LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   [World-Politics] - Populism, how far will it go? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/%5Bworld-politics%5D-populism-how-far-will-it-go-4175597917/)

Jeebizz 01-20-2017 04:12 PM

[World-Politics] - Populism, how far will it go?
 
Of the times I follow world events and politics - I think I am beginning to see now that clearly there is a rise in the populist movement - the most significant in chronological order is Brexit and the US elections.

Brexit itself wasn't without it's fight on both sides and fear mongering of both sides - one indicating that if you wanted to leave the EU - you were anti immigration, and if you wanted to stay in the EU you were seen by those who wanted to leave as subservient almost to Brussels and to Angela Merkel.

Also one of the other consequences of the UK leaving the EU is Scotland, and now I am very curious when there will be another push for Scotland to break away FROM the UK and go back into the EU, since it seemed that the majority of consensus there is that they were more pro-EU. Now besides Scotland - a few other countries in the EU I will now closely be looking at are France, Holland and Germany since they will have elections there this year (Mar. 15 for Holland, Apr. 23 for France and Sept 24 for Germany.)

It is very likely that Marie Le Pen could win or have a good chance, not really sure about Wilders and I haven't looked at who are the candidates for Germany yet, but in my opinion it is possible that those countries will also move towards the right.

With Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as POTUS - in my opinion is that most people at this point were really tired of not just the establishment - but more importantly and this is my opinion - the majority of people are tired in general of the 'political correctness' atmosphere. It seems to me that the left at this point in time, no longer really had ANY sort of legitimate argument for it's side, and more crucially what happened is that their own inability to ACTUALLY debate. You see this I think now recently with Trump. The left has pretty much gone ALL OUT to paint Trump as a bigoted/sexist freak, and not only that they also showed their own ignorance after the elections and now after the inauguration. Any sort of differing opinion, you are automatically branded as sexist, racist, etc - thats it! That is what their argument solely was on the opposition of Trump, and he won. Same with Brexit - if you vote to leave the EU, you are xenophobic, you are this, you are that.

Everyone I think has had enough of that. There IS no discussion anymore, because unfortunately the left has been hijacking the narrative much too long. You could see the primarily on university campuses in the US. They only have themselves to blame for all this in my opinion. The idea that your morals are so right and superior that you can do whatever you can to shut down the other side just because you disagree with someone else because their view do not coincide with yours. Sorry, that is NOT a democracy.

PC culture in my views has become so obnoxious with 'safe spaces' there is no room enough for any sort of discord. I'm all for not being solely offensive intentionally, but at the very same time, you CANNOT stifle someone else because all of the sudden their views are offensive. Hell just look at all the reactions SJWs on youtube in general - they are seen as childish and rightfully so. I blame them for the moving to the right.

So now going back to the countries listed - Is it possible that Le Pen could win? Sure why not? Same with Wilders and whoever will be running in the German elections.

-edit

Again, I think Jonathan Pie has it right. - Identity politics, social issues - Why Trump Won

-edit2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-uNxmNj5o

sundialsvcs 01-20-2017 10:10 PM

I think that "populism" and "globalism" are both flaming out ... and, they should.

After all, "what does Brussels have to do with London, anyway?" Why should a "trade" agreement say that another country's courts are supreme to your own? Why should it say that you must accept anyone from anywhere ... that you can't control your own immigration policy ... even though you are a very crowded island? And, so on.

I happen to agree with You-Know-Who that, if you put your own country first and expect everyone else to do the same with their country, you get a strong and resilient social system that can actually work. Nothing else does. There's a very good reason why we draw lines in the sand and call them "borders," and why we say that each nation is sovereign within them.

Jeebizz 01-20-2017 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5658061)
I think that "populism" and "globalism" are both flaming out ... and, they should.

Yes, but what will come after? Also at this point I do feel populism will return for this time, due to the previous years of globalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5658061)
After all, "what does Brussels have to do with London, anyway?" Why should a "trade" agreement say that another country's courts are supreme to your own? Why should it say that you must accept anyone from anywhere ... that you can't control your own immigration policy ... even though you are a very crowded island? And, so on.

You and I do not live in the EU, we live in the US - but in the EU there are quotas for everything it seems, and you aptly pointed out - what does Brussels have to do with London? Everything, London no longer wants to be dictated from Brussels. Why do you see also that Hungary has refused to take in X amount of refugees set by the EU? The UK sees itself as a sovereign nation and rightfully so, nobody but the people in the UK can dictate how they control entry to the UK, not Brussels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5658061)
I happen to agree with You-Know-Who that, if you put your own country first and expect everyone else to do the same with their country, you get a strong and resilient social system that can actually work. Nothing else does. There's a very good reason why we draw lines in the sand and call them "borders," and why we say that each nation is sovereign within them.

However it is that very view by some who thinks it is 'inhumane', 'racist' or whatever. Any sort of 'drawing lines' is wrong completely, never mind that there are logical reasons for doing so. Trump ran on that - however he seemed to be painted clearly as fully anti-immigration, etc. Same with Brexit - vote to leave the EU, and you're a monster. That argument doesn't work anymore, and rightfully so. There is a limit, people will start speaking out why should they bear the burden of refugees - any sort of descent and you are a monster even though, their concerns are perfectly valid - is it feasible to take on said burden? What about the native populace at hand? Is it really racist to think such things? Well, it seems to the left that it is - this is just one example of many why I see these things coming into play. I am not anti immigration, but there are limits.

Populism and globalism are on their way out, and I hope so too but now I feel that everything will and is turning the populist direction as a one last gasp as well. I could be wrong, this is just a theory anyways.

sundialsvcs 01-21-2017 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 5658065)
However it is that very view by some who thinks it is 'inhumane', 'racist' or whatever. Any sort of 'drawing lines' is wrong completely, never mind that there are logical reasons for doing so. Trump ran on that - however he seemed to be painted clearly as fully anti-immigration, etc. Same with Brexit - vote to leave the EU, and you're a monster. That argument doesn't work anymore, and rightfully so. There is a limit, people will start speaking out why should they bear the burden of refugees - any sort of descent and you are a monster even though, their concerns are perfectly valid - is it feasible to take on said burden? What about the native populace at hand? Is it really racist to think such things? Well, it seems to the left that it is - this is just one example of many why I see these things coming into play. I am not anti immigration, but there are limits.

And we have to be careful about what we mean by "immigration." As I have expressed before, our "non-immigrant visa" programs in the US are merely a thinly-disguised version of the "involuntary servitude" ... if not outright "slavery" ... that was prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Today, millions of people have been "imported" under an alphabet-soup of NI-V programs, being called "the best and the brightest" as though it was impossible to find such people here ... a flagrant subterfuge that, magically, no one in Washington ever saw fit to oppose. ("Guest worker" also falls out of the former-Presidents' mouths.)

I think that the British plainly saw people being poured onto their tiny island, by a distant "Brussels, DC" federal government of "The United States of Europe," and they slammed the door shut as they quite properly should.

The European Union was meant to be a common market, not a new world government. It was a trade agreement. Likewise it is absurd for companies to "sue the United State in a kangaroo court made up of businessmen" under agreements such as NAFTA or the now-dead TPP. "Facilitating trade" does not mean that you must – nor, that you ever should – give up your sovereignty. Trade means that sovereign governments must agree ... because they choose to. Because it is, in their judgment, the right thing to do for their people.

Jeebizz 01-21-2017 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5658230)
And we have to be careful about what we mean by "immigration." As I have expressed before, our "non-immigrant visa" programs in the US are merely a thinly-disguised version of the "involuntary servitude" ... if not outright "slavery" ... that was prohibited by the 13th Amendment. Today, millions of people have been "imported" under an alphabet-soup of NI-V programs, being called "the best and the brightest" as though it was impossible to find such people here ... a flagrant subterfuge that, magically, no one in Washington ever saw fit to oppose. ("Guest worker" also falls out of the former-Presidents' mouths.)

I think that the British plainly saw people being poured onto their tiny island, by a distant "Brussels, DC" federal government of "The United States of Europe," and they slammed the door shut as they quite properly should.

The European Union was meant to be a common market, not a new world government. It was a trade agreement. Likewise it is absurd for companies to "sue the United State in a kangaroo court made up of businessmen" under agreements such as NAFTA or the now-dead TPP. "Facilitating trade" does not mean that you must – nor, that you ever should – give up your sovereignty. Trade means that sovereign governments must agree ... because they choose to. Because it is, in their judgment, the right thing to do for their people.

That is correct, and I do not mean to be overly-simplifying things here, but again what I see is that any sort of issue raised about immigration - that does not coincide with pro EU and you are deemed far right, even though if one views that it just needs to be curtailed or whatever. What I keep pointing towards and the videos I posted in this thread is the idea of identity and just how toxic it has become. This is why I do see the possibility of Holland and France moving to the right - and France possibly being the next to leave the EU.

I am also curious about those if they are any here on LQ in the UK that did vote to leave, if they still face some kind of backlash and being ostricised for their vote to leave; because it is that absurd - 'if you voted to leave, go kill yourself' or whatever. I mean if you saw the protests also yesterday during the inauguration - people with signs reading 'your vote was a hatecrime' - which now brings me back again, identity politics and this mob mentality. This is what I feel is the reaction to that.

Regular folks who feel that there should be controls on how many people are let in, want borders secure are instantly painted as bigoted; and again people now cannot speak their mind UNTIL they are in the booth but the very fact that they still HAVE to justify their own views, yet these others take it upon themselves to do everything from, threatening violence, to property destruction, not all are obviously do that but it seems that though the majority still ascribe to this social justice mob mentality still and will outright go after even their own friends or family if 'they voted the wrong way' i.e Trump, or in the UK voted to leave.

Again, I know I keep fixating on PC and all but that is what I see is the reason for all this. I could very well be wrong and I am focusing way too much on that too. I also do not know just how things will turn out in Holland and France - I am just theorizing - but I very well cannot completely dismiss the idea either that Le Pen and Wilders could also end up in power.

-edit

Also Sweden, they have been rethinking their own policies towards migrants - http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...en-door-policy

Jeebizz 01-21-2017 01:51 PM

Just another example of many and he is correct. Only one side somehow has the moral authority, and dissent is to be censored. Identity politics still going on:

[screencast]NQucDeo7Th0[/screencast]





Is this not a case of intellectual authoritarianism, PC?

Jeebizz 01-21-2017 02:18 PM

Found this also, and interesting take (Dr. Shaym):


[screencast]zE7CDMJMdqU[/screencast]

Jeebizz 01-21-2017 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 5657975)
PC culture in my views has become so obnoxious with 'safe spaces' there is no room enough for any sort of discord. I'm all for not being solely offensive intentionally, but at the very same time, you CANNOT stifle someone else because all of the sudden their views are offensive. Hell just look at all the reactions SJWs on youtube in general - they are seen as childish and rightfully so. I blame them for the moving to the right.

So now going back to the countries listed - Is it possible that Le Pen could win? Sure why not? Same with Wilders and whoever will be running in the German elections.

RT posted this today:

[screencast]9OdkdGyJgrM[/screencast]

This is EXACTLY what I was mentioning and observing! Again, populism is returning - is it really so far fetched at this point that Wilders(Party for Freedom), Le Pen (Front National), and Frauke Petry in AFD to win power?

rokytnji 01-22-2017 12:07 PM

Yep. So and so first is not a new thing.

It'll probably work as well now as it did back then.

Jeebizz 01-22-2017 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rokytnji (Post 5658655)
Yep. So and so first is not a new thing.

It'll probably work as well now as it did back then.

I feel rather conflicted, I mean I certainly do not agree with the far right - but in my views there were some catalysts that I have already mentioned earlier, and the main one I feel is just the drowning out of any sort of discussion i.e. the left this time has been drowning everyone out, and well this is the result. I never liked PC culture, it is pretty much a group being a nanny towards someone else, and was one of many results.

-edit

[screencast]HnA-0VVpWE0[/screencast]


So, who is the fascist?

sundialsvcs 01-23-2017 07:45 AM

"Political correctness" is a shrewd form of crowd control, and an essential part of propaganda ... what Americans have dubbed "false news" because "'propaganda' is what The Russians™ Do." It is an excuse to denigrate the speaker with an ad hominem attack. To silence the person who is saying what you do not want to hear.

For instance: "America first." Hundreds of millions of people know what you mean when you say to put "<<your_country>> first." Only a few people know or remember that Germans allegedly said this with regard to Jews between the World Wars. Nevertheless, there were people who wanted to stopper-up the use of that phrase by means of equating it with that historical reference. The President(!) ignored them. (And I half-expected a couple hundred thousand American Jews to rise up in protest ... just because that would have been the "politically correct" thing to do. Because this must have been what DT 'secretly meant,' just because some historian said so. Fortunately, that didn't happen.)

I think that today people fundamentally realize that for the last fifty years or so key countries around our planet have been, in their own various ways, implementing social, trade and business policies that have gone disastrously wrong.

Proponents co-opted euphemisms. For example, to you and me, "immigration" means coming to a country intending to become a citizen of that country. But what it actually means today is: indentured servitude. Likewise, "undocumented immigrant" means: slave. :eek: "Oooh! Those are 'no-no' words!" :eek: But ordinary people understand that if it quacks, it's a duck.

Likewise, "free trade" means a loss of national sovereignty so that countries can sue your country in an international court, or in a kangaroo court made up of businessmen, if you commit the offense of keeping those businessmen from making more money. Ordinary people who used to work at a shuttered factory know that this is bloodletting.

All around the planet, you're hearing the same talk: that it is impossible for anything to be "good for the country" if it makes that country weaker, and if it cedes control. I think it supremely ironic that China's President nixed the TPP treaty by saying that "Asia should be run by Asians." Britain told the EU people that "Britain should be run by Britons." And Americans swept in a new leader who promised to put "America first," and who stated that every other nation has the right and the expectation to put their own country first, ("first,") too.

These people are not trying to destroy international trade: they're trying to restore it.

If you want to trade with another country, you should be prepared to supply goods that are preferable in some way to the best that that country can (and will continue to) also make for itself. If your trade causes the country to cease domestic production activity, you've just cut another artery in the country that you're trading with. Soon enough, as is the case today e.g. with China, your ships will return to you filled only with ballast rocks. (And China has finally decided that it doesn't need yet another breakwater in its harbor.)

This article from 2003, How NAFTA Failed Mexico, contains a few interesting tidbits:
Quote:

NAFTA provided no social contract. It offered neither aid for Mexico nor labor, health or environmental standards. The agreement protected corporate investors; everyone else was on his or her own. [...]

Americans' understanding of NAFTA's impact on the Mexican people is obscured in part by the gap between what Mexican elites tell U.S. elites and what Mexicans tell one another. Last December former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, who negotiated NAFTA, told a Washington conference of applauding corporate lobbyists, government officials and free-market think tankers that NAFTA was a great success. [...]

The next day, in Mexico City, a large group of very ardent Mexican farmers broke down the door of the lower house of the Mexican Congress to denounce NAFTA and demand that it be renegotiated. Similar demonstrations – joined by teachers, utility workers and others – have erupted throughout the country, closing bridges and highways and taking over government offices. [...] Largely because of the agreement, Salinas is the most unpopular ex-president in modern Mexican history.
Did any of these Mexican protests make American news? Not on your life ...

It very much reminds me of the most-excellent movie of a few years ago: "Everything's Fine."

hazel 01-23-2017 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 5658267)
I am also curious about those if they are any here on LQ in the UK that did vote to leave, if they still face some kind of backlash and being ostricised for their vote to leave; because it is that absurd - 'if you voted to leave, go kill yourself' or whatever. I mean if you saw the protests also yesterday during the inauguration - people with signs reading 'your vote was a hatecrime' - which now brings me back again, identity politics and this mob mentality. This is what I feel is the reaction to that.

I voted leave and so far no one has denounced me for it. In fact all the people I meet dog walking voted leave, except for one and she's German! Most of my church friends voted remain but they know and accept that I didn't vote leave out of xenophobia. My parents were refugees, for God's sake! I simply made the same choice as they made: to live under laws passed by a British parliament, enforced by British judges.

You know when Hillary lost the election? It wasn't on election night. It was long before that, when she said that those who chose to vote for Trump and not for her were "a basket of deplorables". That was the last piece of sneering political correctness that most Americans wanted to hear.

What's wrong with populism anyway? The name comes from the Latin word populus meaning the people as a whole. It's the exact equivalent of the Greek word demos, which gives us the word democracy, a political system in which the demos holds power. Populism is just the same thing in Latin.

sundialsvcs 01-23-2017 11:35 AM

To me, a good analogy would be the farmer who stopped tending his own fields because he figured out that he could eat at a restaurant. Or maybe he became an importer of farm products. Maybe he was able to "obtain farm products at a cheaper price," and so on. But ... what happened to his land? To his community? To the people who used to work for him? To his own ability to farm? He didn't seem to care anymore, even though he needed to. He was looking only at his own bottom line, not anybody else's.

Do that enough, and your "world trade" de-evolves into a bunch of anemic people who are looking to see which one still has any blood left.

Our farmer made one fatal mistake: he forgot that his farm does not exist in isolation. That it is part of a very large and interconnected system, most of which does not appear on his balance-sheet.

Ordinarily, a key role of "government" is that it is supposed to :rolleyes: represent that system and to protect its interests, causing those interests to now appear on the farmer's balance-sheet in ways that positively influence the farmer's actions to benefit the community (or at least, to avoid harming it).

This "brave new world" that we've been sold is unsustainable and not-fault-tolerant. It exploits workers in one land to put workers in other lands out of work. It doesn't care for any country, therefore it seeks to co-opt the ability of every country to object to what is being done to them ... even though the people of each country concerned can very plainly see.

Then, someone ... usually it is the people, not the then-elected officials ... throws a monkey wrench by refusing to continue to be taken advantage of engage in this one-sided version of "trade." (And "as well they should have, long before now.")

Why are people finally turning against this dystopia? Because it doesn't work. Because it never has.

DavidMcCann 01-23-2017 11:45 AM

I too voted leave, but I wouldn't have voted for The Donald had I been a USian. Brexit wasn't anything to do with "rejecting the establishment": the out campaign was led by established politicians. The problem was (1) immigration — England is the most densely populated country in Europe, which is why our housing is so expensive — and (2) the fact that too many laws are passed at the EU level, rather that locally, as the east Europeans also complain.

I think that both the UK and the US populations are getting the feeling that globalisation is run for the benefit of multinational corporations rather than ordinary people, and they're correct. Whether voting for the GOP and a cabinet of billionaire businessmen was the solution, I doubt!

Even the phrase "far right" can be misleading. Marine Le Pen does not share the ideas of the Alt-Right in the US. She is opposed to globalisation, supportive of government intervention, and committed to secularism.

Jeebizz 01-23-2017 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5658997)
"Political correctness" is a shrewd form of crowd control, and an essential part of propaganda ... what Americans have dubbed "false news" because "'propaganda' is what The Russians™ Do." It is an excuse to denigrate the speaker with an ad hominem attack. To silence the person who is saying what you do not want to hear.

For instance: "America first." Hundreds of millions of people know what you mean when you say to put "<<your_country>> first." Only a few people know or remember that Germans allegedly said this with regard to Jews between the World Wars. Nevertheless, there were people who wanted to stopper-up the use of that phrase by means of equating it with that historical reference. The President(!) ignored them. (And I half-expected a couple hundred thousand American Jews to rise up in protest ... just because that would have been the "politically correct" thing to do. Because this must have been what DT 'secretly meant,' just because some historian said so. Fortunately, that didn't happen.)

I think that today people fundamentally realize that for the last fifty years or so key countries around our planet have been, in their own various ways, implementing social, trade and business policies that have gone disastrously wrong.

Proponents co-opted euphemisms. For example, to you and me, "immigration" means coming to a country intending to become a citizen of that country. But what it actually means today is: indentured servitude. Likewise, "undocumented immigrant" means: slave. :eek: "Oooh! Those are 'no-no' words!" :eek: But ordinary people understand that if it quacks, it's a duck.

Likewise, "free trade" means a loss of national sovereignty so that countries can sue your country in an international court, or in a kangaroo court made up of businessmen, if you commit the offense of keeping those businessmen from making more money. Ordinary people who used to work at a shuttered factory know that this is bloodletting.

All around the planet, you're hearing the same talk: that it is impossible for anything to be "good for the country" if it makes that country weaker, and if it cedes control. I think it supremely ironic that China's President nixed the TPP treaty by saying that "Asia should be run by Asians." Britain told the EU people that "Britain should be run by Britons." And Americans swept in a new leader who promised to put "America first," and who stated that every other nation has the right and the expectation to put their own country first, ("first,") too.

These people are not trying to destroy international trade: they're trying to restore it.

If you want to trade with another country, you should be prepared to supply goods that are preferable in some way to the best that that country can (and will continue to) also make for itself. If your trade causes the country to cease domestic production activity, you've just cut another artery in the country that you're trading with. Soon enough, as is the case today e.g. with China, your ships will return to you filled only with ballast rocks. (And China has finally decided that it doesn't need yet another breakwater in its harbor.)

This article from 2003, How NAFTA Failed Mexico, contains a few interesting tidbits:
Did any of these Mexican protests make American news? Not on your life ...

It very much reminds me of the most-excellent movie of a few years ago: "Everything's Fine."

That is exactly what I am trying to point towards. It is strange also because I never considered myself to be on the left or the right, I have always tried to just be 'in the middle' as much as possible, but maybe I am going about things all wrong I do not know. Again from what I can discern here is that there are glaring contradictions here - and the 'political correctness' movement has become something of a nuisance - also the 'Antifa' movement has pretty much become the very thing it opposes - because it is not hard to find videos on Youtube of these groups acting how an actual fascist would act in the first place.

Also I find myself just checking out more views that would be considered somehow 'right-wing' on youtube, Sargon of Akkad, Stepfan Molyneux - I don't agree with 100% of what they say, but of the tidbits that they do send out to me sounds actually rather logical. I am not against something like immigration, nor am I against rights or being offensive just for the sake of being offensive, I just do feel however there should be controls on immigration - what I do feel these folks point out is that these 'social warrior' groups have a dangerous mob mentality and a sort of 'me me me' culture, well actually I didn't even NEED to listen to Mr. Molyneux or any other youtuber for that.

This also stems from education - which I also feel rather disheartened - the sort of 'sugar' coating of things - and there does seem to be very prevalent in the universities across the board. Hell, thats why you now see even comedians outright REFUSING to even play at any sort of university - I wish Mr. Carlin were alive as well today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel (Post 5659056)
I voted leave and so far no one has denounced me for it. In fact all the people I meet dog walking voted leave, except for one and she's German! Most of my church friends voted remain but they know and accept that I didn't vote leave out of xenophobia. My parents were refugees, for God's sake! I simply made the same choice as they made: to live under laws passed by a British parliament, enforced by British judges.

You know when Hillary lost the election? It wasn't on election night. It was long before that, when she said that those who chose to vote for Trump and not for her were "a basket of deplorables". That was the last piece of sneering political correctness that most Americans wanted to hear.

What's wrong with populism anyway? The name comes from the Latin word populus meaning the people as a whole. It's the exact equivalent of the Greek word demos, which gives us the word democracy, a political system in which the demos holds power. Populism is just the same thing in Latin.

What I am still curious is that when you voted to leave - if you had to 'justify' your vote to anyone. That is pretty much the crux for me and what I see here in the states still. People with banners denouncing anyone who voted Trump - well then, how is that a democracy if one has to justify their vote, or even before one votes - if you said something like 'yes I want to vote to leave the EU' - you might face violence. Well then, if thats the case - clearly who has that sort of mentality is obviously undemocratic - and are ascribing to the very thing that they claim to oppose. You had your own reasons to vote to leave the EU - now why the hell should you have to justify your own vote to anyone, let alone say a family member or friend who would have voted to stay. I am not saying you personally may have had to - but as I stated before particularly here in the states, that is pretty much the case.

I must admit also that I had already assumed that Clinton would have won at first - and yes I was surprised that Trump ended up winning - but now I can understand why - however if you see the democrats now - and I have been following them just to see how dumb they are - clearly they refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation that they are in. Russia is still thrown around - never mind that even before the end of the elections - those in the democratic party stated that there was no way the elections could have been hacked. Even now, the democrats REFUSE to take a hard long look at themselves and address WHY they lost. Clinton's remark about Trump supporters being 'deplorable' may have been the last straw, and the die hard Clintonites and those even ranging in the entertainment industry are clearly out of touch, AND yes very condescending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs (Post 5659091)
To me, a good analogy would be the farmer who stopped tending his own fields because he figured out that he could eat at a restaurant. Or maybe he became an importer of farm products. Maybe he was able to "obtain farm products at a cheaper price," and so on. But ... what happened to his land? To his community? To the people who used to work for him? To his own ability to farm? He didn't seem to care anymore, even though he needed to. He was looking only at his own bottom line, not anybody else's.

Do that enough, and your "world trade" de-evolves into a bunch of anemic people who are looking to see which one still has any blood left.

Our farmer made one fatal mistake: he forgot that his farm does not exist in isolation. That it is part of a very large and interconnected system, most of which does not appear on his balance-sheet.

Ordinarily, a key role of "government" is that it is supposed to :rolleyes: represent that system and to protect its interests, causing those interests to now appear on the farmer's balance-sheet in ways that positively influence the farmer's actions to benefit the community (or at least, to avoid harming it).

This "brave new world" that we've been sold is unsustainable and not-fault-tolerant. It exploits workers in one land to put workers in other lands out of work. It doesn't care for any country, therefore it seeks to co-opt the ability of every country to object to what is being done to them ... even though the people of each country concerned can very plainly see.

Then, someone ... usually it is the people, not the then-elected officials ... throws a monkey wrench by refusing to continue to be taken advantage of engage in this one-sided version of "trade." (And "as well they should have, long before now.")

Why are people finally turning against this dystopia? Because it doesn't work. Because it never has.

No it does not work - and the main fault of this also is due to the corporations that also have a stranglehold on power. NAFTA and the TPP are great for them because it is a form of exploitation that is pretty much legalised. Farmers in the US are discouraged to grow and produce a certain crop - and are paid NOT to produce said crop - because that would mean another country part of the free trade deal would not be able to sell their crop to the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann (Post 5659096)
I too voted leave, but I wouldn't have voted for The Donald had I been a USian. Brexit wasn't anything to do with "rejecting the establishment": the out campaign was led by established politicians. The problem was (1) immigration — England is the most densely populated country in Europe, which is why our housing is so expensive — and (2) the fact that too many laws are passed at the EU level, rather that locally, as the east Europeans also complain.

I think that both the UK and the US populations are getting the feeling that globalisation is run for the benefit of multinational corporations rather than ordinary people, and they're correct. Whether voting for the GOP and a cabinet of billionaire businessmen was the solution, I doubt!

Even the phrase "far right" can be misleading. Marine Le Pen does not share the ideas of the Alt-Right in the US. She is opposed to globalisation, supportive of government intervention, and committed to secularism.

Interesting, and again I do not want you to think that you have to justify your vote to me and then again, maybe I am looking into this sort of thing too much and probably nobody has berated you for voting to leave. I guess it is mostly here in the US that anyone who voted for Trump now have to justify themselves in the eyes of those who were against Trump. As far as Le Pen, she is clearly painted by the media let alone here in the US, that she is this far right figure.

Going back now to the whole PC thing - it pretty much is a ruse - one does not have any sort of argument when hiding behind that sort of thing - and I have also been looking into this Mr. Yiannopoulos as well, and quite frankly at this point he is also unfairly demonised - been called everything form a racist, to perhaps even a homophobe ironically enough since he is apparently gay - but he easily puts these kinds of 'social warriors' in their place - because they DON'T have any sort of way to defend their views, and clearly that tactic no longer works, kindly watch this or just skip to 23min into the video:

[screencast]lmY1oFiJca8[/screencast]


-edit

"Trump executive order pulls out of TPP trade deal - President Donald Trump has fulfilled a campaign pledge by signing an executive order to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38721056

[screencast]6hL3UMhvIIA[/screencast]


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.