RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:Donald's success seemingly stems from two points, first his dad made a lot of money, second when your debts run high enough it goes from being your problem to the bank's problem.

This, and the ridiculous American tax code which seems to let you trade corporate losses for personal tax rebates.

That is indeed somewhat odd. Indeed it's hard to see why you wouldn't burn a business or two.

Digby wrote:

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:The worrying part is what comes after Trump. He mayn't win, but he's gotten awfully close running a horrible campaign based on fear, which suggests someone could be more successful with a still more extreme message than Trump has carried. I'd like to think the Republicans would set about putting their house in order, mind I'd also like the two parties to try and work together, but in both instances there seems little chance.

Not half as scary to non-Americans as the fact Hillary Clinton is going to be elected despite her long list of war crimes and pledges (and threats) of more of the same to come. The people of the Middle East have a great deal more to fear from Clinton than anyone does from Trump - even if you regard him as a serious candidate at all.

I'm not American, and not especially worried about Hillary being president. I couldn't say I'm especially a fan of Hillary, just not worried.

& are you living in the Middle East? Are you a Muslim? I mean, I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they are the direct beneficiaries of the colonial age, so why would they concern themselves about neo-colonialism and aggressive US imperialism? It's all just another Hollywood movie to them. But if you happened to be living in the Middle East, Africa or Latin America this would likely be your main political concern. I see the evidence of America's wars walking around in the streets every day, in their ever-increasing multitudes, begging for money and food, and sleeping in parks and shop doorways. Clinton has not only pledged to continue in this vein, she has threatened to up the ante.

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:

rowan wrote:
Not half as scary to non-Americans as the fact Hillary Clinton is going to be elected despite her long list of war crimes and pledges (and threats) of more of the same to come. The people of the Middle East have a great deal more to fear from Clinton than anyone does from Trump - even if you regard him as a serious candidate at all.

I'm not American, and not especially worried about Hillary being president. I couldn't say I'm especially a fan of Hillary, just not worried.

& are you living in the Middle East? Are you a Muslim? I mean, I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they are the direct beneficiaries of the colonial age, so why would they concern themselves about neo-colonialism and aggressive US imperialism? It's all just another Hollywood movie to them. But if you happened to be living in the Middle East, Africa or Latin America this would likely be your main political concern. I see the evidence of America's wars walking around in the streets every day, in their ever-increasing multitudes, begging for money and food, and sleeping in parks and shop doorways. Clinton has not only pledged to continue in this vein, she has threatened to up the ante.

Ah, so not just not an American.

And for those in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Muslims there's plenty to be cracking on with long before worrying about the US of A.

Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

morepork wrote:Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

There's always a lot of talk during election year, MP. Whats the actual reality of change once her Lordship enters office?

I looked back at some newspaper articles of 2008 and 2012, and they are eerily familiar. "This is not an ordinary election, we must stop that idiot Palin getting in power - vote Democrat and then change the party from within". "This isn't an ordinary election, we must stop that non-American Obama from getting in power - vote Republican and then change the party from within".

Its always a "special election". You must always "vote to stop the other" getting in.

Trump is an idiot and will be defeated. Many will rightly breathe a sigh of relief for another nightmare avoided, meanwhile probably the most establishment-focussed candidate there has ever been walks into the White House. Good luck with the "dialogue on the ground", my friend.

jared_7 wrote:

morepork wrote:Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

There's always a lot of talk during election year, MP. Whats the actual reality of change once her Lordship enters office?

I looked back at some newspaper articles of 2008 and 2012, and they are eerily familiar. "This is not an ordinary election, we must stop that idiot Palin getting in power - vote Democrat and then change the party from within". "This isn't an ordinary election, we must stop that non-American Obama from getting in power - vote Republican and then change the party from within".

Its always a "special election". You must always "vote to stop the other" getting in.

Trump is an idiot and will be defeated. Many will rightly breathe a sigh of relief for another nightmare avoided, meanwhile probably the most establishment-focussed candidate there has ever been walks into the White House. Good luck with the "dialogue on the ground", my friend.

That template was refined by GW Bush and his band of merry men. You think it is any different in other Western countries? Look at our own PM and his Crosby Textor government. Are all Kiwis defined by that sock puppet?

The chance of any meaningful change is near zero. You can roll the dice on the education reform she "planned with Bernie". There is the real possibility of more war and the Hilldog will be mandated to let NATO off it's leash. That is a very real problem. People here are aware of this. More acutely than people that are not here.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

morepork wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

morepork wrote:Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

There's always a lot of talk during election year, MP. Whats the actual reality of change once her Lordship enters office?

I looked back at some newspaper articles of 2008 and 2012, and they are eerily familiar. "This is not an ordinary election, we must stop that idiot Palin getting in power - vote Democrat and then change the party from within". "This isn't an ordinary election, we must stop that non-American Obama from getting in power - vote Republican and then change the party from within".

Its always a "special election". You must always "vote to stop the other" getting in.

Trump is an idiot and will be defeated. Many will rightly breathe a sigh of relief for another nightmare avoided, meanwhile probably the most establishment-focussed candidate there has ever been walks into the White House. Good luck with the "dialogue on the ground", my friend.

That template was refined by GW Bush and his band of merry men. You think it is any different in other Western countries? Look at our own PM and his Crosby Textor government. Are all Kiwis defined by that sock puppet?

The chance of any meaningful change is near zero. You can roll the dice on the education reform she "planned with Bernie". There is the real possibility of more war and the Hilldog will be mandated to let NATO off it's leash. That is a very real problem. People here are aware of this. More acutely than people that are not here.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

A bit chippy, mate? I wasn't defining anyone, or saying other countries were any better - I was actually asking for your opinion on the likelihood of actual change once Clinton gets in as I value your opinion. It seems to me as though a lot of talk is done in election years, the same old arguments are brought out etc... and that change is even less likely under Clinton than say Obama who ran a campaign on it. What do you see as the path to change, if it was to occur?

I am chippy.

For my money, inequality is the greatest barrier to real progress. Someone has to commit to initiating long term changes to education health and labour rights, and it will only happen if actual policies are formed across party lines, and that in turn will only happen if corporate lobbysists are taken out of the equation. Clinton is very much a product of a long relationship with lobby groups. The upcoming generation needs equitable access to education and training in the absence of crippling debt. The process of taking the wind out of this current parasitic trickle up economic system needs to start now, and the government needs to stand up to the monster it has created. If these things are undertaken, the public will start having a bit more faith in the ability of an election to contribute to meaningful change instead of just getting into an irrational rage over utter bullshit every four years.

Simple, yeah?

MP for President.

morepork wrote:Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

Hmmmm...interesting.
It always seemed to me that there was a reasonable amount of informed political debate in the UK. Just enough that stupid decisions could be reined in by letting the adults sort it out. But in the last 10 years I've had that belief firmly colon-cleansed.
There is no Sir Humphrey, no patrician public servants preventing corporate types from dictating policy, no more Robin Day or Brian Walden publicly ripping up the spoon-fed beliefs of the useless MP's and most frightening of all the general public really are thicker than 100 short planks.
I've met lots of intellectual and informed Americans ( I make a concerted effort to hide my overwhelming relief when I do meet them) but like the UK there just aren't enough of them to stop the idiots making a total balls of our planet.
We laud ourselves for western democracy, millions have died for it, but if this is where it's leading us I wonder why we bothered.

If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

Agree with that. The exception will be her military campaigns, such as her pledge/threat to remove Assad. There won't be any problem acquiring the funding - and backing - for that, of course.

rowan wrote:If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

juvenile, over-defensive accusation you say?

Lick me you cock goblin.

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

It's an interesting feature of western democracy that the newly elected leaders' first task is coming to terms with how little power they actually have.
Geldof, about Africa, said that autocracy might sometimes be the best option as it sped up the timeframes.

morepork wrote:juvenile, over-defensive accusation you say?

Lick me you cock goblin.

Aaa-ha. Early onset.
Don't get so precious, Rowan. We're reading it you silly c*nt. What more do you want..?..

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

It's an interesting feature of western democracy that the newly elected leaders' first task is coming to terms with how little power they actually have.
Geldof, about Africa, said that autocracy might sometimes be the best option as it sped up the timeframes.

The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

It's an interesting feature of western democracy that the newly elected leaders' first task is coming to terms with how little power they actually have.
Geldof, about Africa, said that autocracy might sometimes be the best option as it sped up the timeframes.

The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Theoretically it's the best system, but in practice it's the worst.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Because our 2nd house can only delay..?.
I definitely get the feeling that the success of any of our parliamentary parties is now decided purely by the success of the square mile.

I just wanna see Trump win now. There's is just no way he will be able to do the things he has promised, so watching the fallout from that will be worth the ticket price alone.

Would love to see other world leaders deal with him on any number of issues. As much as I detest the cunt, Trump as POTUS would provide some cheerful moments.

WaspInWales wrote:I just wanna see Trump win now. There's is just no way he will be able to do the things he has promised, so watching the fallout from that will be worth the ticket price alone.

Would love to see other world leaders deal with him on any number of issues. As much as I detest the cunt, Trump as POTUS would provide some cheerful moments.

Not for long it wouldn't, he'd about turn faster than Boris winning a referendum

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Because our 2nd house can only delay..?.
I definitely get the feeling that the success of any of our parliamentary parties is now decided purely by the success of the square mile.

Not only that but s/he can stack the Lords if necessary. That's as well as an inbuilt majority in the Commons for the financing of policy.