Anna B Posted October 10, 2016 Author Share Posted October 10, 2016 I do remember using the phrase at some point, but I would have thought you knew me well enough to know it was meant tongue in cheek. I have repeated many times that I do not want blood on the streets, and abhor violence. But there are different kinds of revolutions that don't involve pitchforks, and I would argue we are seeing one right now, with the rise of people like Donald Trump and Le Pen. Sadly I fear that can only end in tears. However, I have not given up hope. As I said, Theresa May is making the right noises, and Corbyn has a decent alternative IMO. The world is changing whether we like it or not. What it needs is a little push in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 I do remember using the phrase at some point, but I would have thought you knew me well enough to know it was meant tongue in cheek. I have repeated many times that I do not want blood on the streets, and abhor violence. But there are different kinds of revolutions that don't involve pitchforks, and I would argue we are seeing one right now, with the rise of people like Donald Trump and Le Pen. Sadly I fear that can only end in tears. However, I have not given up hope. As I said, Theresa May is making the right noises, and Corbyn has a decent alternative IMO. The world is changing whether we like it or not. What it needs is a little push in the right direction. I accept that you'd prefer a bloodless revolution. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, although I can see why you'd like to clarify. The world always changes, but I suspect that the changes you imagine are not in fact coming at all. They almost never do. And on the rare occasions they do you end up with somebody like Stalin or Ceaușescu in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 I do remember using the phrase at some point, but I would have thought you knew me well enough to know it was meant tongue in cheek. I have repeated many times that I do not want blood on the streets, and abhor violence. But there are different kinds of revolutions that don't involve pitchforks, and I would argue we are seeing one right now, with the rise of people like Donald Trump and Le Pen. Sadly I fear that can only end in tears. However, I have not given up hope. As I said, Theresa May is making the right noises, and Corbyn has a decent alternative IMO. The world is changing whether we like it or not. What it needs is a little push in the right direction. Yes, revolution. The Clash sang White Riot in 1977 and sure enough a mere 13 years later there was indeed a poll tax riot. The revolution you speak of is basically an end to career politicians: 'The Establishment' and more 'normal' people in power? No? Normal people like career politicians such as Corbyn? The Le Pen dynasty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelFargate Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 well they'll both be terrible presidents Ironically, Clinton could be a bigger danger to world peace than Trump. She is by inclination an interventionist and has the support of Russophobes in the Pentagon and elsewhere who are itching to pick a fight with Russia. This may well come about by the policy of establishing a 'no fly zone' in Syria (which is essentially a 'we fly and you don't' zone), or by involvement in Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Ironically, Clinton could be a bigger danger to world peace than Trump. She is by inclination an interventionist and has the support of Russophobes in the Pentagon and elsewhere who are itching to pick a fight with Russia. This may well come about by the policy of establishing a 'no fly zone' in Syria (which is essentially a 'we fly and you don't' zone), or by involvement in Ukraine. Somehow I doubt it. Sometimes appeasement is more dangerous than confrontation. Russia will not respect the US if they back down too easily or never step up. Clinton has the experience to manage foreign affairs. Trump doesn't have the experience to make a cup of tea. I don't like Clinton. But I don't expect prompt disaster from her premiership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Somehow I doubt it. Sometimes appeasement is more dangerous than confrontation. Russia will not respect the US if they back down too easily or never step up. Clinton has the experience to manage foreign affairs. Trump doesn't have the experience to make a cup of tea. I don't like Clinton. But I don't expect prompt disaster from her premiership. Same sentiment as you, unbeliever. I seem to recall that Trump actually admires Vlad? What could possibly be worse than Trump in charge of the US appeasing cozying up to his new great buddy Putin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Coming back to the "poor getting poorer" lie: Have a look at this link. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppp It shows the purchasing power of the UK people. Click the button marked 'Max' to see the data from 1990 to the present. Labour's 2008-2010 massive dip has now been recovered. In case you'e inclined to suggest that the extra wealth is concentrated at the top... Here is the Gini index for the UK (lower numbers indicate a smaller gap between rich and poor): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?end=2012&locations=GB&start=2004, hardly moved and perhaps actually gone down. Anna: Would you care to withdraw you claim that the poor are getting poorer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Given the problems Obama had, is she likely to get anything much done or will the senate stop it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelFargate Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Somehow I doubt it. Sometimes appeasement is more dangerous than confrontation. Russia will not respect the US if they back down too easily or never step up. Clinton has the experience to manage foreign affairs. Trump doesn't have the experience to make a cup of tea. I don't like Clinton. But I don't expect prompt disaster from her premiership. And what experience would that be? Support for the disastrous intervention in Iraq?; being the main architect of and cheerleader for the US intervention in Libya?; support for the proxy intervention in Syria by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?; support for arming the nicer Jihadist Syrian rebels in Syria; support for Israeli hawks in the Palestine-Israel conflict; support for policies which effectively destabilised Ukraine? As for 'appeasement', this word has become little more than a mealy-mouthed euphemism for war mongers everywhere, at least since Sir Anthony Eden used it to justify the disastrous intervention in Suez in 1956. It was of course used as one of the main justifications for the intervention in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Given the problems Obama had, is she likely to get anything much done or will the senate stop it? I'm less concerned about the Democrats getting their legislative program enacted despite not having a majority (which they're really not entitled to anyway) than about the worlds only superpower and international reserve currency not being run by an absolute muppet. If Clinton does a decent job with the executive responsibilities of the presidency (which is the actual job she's applying for) I'm calling that a win. ---------- Post added 10-10-2016 at 15:48 ---------- And what experience would that be? Support for the disastrous intervention in Iraq?; being the main architect of and cheerleader for the US intervention in Libya?; support for the proxy intervention in Syria by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?; support for arming the nicer Jihadist Syrian rebels in Syria; support for Israeli hawks in the Palestine-Israel conflict; support for policies which effectively destabilised Ukraine? As for 'appeasement', this word has become little more than a mealy-mouthed euphemism for war mongers everywhere, at least since Sir Anthony Eden used it to justify the disastrous intervention in Suez in 1956. It was of course used as one of the main justifications for the intervention in Iraq. Just because you don't always get exactly what you want out of military action, doesn't mean that you can get away with taking the ball and going home. The world is a crazy messed up place and sometimes there are no good options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts