Trump Triumphs

[notnow john]

3 hours ago, GaelicFox said:

The Beano  

 

my appologies it wasn't directed just at you but I'm sorry it did sound condescending 

 

I'm not a catholic by the way , bit stereotypical but being that you may  be an exPara I wouldn't have expected much more  

 

Pretty sure it relates to the helping of the sick and injured in his profession as a

Para - - - - -

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, notnow john said:

Pretty sure it relates to the helping of the sick and injured in his profession as a

Para - - - - -

 

Pretty sure it relates to him poisoning parakeets with paraffin, paraquat and paracetamol, while paradoxically parading as a Paralympic paragon with a parasol.

 

Might be wrong about that, though. 

[bovril]

He's paraplegic Paraguayan you idiots.

[GaelicFox]

1 hour ago, notnow john said:

Pretty sure it relates to the helping of the sick and injured in his profession as a

Para - - - - -

Paragliding GP ? 

[theessexfox]

Extract from a New Statesman article with a feminist perspective on Hillary's defeat. Aside from simply dismissing it as feminist nonsense and of course sexism didn't play a role in Trump's victory, to what extent do people agree with her argument? I think she's far too complimentary to Hillary's credentials for president, but I think there will be some who will have voted on the basis of gender as much as anything.

 

"There are some who will tell you that this is not about gender. The left-wing sexist jerks are at it already. It wasn't that America wasn't ready for a woman in the White House, they will say, it was that this woman was the wrong candidate. She was too establishment (how ironic that you should spend years working your ass off for respect and recognition, only to have that used against you), too corrupt, too robotic. . . the list goes on. Bernie would have done it, they insist, as though America would have welcomed a Jewish socialist from Vermont with open arms. Do not buy their bullshit.

 

This is about gender, just as it is about race, just as it is about the frustrations of the white middle American working class, reality television, neoliberalism, and a hundred other considerations besides. Zooming in on one issue does not preclude another. But, as Trump becomes politically normalised and his "desperate" supporters are patiently listened to, we risk losing sight of the gender aspect.

 

The fact is, many Americans — male and female — did not want a woman president. Let's not forget how patriarchal fundamental Christianity is, how evangelical much of the country is. Followers of these religions — whether male or female — believe that women should be wives and mothers, they should defer to men, their bodies are for bearing children, whether they want to carry to term or not. "They're as unlikely to elect a female president as any Middle Eastern country is," a friend said, last night. She was right. Hillary was, to many of them, a devil bitch. How could we have forgotten, even for a moment, the Religion Thing? How foolish we were to hope.

 

Many people have been worrying what messages this election sends to little girls. That even if you work really, really hard at something, your abuser will still end up winning. That sticking your head above the parapet and attempting to claim power means facing more vitriol, more abuse, more threatening language, than your male opponent could ever imagine. That the patriarchy kicks back with ferocity if you try to undermine it. That most women would have given up, and that Hillary didn't, and she still lost.

These are not the messages any of us want little girls to hear. I'd much rather they listened to Hillary's instead. But I'm not sure most people share her optimism, and that's what really hurts."

[GaelicFox]

The Donald and Putin had a long chat ! 

 

The world already seems a little safer today 

[Webbo]

I guarantee that if Sarah Palin had been the republican candidate there be no talk of voting against her because she was a woman.

 

These people don't realise that nobody cares about all this feminist, neoliberal,globalisation crap. Normal people care about their incomes,families,neighbours and country. All this theoretical crap is irrelevant to them.

[MC Prussian]

In hindsight, all the superficial fun and jokes back then turn into some cringeworthy reactionism when you see it today.

[Alf Bentley]

52 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I guarantee that if Sarah Palin had been the republican candidate there be no talk of voting against her because she was a woman.

 

These people don't realise that nobody cares about all this feminist, neoliberal,globalisation crap. Normal people care about their incomes,families,neighbours and country. All this theoretical crap is irrelevant to them.

 

You might be right about Palin.

In 2012, Obama won 55%-44% among women, Romney won 52%-45% among men. 

In 2016, Clinton won 54%-42% among women, Trump 53%-41% among men....a slightly bigger gender gap this time, but only slightly.

 

Why does such a gender gap exist, though? Are women not "normal people" like you? 

Do women not care about their incomes, families, neighbours and country? Presumably they do, but a majority felt those interests would be better served by an Obama or Clinton presidency?

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to as "these people". People mentioning gender as a voting factor? Anyone who doesn't share your right-wing perspective?

 

I care about incomes, family, neighbours and country, but have different views about policies to benefit them. Am I "normal" or abnormal?

I also care about the state of wider society and the wider world (inequality of income and opportunity, climate change, avoiding war). Does that make me non-"normal"?

 

I'm sure most people don't discuss feminism, neo-liberal economics or globalisation - but those issues can still be relevant to them, if they affect their lives. Globalisation taking the US steel industry to Mexico was relevant, wasn't it?

Most people don't discuss the causes of heroin addiction, but if a junkie breaks into their house, affecting their income and family, it is still relevant to them.

 

Imagine if a lefty came on here implying that you were not "normal" for holding your views....you'd accuse them of being a sneering elitist, wouldn't you? Inverted snobbery is no different.

 

 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You might be right about Palin.

In 2012, Obama won 55%-44% among women, Romney won 52%-45% among men. 

In 2016, Clinton won 54%-42% among women, Trump 53%-41% among men....a slightly bigger gender gap this time, but only slightly.

 

Why does such a gender gap exist, though? Are women not "normal people" like you? 

Do women not care about their incomes, families, neighbours and country? Presumably they do, but a majority felt those interests would be better served by an Obama or Clinton presidency?

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to as "these people". People mentioning gender as a voting factor? Anyone who doesn't share your right-wing perspective?

 

I care about incomes, family, neighbours and country, but have different views about policies to benefit them. Am I "normal" or abnormal?

I also care about the state of wider society and the wider world (inequality of income and opportunity, climate change, avoiding war). Does that make me non-"normal"?

 

I'm sure most people don't discuss feminism, neo-liberal economics or globalisation - but those issues can still be relevant to them, if they affect their lives. Globalisation taking the US steel industry to Mexico was relevant, wasn't it?

Most people don't discuss the causes of heroin addiction, but if a junkie breaks into their house, affecting their income and family, it is still relevant to them.

 

Imagine if a lefty came on here implying that you were not "normal" for holding your views....you'd accuse them of being a sneering elitist, wouldn't you? Inverted snobbery is no different.

 

 

Clinton won the popular vote and yet people are still sexist, I don't get it.

She lost because she fought a poor campaign and didn't focus on the right areas, it was their for the taking.

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You might be right about Palin.

In 2012, Obama won 55%-44% among women, Romney won 52%-45% among men. 

In 2016, Clinton won 54%-42% among women, Trump 53%-41% among men....a slightly bigger gender gap this time, but only slightly.

 

Why does such a gender gap exist, though? Are women not "normal people" like you? 

Do women not care about their incomes, families, neighbours and country? Presumably they do, but a majority felt those interests would be better served by an Obama or Clinton presidency?

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to as "these people". People mentioning gender as a voting factor? Anyone who doesn't share your right-wing perspective?

 

I care about incomes, family, neighbours and country, but have different views about policies to benefit them. Am I "normal" or abnormal?

I also care about the state of wider society and the wider world (inequality of income and opportunity, climate change, avoiding war). Does that make me non-"normal"?

 

I'm sure most people don't discuss feminism, neo-liberal economics or globalisation - but those issues can still be relevant to them, if they affect their lives. Globalisation taking the US steel industry to Mexico was relevant, wasn't it?

Most people don't discuss the causes of heroin addiction, but if a junkie breaks into their house, affecting their income and family, it is still relevant to them.

 

Imagine if a lefty came on here implying that you were not "normal" for holding your views....you'd accuse them of being a sneering elitist, wouldn't you? Inverted snobbery is no different.

 

 

Exactly what I was going to say. Being pretentious isn't limited to one side of the spectrum, it would seem.

 

And for some of my friends, the election may have not been about identity (gender, race, whatever), as indeed it wasn't, but there are some they have come across since who have it made it very, very much about that for them.

[Parafox]

16 hours ago, GaelicFox said:

The Beano  

 

my appologies it wasn't directed just at you but I'm sorry it did sound condescending 

 

I'm not a catholic by the way , bit stereotypical but being that you may  be an exPara I wouldn't have expected much more  

 

Check ,my profile, I'm not ex-para.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, theessexfox said:

This is about gender, just as it is about race, just as it is about the frustrations of the white middle American working class, reality television, neoliberalism, and a hundred other considerations besides. Zooming in on one issue does not preclude another. But, as Trump becomes politically normalised and his "desperate" supporters are patiently listened to, we risk losing sight of the gender aspect.

 

The fact is, many Americans — male and female — did not want a woman president.

 

4 hours ago, Webbo said:

I guarantee that if Sarah Palin had been the republican candidate there be no talk of voting against her because she was a woman.

 

These people don't realise that nobody cares about all this feminist, neoliberal,globalisation crap. Normal people care about their incomes,families,neighbours and country. All this theoretical crap is irrelevant to them.

The Feminists should cheer up a bit, the French elections are coming soon and a woman has a great chance of winning that.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Hillary Clinton wasn't exactly the 'femanist' candidate being suggested.

 

Equally, I suspect there was some consternation among women themselves over whether to vote for her, given there is no clear concensus among women what feminism is. 

 

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

In hindsight, all the superficial fun and jokes back then turn into some cringeworthy reactionism when you see it today.

That's terrific but also hard to watch, the people being laughed at (not just debated, laughed at) for suggesting he was the best candidate, it wasn't just the "liberal elite" who were out of touch, a lot of the people were as well.

[leicsmac]

False flags, false flags everywhere!

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-student-deportation-letters-minority-classmates-article-1.2869924?utm_content=buffer65c43&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/11/13/reed-college-targeted-by-racist-homophobic-anti-semitic-graffiti/

 

 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Equally, I suspect there was some consternation among women themselves over whether to vote for her, given there is no clear concensus among women what feminism is. 

I would imagine the vast majority of women are feminists by the dictionary definition of the term. I'd imagine the same would go for me.

 

I would imagine the majority of women cringe at the people they have to see on TV week in week out being the ones who speak up for feminism, the ones who exaggerate it to far beyond what it was defined at and end up nine times out of ten completely forgotting the point and whining on about "mansplaining" or about how they are forced to wear high heels.

 

What people are very good at these days is destroying their own cause.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

False flags, false flags everywhere!

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-student-deportation-letters-minority-classmates-article-1.2869924?utm_content=buffer65c43&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/11/13/reed-college-targeted-by-racist-homophobic-anti-semitic-graffiti/

 

 

Writing on a wall? So horrific, I can't leave the house now.!!

 

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/10/man-severely-beaten-by-mob-shouting-you-voted-trump-6248405/

 

Upsetting footage shows a man being badly beaten as he lays in the road, with onlookers shouting ‘He voted Trump!’

The victim, dressed in a blue hoodie and jeans, repeatedly tries to get up and walk back to his car, but the two young men attacking him keeping going, jeered on by a woman filming.

Throughout the video, she shouts out along with another man: ‘He voted Trump! Beat his ass! Don’t vote Trump! Don’t vote Trump!’

 

 

 

 

Why you not mention any of these @leicsmac ??

 

[notnow john]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

I would imagine the vast majority of women are feminists by the dictionary definition of the term. I'd imagine the same would go for me.

 

I would imagine the majority of women cringe at the people they have to see on TV week in week out being the ones who speak up for feminism, the ones who exaggerate it to far beyond what it was defined at and end up nine times out of ten completely forgotting the point and whining on about "mansplaining" or about how they are forced to wear high heels.

 

What people are very good at these days is destroying their own cause.

You're right,I was watching question time last week with a panel of four women , three of whom seemed to be 

in a completion to screech misogynist as often as possible.

Up till then I didn't realise I was one!

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Writing on a wall? So horrific, I can't leave the house now.!!

 

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/10/man-severely-beaten-by-mob-shouting-you-voted-trump-6248405/

 

Upsetting footage shows a man being badly beaten as he lays in the road, with onlookers shouting ‘He voted Trump!’

The victim, dressed in a blue hoodie and jeans, repeatedly tries to get up and walk back to his car, but the two young men attacking him keeping going, jeered on by a woman filming.

Throughout the video, she shouts out along with another man: ‘He voted Trump! Beat his ass! Don’t vote Trump! Don’t vote Trump!’

 

 

 

 

Why you not mention any of these @leicsmac ??

 

I might ask you why you didn't mention this guy. Same article, after all.

 

 

What happens when words stop being words and start becoming deeds? On both sides, come to that?

 

People are afraid.

 

Perhaps I'm taking this personally as I have friends over there who have already been targeted by abuse, but hey: I only have their word to go on and its only words, right? Sticks and stones and all that?

[bovril]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Writing on a wall? So horrific, I can't leave the house now.!!

 

I imagine there are probably quite a few people who do feel like that.

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You might be right about Palin.

In 2012, Obama won 55%-44% among women, Romney won 52%-45% among men. 

In 2016, Clinton won 54%-42% among women, Trump 53%-41% among men....a slightly bigger gender gap this time, but only slightly.

 

Why does such a gender gap exist, though? Are women not "normal people" like you? 

Do women not care about their incomes, families, neighbours and country? Presumably they do, but a majority felt those interests would be better served by an Obama or Clinton presidency?

 

I'm not sure who you're referring to as "these people". People mentioning gender as a voting factor? Anyone who doesn't share your right-wing perspective?

 

I care about incomes, family, neighbours and country, but have different views about policies to benefit them. Am I "normal" or abnormal?

I also care about the state of wider society and the wider world (inequality of income and opportunity, climate change, avoiding war). Does that make me non-"normal"?

 

I'm sure most people don't discuss feminism, neo-liberal economics or globalisation - but those issues can still be relevant to them, if they affect their lives. Globalisation taking the US steel industry to Mexico was relevant, wasn't it?

Most people don't discuss the causes of heroin addiction, but if a junkie breaks into their house, affecting their income and family, it is still relevant to them.

 

Imagine if a lefty came on here implying that you were not "normal" for holding your views....you'd accuse them of being a sneering elitist, wouldn't you? Inverted snobbery is no different.

 

 

In my experience most women don't care about those subjects either.

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Exactly what I was going to say. Being pretentious isn't limited to one side of the spectrum, it would seem.

 

And for some of my friends, the election may have not been about identity (gender, race, whatever), as indeed it wasn't, but there are some they have come across since who have it made it very, very much about that for them.

It's not a case of being pretentious. If you've got  a well paid job,a big house, plenty of money, a nanny to look after the kids and nothing important to worry about these things might be important to you. To ordinary people just getting by whether a female barrister earning £500k a year is getting £10k less per year than her male colleague  who hasn't had 10 years off to have children is of no importance to them.

[AKCJ]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Writing on a wall? So horrific, I can't leave the house now.!!

 

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/10/man-severely-beaten-by-mob-shouting-you-voted-trump-6248405/

 

Upsetting footage shows a man being badly beaten as he lays in the road, with onlookers shouting ‘He voted Trump!’

The victim, dressed in a blue hoodie and jeans, repeatedly tries to get up and walk back to his car, but the two young men attacking him keeping going, jeered on by a woman filming.

Throughout the video, she shouts out along with another man: ‘He voted Trump! Beat his ass! Don’t vote Trump! Don’t vote Trump!’

 

 

 

 

Why you not mention any of these @leicsmac ??

 

Come off it Matt.

 

Both sides of this coin are in the wrong. There's been plenty of discussion about how wrong it is to physically attack someone for their political views and i've seen you write two or three posts like the one i've quoted.

 

The only one who seems incapable of condemning their own "side" is you.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's not a case of being pretentious. If you've got  a well paid job,a big house, plenty of money, a nanny to look after the kids and nothing important to worry about these things might be important to you. To ordinary people just getting by whether a female barrister earning £500k a year is getting £10k less per year than her male colleague  who hasn't had 10 years off to have children is of no importance to them.

Sorry, I missed your point then. I totally agree that a lot of "ordinary" (tenuous subjective definition) people have been overlooked because their issues are ones of economics as opposed to identity.

 

My point is that there is a key social division issue too that is affecting a lot of people,  and we can pretend that it isn't based on gender and race, but the upswing in incidents following last week indicates otherwise. Dismissing it isn't going to make it go away.