American Election Discussion

MrsGrey

It can only be a matter of time before he does, alderz.


;wink

alderz

Well, if you're going to lie about everything else, why not lie about seeing the future too!

Yeoldhammer

I saw the future and West Ham got relegated.

Relegation deal with it ;cool

grey_til_I_dye

Kuching

I get that you were joking, but let's be clear that everything here gets past 'grammarians' and anyone else if it meets site rules.

We don't allow people to comment on the punctuation, grammar or style of other users.

claretandbluesky

I think this piece below describes a very real danger. I think there is also an attempt to condemn the attempt to become ever more civilised as political correctness and belittle it or cast it as lefty or liberal. I think the big change we have are seeing is that politics will soon not be aligned by blue or red here or in the US but where you stand on the matter of national leaning and tolerance, are you opening out or closing in. The victories for Trump and Brexit here were claimed very much on a nationalistic platform with walls, sovereignty, imigartion etc winning the day.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-39048293

Dodger58

Claret, whilst accepting that some voted Brexit due to the nationalistic platform, others actually voted for it as they see the UK dealing equally with the whole World, not just Europe ... In my view, and some others, the EU itself is insular and protectionist ...

alderz

Dodger

Whilst I agree that the reasons behind people voting were probably not nationalistic, there is no doubting that there was a nationalist tone to the campaigning.

claretandbluesky

I agree with you both as it is not possible to scrutinise and claim how such masses of people voted and their would have been a few reasons to the fore among those that voted either way, but as Alderz has pointed out the tone behind both Brexit and Trump was definitely nationalistic and so quite naturally appealed to the nationalistic among us. Even now Theresa May is having something termed a 'red white and blue brexit.... whatever that means.

I think both here and in the US politicians will pitch to one or the other and democrats and labour will not be able to rely on their usual support base and Conservative and republican will begin to be less able to rely on theirs should they begin to be seen to be too far to the right and driven there by the more nationalistic members of their party.

New political times both in the US and here.

TheMadcapLaughs

Nationalism always rears its ugly head when things are tough. People need other people to blame. The irony of it is that those that point the finger and encourage others are normally the ones who are the real culprits and use nationalism as a deflection, a smokescreen. The one thing I find difficult in all this is understanding what multiculturalism is, what its aims are, and whether, on the face of it, it appears to be failing. A controversial view I know. But when you think of cultural/societal loyalty; it starts first and foremost with the family, it may then spread to neighbours, work colleagues and possibly to your village or immediate community. But beyond that and the lines become blurred.
We, as a species, appear to be tribal and identify with people who have same/similar beliefs, goals and lifestyles. We feel threatened by "outsiders", by people that appear to have different beliefs or basically may just look different. These fears may or may not be rational, they may stem from something hidden deep in the human psyche. The one thing for certain is that these fears appear real. The majority of foreigners when entering a new country look for the familiar. English people moving to Spain may look for other English people, familiar shops, bars that show football and eateries offering all day breakfasts. Any "alien" set of people setting up communities in non native countries tend to group together, you have "China Town" the "Italian Quarter" the "Jewish Quarter" etc etc etc.
Whenever and wherever there are migrations of people it seems almost a foregone conclusion that people from the same parts of the World will group together. The poorer the sets of immigrants the more ghettoised they tend to become. I`m not saying that any of this is right or wrong, it just seems to be what happens and has happened throughout history. If we are looking to form multicultural nations; are we saying that multiculturalism is to be just a collection of separate, disparate, isolated communities, or are we saying that multiculturalism is or should be people from different races, cultures and belief systems mixing freely. I should imagine that we are looking to achieve the latter, however, the former seems to be more prevalent.
It seems to be the accepted norm that multiculturalism is the desired goal, that anyone who thinks or voices anything to the contrary is racist. What if multiculturalism isn`t a "natural" or "normal" trait of the human condition. What if we are programmed to rail against anything that we consider outside of our perceived accepted norms. Now this isn`t said from a racist perspective, it is not assuming that one set of belief systems is superior to another, or one race is superior to another, it is just acknowledging, that despite us all being human, we are all different, and perhaps some of us are "too different". Put it this way if your house was subject to a compulsory purchase order as two new towns were being built and you had to choose one to live in, which would you choose, Spud Town or Hammer Town.
This may seem an odd view or an odd argument for someone who doesn`t believe in the nation state or arbitrary borders. Nationalism, jingoism, militarism are perhaps the greatest of all evils but recognising that different cultures may clash and different cultures living cheek by jowl may lead to (avoidable) "tensions" is surely worth debating without the word racist being chucked about and without the premise that multiculturalism (not sure myself what it means) is the only desired and correct scenario.
The logical conclusion of multiculturalism (if I`ve understood it correctly) would surely mean that humanity becomes homogenised. Cultural identity, cultural diversity becomes increasingly blurred and the very differences that we celebrate will become lost. This may be a good thing, perhaps we`ll have nothing left to fight about. But at the same time it also seems to be self defeating ,we`ll end up, if we`re not careful with a "monoculture".

claretandbluesky

A controversial view I know. But when you think of cultural/societal loyalty; it starts first and foremost with the family, it may then spread to neighbours, work colleagues and possibly to your village or immediate community. But beyond that and the lines become blurred.



I think this observation is the question we are attempting to find out - Can this spreading out extend to humanity as a whole or will it always stop somewhere before that, will we always have an 'other'. I think many of us find it difficult to accept that humanity may have such limitations that it will always identify itself through incidentals of language, colour etc and be unable to recognise one as all, even though history does tend point to this being the case.

What is happening politically at present and has been throughout time is that these differences are being exploited and glued to the very real problems currently being experienced by many. How you feeling? It's because of the EU, it's because of the Mexicans, it's because of the Muslims etc.

I feel when confronted with this tactic by political power mongers we need ask ourselves if it is true, is this problem is due to those they say it is? In some cases and in some cases it may well be and we need acknowledge this as a possibility, but then if it is even then ask can we get around this without walls, without bans, without pulling up the drawbridge? for me this keeps us on the path to truly exploring if it is possible to extend our 'us' to include all of humanity.

As John Lennon once said 'you may call me a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one'.

Although someone did shoot him of course.

MrsGrey

There are so many assumptions and generalisations I disagree with in your post Madcap.

I also think there are flaws in your argument, as well as contradictions.

I'm also interested that you seem to be locating the source of the 'problems' we have in society in 'human nature'. When previously, you have ascribed it to a political system, and I remember when the view was offered that its not democracy that's the problem, but people, you rejected that thesis.

TheMadcapLaughs

I can't remember where I read it but the optimum size of a commune was 500, anything above that and things start falling apart. Cooperation has to be a two way street and we may have to accept that some people want to live by a different set of values and integration is not possible. It is the imposition of values upon others that is the problem. Expecting middle eastern countries to embrace western type democracy seems perfectly reasonable to us but maybe anathema to that region and peoples. I think the conversation needs to be more along cultural lines rather than racial religious or ethnic lines. I am beginning to wonder if multiculturalism is workable, surely if a society is to be successful it needs to have common goals and values, there are obvious clashes between some cultures which is why some communities seem to be self segregating. I don't see that as necessarily wrong, as long as individuals within communities are free to choose which side of the fence they want to be and that the reasons they want to be there is because they agree with and want to be a part of the overarching ethos of that community. The lyrics of imagine, by the way, could almost be an anarcho communist anthem.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs g. All I am offering up are alternative views. The arguments may be inconsistent .
And plain wrong. What I am suggesting is that mass migrations are not natural to the human condition, they are generally enforced by failed politics. I'm also not suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to live where they want in the world, they should. What I'm asking is multiculturalism a natural human condition or a socio political experiment. I also think humans are tribal, but don't see that as a problem or the necessary cause of problems. Most social sciences are based on assumptions and generalisations.

MrsGrey

Apparently Gove has been interviewed (wide-ranging, although it does touch on his Trump interview and the role of Murdoch.) In this interview, where he is the subject, he says Trump is “clearly narcissistic”. He also said, “My hunch is that he will see through this term and then he will lose the next election. Knowing that he might lose, he might find some means of quitting while he thinks he is ahead, though I suspect that his ego will mean he will both want to see what he can do in office and he will believe that he can prevail against whoever the Democrat opponent is.”

;hmm

OutcastLondoner

Gove's a student of the art of being ITK.

IronHerb

He was talking about himself, surely.

ASLEFshrugged

From Private Eye's number crunching

0 - deaths from violence in Sweden on 17 February, despite Trump saying 'look at what's happening last night in Sweden''

32 - fatal shootings in USA on 17 February out of a total of 128 violent incidents involving guns

TheMadcapLaughs

I know America is a big place. But 32 fatal shootings in one day is bonkers. What a waste of life. The gun lobby is a powerful voice in America and "the right to bear arms" appears to be deeply entrenched in the American psyche. The logic is is that the bad guys have guns, so I need a gun. Understandable I suppose and almost impossible to break the cycle.

Mrs G. I don`t think Trump is a quitter. He will see this out to the bitter end and I guarantee he will run next time. I think he is partial to a little bit of power.

IronHerb

He's more partial to golf by all accounts

alderz

He's already started campaigning for 2020

ASLEFshrugged

Madcap - what is surprising is that surveys suggest that less than 40% of US households have access to a gun even though there are more guns than people.

There are some people out there with a lot of guns at home.....

OutcastLondoner

Given the amount of work I've had to do on Trump I really sympathise with these guys.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-interpreters-donald-trump-translate-struggle-us-president-white-house-speech-talking-style-a7596986.html

MrsGrey

SuzanneClaret

grey_til_I_dye

I am almost impressed by Trump trying to blame the Democrats for the failure.

'We couldn't get one Democrat.'

Well, really? Can't think why.

And, er, given that the Republicans have a majority in both houses, why would they need one?

thornburyiron

Because some of the republicans wanted an even harder new healthcare and I think they outnumbered the ones who opposed it.

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

Sorry, yes I knew that.

My point was that to blame the Democrats because Republicans can't agree among themselves is ludicrous.

thornburyiron

Absolutely. I don't suppose all the democrats agreed on the healthcare plan among themselves either but they I expect they all agreed to vote against it anyway.

MrsGrey

I imagine a big part of why they voted against it was that it would result in 24m people having no health insurance, over time.

It is mind-boggling, isn't it - we who are used to the NHS, to try to imagine a system where you can simply be too poor to get medical treatment you need. And so you might die, because your illness is treatable but you aren't rich enough to be saved. It's mind-boggling to me, anyway.

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

Well, given that they likely voted for the original healthcare bill, it was always going to be unlikely they would agree to its abolition and replacement with something that did less.