Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
If he was I would at least feel he listens !
trump for president good/bad for ireland
- Thread starter johnwilliams
- Start date
If he was I would at least feel he listens !
He gave the cheque to Nigel Farage at their meeting last week.
S
S.L.F
Guest
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I find it amazing the amount of punditry around why The Donald won. It is like watching one of those football panels telling us how the winning team won because of control of the centre left back when we lay folk were all thinking that they were actually lucky to get that own goal.
Clinton won the national vote by a fairly comfortable 1% which is BTW within the margin of error of the polls taken close to the date. So perhaps the punditry should be targeted at the quirks of the electoral college system rather than attempting profound socio demographic analyses.
Nonetheless the size of The Donald's vote would merit such analysis even if he hadn't won. A letter in this morning's IT points out that Catholics gave The Donald a whopping 60/37 lead over Clinton. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy had expressed strong preference for the groper over the anti lifer.
There is no doubt that if this demographic had split 50/50 Clinton would have been the clear winner. The Donald was always going to get the rednecks, the deplorables, the rust belt left behinds, the klansmen, but was he always going to get 60% of the Catholic vote? Some of the WikiLeaks stuff revealed the antipathy of Clinton towards the Catholic church. Was this her own goal?
Clinton won the national vote by a fairly comfortable 1% which is BTW within the margin of error of the polls taken close to the date. So perhaps the punditry should be targeted at the quirks of the electoral college system rather than attempting profound socio demographic analyses.
Nonetheless the size of The Donald's vote would merit such analysis even if he hadn't won. A letter in this morning's IT points out that Catholics gave The Donald a whopping 60/37 lead over Clinton. Elements of the Catholic hierarchy had expressed strong preference for the groper over the anti lifer.
There is no doubt that if this demographic had split 50/50 Clinton would have been the clear winner. The Donald was always going to get the rednecks, the deplorables, the rust belt left behinds, the klansmen, but was he always going to get 60% of the Catholic vote? Some of the WikiLeaks stuff revealed the antipathy of Clinton towards the Catholic church. Was this her own goal?
Last edited:
So Catholics are responsible for electing Trump? The IT has an anti Catholic and pro abortion agenda. Do you think that many Catholics listen to the Catholic hierarchy? I doubt it. Ardent pro lifers, Catholic or otherwise, will have voted for Trump with an eye on Supreme Court appointments.
These people made a difference for sure. Same thing in the UK and across Europe. People feel they are being left behind and are voting for right-wing, protectionist political parties (wrongly) thinking it will make a difference. The world has moved on and those heavy industry jobs will never come back.
S
S.L.F
Guest
The college system is a very fair system otherwise political reps would only concentrate in areas of high population.
Clinton said a child can be aborted up to hours before birth and that she was fine with that.
Whatever about abortion in the early weeks, that is just plain down right evil.
As well as rednecks, the deplorables, the rust belt left behinds, the klansmen, don't forget that White women voted more for him than Clinton.
My own view is that the entire left is at fault for this.
It's a bit salty but here's Jonathon Pie's explanation of why Trump won see ...here
Now, now my jammy friend, we are supposed to listen, empathise, and try to understand.
Actually there is nothing wrong with a voter deciding that Trump's economic policies were more in their interests than Clintons. Someone working in manufacturing in the US could reasonably think that Trump, given his seemingly genuine, certainly long term, opposition to free trade was more likely to preserve their economic prosperity than Clinton. Voting in your own best interest's is the idea of representative democracy.
Brexit voters on the other hand deserve all the scorn you can muster.
S
S.L.F
Guest
I support Brexit actually, I wish we'd get out of it as well
The reason is complex but I'll put into a simple sentence.
If the EU was to stick to being a trade partnership I'd be all for it.
This business of them forcing the Marxist/feminist/ lefty ideology down our necks is not something I think is a good thing by any means.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
S.L.F. That's a brilliant clip from Jonathan Pie, and thanks for the flash photography warning
The consensus is that the polls got it badly wrong on Brexit and Trump and the conventional wisdom is that it was because people are afraid to admit that they are for the non PC option. I think that is a bit over simplistic. The Brexit polls even swung in favour of Brexit for a period in the couple of weeks before the vote. Clinton's average poll of polls lead on election day was +3%, she got +1%, which as I said is well within the margin of error.
The pollsters get a hammering from both camps. The deplorables say "stuff your polls, we showed you". The respectables are in such a state of shock they scapegoat the pollsters saying "how did you get it so wrong?".
The consensus is that the polls got it badly wrong on Brexit and Trump and the conventional wisdom is that it was because people are afraid to admit that they are for the non PC option. I think that is a bit over simplistic. The Brexit polls even swung in favour of Brexit for a period in the couple of weeks before the vote. Clinton's average poll of polls lead on election day was +3%, she got +1%, which as I said is well within the margin of error.
The pollsters get a hammering from both camps. The deplorables say "stuff your polls, we showed you". The respectables are in such a state of shock they scapegoat the pollsters saying "how did you get it so wrong?".
Some of the brexiteers saw the EU in much the way you outline, Daniel Hannan being a leading and very articulate example.
On the other hand some of the leavers saw the EU as the tool of corporate interests, pushing a neoliberal agenda, oppressing workers. Gisela Stuart the labour MP for example.
They can't both be right, they can't both implement their vision to shape the UK outside Europe.
In my opinion the EU does much to protect workers and citizens generally, and the neoliberal's are going to rip into Britain over the coming years. Oh well, if they free the economy and oppress the workers Ireland should benefit from that. And I must admit there is some part of me that thinks the imperial proletariat deserve everything they are going to get. I should try to think more generous thoughts.
S
S.L.F
Guest
Is it not possible for both to be correct?
The EU is an enormous organisation
Probably not!
Like I said if they stuck to being a trading partnership as compared to an organisation determined to push Marxist onto us I'd be happy.
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
I ain,t arguing with the obvious !
People will vote for change , but i am sure they didn,t vote for the verbiage that came from Mr Trump,
Because now he can ,with justification, say the people voted on some of the outlandish utterances he made . .
I hope most of his actions are not based on his more (unusual) campaign utterances.
Fingers crossed.
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
{Like I said if they stuck to being a trading partnership as compared to an organisation determined to push Marxist onto us I'd be happy.[/QUOTE]
Come on now , stop throwing Marxist etc about , please !
Since 1973 the EU has improved the lives of their people . Flawed and all as people seem to think , over 40 odd years it has been largely successful for its people . I am not sure there is any trading bloc that has done so well for so many people .
And a good part of that success was social , not just trading.
Come on now , stop throwing Marxist etc about , please !
Since 1973 the EU has improved the lives of their people . Flawed and all as people seem to think , over 40 odd years it has been largely successful for its people . I am not sure there is any trading bloc that has done so well for so many people .
And a good part of that success was social , not just trading.
You are dead right about this Gerry. And if that is too much bother for "grumpy and disgruntled from, wherever," to understand then tough on them.
I agree. Most of the socially liberal legislation we have grew from the EU influence.
That said I do have a problem with the maternalistic nature of much of the employment legislation, in particular the maximum working week.
Oh, and I see little wrong with throwing Marxists about
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I don't think The Donald has any principles, and that is a good thing. But I don't like the gangsters he his recruiting to his team. One guy has called Islam a cancer. I doubt if in the early days of the Third Reich even Goebbels would have described Judaism as a cancer.
Dick Spring described CJH as a cancer... a chancer maybe but a cancer?
Just for context, did he not call it a cancer in terms of it being an ideology rather than a religion?
What's the difference?