tin foil hat on and had a premonition about Trump flip flopping from far left to far right policies depending on who he had just had a beautiful meeting with ....... the promotion bit, now how long do the neo-right tolerate this before they start looking sideways at Pence as "their" more reliable man. Just saying .... Donald needs to walk carefully here or not go near any grassy knolls, 4 years is a long time to get things always right right for the ultra right.
It's been strange to read the reactions from the pro-Trump brigade on here. I mean, they are REALLY pro-Trump for one. From Disco-Stu - the smart-ass - with his shouty EXCITED CAPITALS to Nick Nick Nick - the dumb-ass - with his usual dribble, it was all "fuck you" & "suck shit" & "how'd ya like those apples" & "lefties" this & "leftard" that etc etc etc.
I mean, leaving aside the weird equating of Clinton with the 'left' ('left of...' perhaps? like Turnbull is 'left of...' her?), was anyone on here pro-Hillary at all? Anyone??
InSypo's recent run on here looks like someone trying to find a justification, any justification, for thinking-peoples (after a fashion) having voted for him.
Trump's a master con-man. He's really nailed the 'con' in neo-con. Will there be guns at dawn and blood on the streets when he doesn't deliver nuttin' for the so-called 'deplorables'?
Hmmm.
Ever seen how someone that's been righteously conned reacts when they get told they've been conned? I reckon the messenger usually cops it at first, not the con-man.
Imagine in the US when the 'other side' constantly lets the 'conned side' know they've been had and how badly...woooooo, boy!
Guns at dawn...blood on the streets...
& Trumpy skipping away to safety on an island somewhere...
Stu, I think that was definitely part of it.
to be frank, it was low voter turnout that sunk Clinton, particularly amongst millenials.
Not that they would ever be as enthusiastic for her as they would be for Sanders but I honestly believe the FBI/Comey intervention at that crucial late stage was enough to shift the election result.
"The point of the article is that the press (and most) have failed to scrutinise Trump."
Disagree Teebs. Point is they got the mood and sentiment of the voter wrong.
btw, I think the US media did an excellent job of scrutinising Trump and the Trump campaign. I read so many excellent pieces of reportage and analysis..........
What happened is that there is now a critical mass of people just completely disregarding the "mainstream media" ....and of course Trump encouraged that at every turn. Thus the emergence of a post-truth world where people get their news from their facebook feed which comes from people who think just like them.
Anything to the contrary is simply dismissed out of hand.
To me, that is the most pernicious development out of this and a true threat to democracy.
we have a fundamental problem when 140ish character twitter feeds form the basis of people opinions on a topic. truth can get distorted pretty quickly when popularism overides using brain cells.
Freeride - Amongst all the brilliant analysis of Trump , was there parallel analysis of Clinton ?
You realise that mainstream media was incredibly biased against Trump ?
Dont you think that the dismissal of opposing opinions that people find on Facebook was mirrored by the MSM?
I've been reading millions of words and hearing hours and hours of radio detailing Clintons Email scandals...heard so much about the cosying up to banks and the pay to play speeches and access from the Clinton Foundation.....
So, no, I don't think any reasonable person could say Clinton hasn't been scrutinised to the N'th degree by the american media.
For the majority of the primaries mainstream media coverage of Trump was exhaustive, free and mostly either positive or neutral. That was the biggest free leg up in election history: Trump had to spend zero on advertising, simply because the media was giving him so much air. He presented a daily car crash to the nation and the media fell over themselves to cover it.
It was only later, after his candidacy was secured that the media started giving him more of a forensic going over.
All in all though, there's no way Trump could complain about the media coverage.
Not the amount of media coverage, but 99% of media i saw or heard was very negative bias anti Trump media and still is, so to be fair i think he has a right to complain.
I think in part this actually worked for him though, it pisses a lot of people off when the media are very bias, we get the same deal here with Pauline, i doubt she would be half as popular as she is if the media didn't report on her so much and in such a bias way.
Really, ID? 99%..?
You gotta spread your media load. Crikey, particularly Guy Rundle and Helen Razer, held a microscope up to Clinton, as did the Daily Review. If you're not arming yourself with a well balanced media intake you can't blame anyone else, it's all out there.
As for the negative portrayal of Trump: it was warranted IMO. After all America is founded on tolerant, pluralist values, they form the cultural buttress of the country, they're engraved on statues ("Give us your weak...") and enshrined in song ("land of the free"), so when a preseidential candidate deviates from those values it is newsworthy. It simply can't be ignored by the media, and Trump was breaching those standards near daily, hence the perceived 'negative' media.
All first-page-of-Google searches:
Crikey "Rundle: sorry, Van Badham, but Clinton hasn't been left-wing since the '90s"
Crikey "Poll Bludger: could Clinton's latest email scandal topple her campaign?"
Crikey "Razer: Trump, Clinton go to war exploiting abused women"
Crikey "Rundle: Clinton campaign catches downdraft, goes into tailspin"
Crikey "It's not easy to love Putin, but Clinton is no better"
Crikey "How Hillary Clinton's team tries to police the media" [So read other media?]
Crikey "Assange attacks Clinton on health."
Daily Review "HILLARY CLINTON: THE CANDIDATE MOST GUARANTEED TO SCREW YOU"
ABC "Why the election of Hillary Clinton promises a more dangerous world"
Interesting discussion on all this on Q and A last night (iview if you want to watch for free) where it was said Trump was critically scrutinised by the media but only after he had the republican nomination while clinton first had the fight with sanders which divided the democrat vote (all in the media) and when nominated she had trump and the media (email/FBI issues) to deal with. The comment was made by the time the media got around to seriously looking at trump it was too late he had all the momentum ... i don't know if this is true or not by this is what one of the american panelist said last night
I would agree with that floyd. That's why I thought he was going to win the whole thing from Nov last year until July. Watching the news over there during the primaries the media was laughing along with histweets, lies (and they were objectively lies) and his bragging about the size of his dick, all while denying oxygen to the other candidates. It was comical really, the morning news would just be a panel saying, can you believe he said that? No me neither. Amazing! Repeat.
He played the media like a fiddle in the early days, it really was his strategy. Scrutiny started very late. Claims of bias are total rubbish too. They didn't take him seriously, sure, but the scrutiny he got was proportional to his statements and ever changing positions.
What about our Julia throwing a lazy $300 million at her good friend Hillarys foundation when she was the PM ?
You're giving a pretty skewed view of media there stunt, not least it has a paywall, and half of the plebs probably haven't even heard of that site.
The mainstream media had a concerted campaign to paint trump as badly as possible, whilst almost blanketly covering up the WikiLeaks emails. Yes the emails were 'out there', but half the sites reporting them were 'out there' too, making it almost impossible to gain traction.
My friends who have now seen that vid Southey posted, and who were vehemently anti trump, now feel they were totally duped by the meda
A telling statement by a GenY - "the Internet is now the conscience of humanity".
FR, is this the pernicious development that threatens democracy, you mentioned ?
Disgusting backhander... that's how it is
Trump used the media to his gain, more fool them if he beat them at their own game.
What has been overlooked in the following overanalyses, is that trump won with the whole system against him, the media, the democrats, the femonazis, his own party. Look how much money and advertising the Clinton campaign had. Look at the ridiculous set up in that glass cube, all the B grade celebrities, all the late night comedy shows, everyone was against him (except Clint Eastwood and Arnie) but we didn't even hear about them because it didn't fall in line with the agenda
It's a fucking miracle he won!! A true victory for democracy. Living poof you can't fool everyone al the time.... and praise the gods for that. Not only that, it gives me real hope that women, black people, gays and Hispanics saw through the shit and opted for the least corrupt, most representative candidate. About time the Hilary press gave up on this gender war thing, the numbers show otherwise, enough division has been created, time to heal, and accept the results
He's still a fuckwit, and it's a shame it took such a fuckwit to pull back the curtain on the wizard, but better to deal with this shit now before things get real ugly
Yep, he's backed away from most of his radical policies, most people would (and should) say that's a good thing... most of his supporters knew he was only half the hard nut that he put himself out there to be. Both candidates lied through their teeth, if just seems to come down to how individuals interpret different styles of language as to what people expected. Which defines this whole election, language, class and expectations
Expecting to not have to write a concession speech says it all.
Sypkan: "You're giving a pretty skewed view of media there stunt, not least it has a paywall, and half of the plebs probably haven't even heard of that site."
Skewed? Don't agree. I've got a checklist of media sites, from hard right to hard left and I read enough stuff on Hillary - including the John Pilger articles that were sent to me 10x as much as any other single article - to know the info was there. It's not hard to find, I get all mine sent to me in emails, even if it's behind paywalls you can get the gist from reading the headlines (I don't subscribe to many of the outlets I get emails from). Anyone who says it wasn't available is reacting to an echo chamber of their own making and you can't blame anyone else for that. This is 2016.
Paywall? Fairfax has a limited paywall and the Australian a total paywall (both can be breached by anyone with half a clue). The two largest news oulets in Australia have paywalls so the argument is invalid. Anyway, see above for how you can still ascertain media sentiment
The plebs haven't heard of it? You've said yourself - many, many times in fact - that MSM is dead. So then where are people getting their news from?
Look, I agree the straight news sites went easy on Hillary yet if Breitbart can be considred influential then why the hell can't Crikey, Daily Review, Spiked, New Matilda et al?
Watch Fox news , and then CNN , and try and workout how facts are manipulated by both sides.
The Public doe not trust Politicians , media ,lobbyist's or themselves , so where as a society are we?
democracy does not work ,as the whole idea of lobby groups and their acceptance as part of a democratic process is hypocritical.
now ," the System is corrupt" seems to have awoken and prodded a large part of the voting population , into voting down the idea of corruption , at any cost even electing someone who cannot deliver on his promise , to clean up our current broken system which will then means it's all OK again , even great!!!
Breitbart was an early supporter of Trump , who galvanized the rabid right , white is might and right,and orchestrated Trumps foundation of white middleclass men , and continued to advise Trump ...he is a loyal genius and now has the greatest influence any right wing racist has had , ever in the whitehouse.
Our Australian right wing media should see what Breibart has accomplished , and follow his example , and start with One Nation , which will become as powerful as the LNP and Labor , writing is on the wall , lets get used to it?
Brietbart is trash, the others are academic, we both know what people like
And I still don't think you can compare crikey to the big paywall sites, it's about exposure, both before and after you even log in.
You've kind of answered your own question re. you getting emails from a heap of sites, left to right, all reasonably reputable no doubt.
For me to get enough information for me to be comfortably bagging Clinton publicly took some time, a lot of time! And a lot of "it can't possibly be" moments lurking in the nasty rabbit holes benski speaks of, trying to find what was real. it wasn't fucking easy!
I'm no academic, but there's reputable and reputable, like everything else, this election has blurred the lines
"You've kind of answered your own question re. you getting emails from a heap of sites,"
Yeah, I guess, but honestly it takes seconds to scan the headlines and get a feel for what's happening. When something piques my interest I'll read it, same as anyone else.
Guess I figured people were getting their info from a range of sources. 'Echo chamber' has become one of those buzzy buzzwords, but perhaps it's a case of 'everyone else is in an echo chamber bar me.'
@Sharkman
The day after the US election an unnamed - and apparently tone deaf - cabinet minister said, "We all support free trade..."
WTF? An election was just won on the premise of trade tariffs, which, in the domestic setting, is a move straight out of the One Nation playbook. Even if you do believe in free trade now is the time to play it cool.
So in the face of Liberal denial it's Labor's job to head off any lurch to One Nation. Start with 457s, make moves on corporate tax evasion, bolster enterprise bargaining, question every trade deal foisted on Australia, limit negative gearing on investment properties, adopt Staircasing (or similar) to make housing affordable to young people. Read from the script, capture the mood, it's all happening before us. The disquiet is getting louder and louder.
to say Breibart/Stephen Bannon are trash is to dismiss Brexit/Trump/Hanson , and the global march towards Nationalism.
Until you understand what is happening , and stop dismissing people like Bannon as Trash , its like living with your head in the sand , never having seen the great out doors , but making comment on nature!
"It's a fucking miracle he won!! A true victory for democracy. Living poof you can't fool everyone al the time.... and praise the gods for that. "
Don't know about this living poof you mention Sypkan.......maybe a freudian slip?
Anyway, it just might turn out to be a case of you can fool enough of the people some of the time.
Trump has plenty of form as an A-grade ConMan.
The next couple of years will determine if he dog-whistled enough disaffected people using a deliberate strategy of incendiary deception to gain political power.
If so, they'd be strange and vengeful Gods you would be praising.
The most perceptive piece yet written about him.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trum...