Trump & Brexit is what happens when you smear all who disagree as racist

Are the centre left offering an alternative though?
What was Hialry's pitch, 'vote for me and everything will stay the same'? She offered no change whatsoever in an election when so many people were crying out for change.

While many on the centre left have accused Trump voters of being deplorables, the likes of Sanders, Owen Jones, Corbyn etc have at least recognised that the reason Trump won was because so many are fed up with the prevailing economic system. So many on the centre-left don't realise that. They just continue to assert that the left becoming more and more economically right wing is somehow a golden ticket to electablity.

So a guy encouraging racists and sexists to vote for him is better than the other candidate, just because the other candidate is more of the same?

If you care so little about these two issues I can understand why you would vote for Trump. But then I think the rest of society is allowed to judge you for caring so little about these two issues.

It is actually rather ironic Trumpers telling people that they don't understand why they lost, but at the same time Trumpers fail themselves to understand the issue.

I'm not going around this circle for a fourth time, my OP already addresses my opinion on this. I was answering your question about Corbyn, and Owen Jones lost any right to call himself a journalist in the wake of the Florida attacks. He's an SJW poster child, refusing to blame Islam for anything, shouting Islamophobia when challenged and having other journalists who disagree with him disinvited from even talking about it.

I'm the furthest thing from a trump supporter. I passionately wanted Hilary (or anyone) to win.

That doesn't stop me thinking that Hillary was an utterly terrible candidate and had the Democrats chosen Sanders he would have won.

He absolutely criticised Islam. I am not sure how that makes him a SJW.

Suppose she were a man and had run 30 years ago. I guarantee you she would not have been seen in such a bad light.

How can you possibly use 30 years ago as a valid comparison. That's like saying Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have won if he stood now. Well obviously ****ing not, because it's a totally different political landscape. People weren't pissed off at the establishment, represented by Hillary, 30 years ago.

It's true though, politicians have tried to shame people who have the 'wrong' views into voting the other way.

This is why the opinion/exit polls were so vastly wrong, people were reluctant to show their true allegiances in public but no such reluctance at the ballot box.

My point exactly, what she has supposedly done, is normal politics and many before it have done it. Only difference is there is "evidence" (Wikileaks) and Trump's slander campaign.

No, the difference is that the economic crisis and following recovery has left the poor behind, they've stagnated and that's brought to the forefront the elite in politics who are so out of touch. That's Clinton. She's everything they hate. It's why Sanders would have battered Trump - he'd have every single Clinton voter plus a good proportion of the Trump ones.

He didn't refuse to blame Islam. He was annoyed that the presenters refused to accept that it was predominantly a homophobic attack.


If the same happened in a synagogue or black church no one would deny that it was primarily antisemitic or racist yet the presenters argued that the Orlando attacks wasn't primarily homophobic.

He absolutely criticised Islam. I am not sure how that makes him a SJW.

The only SJW are the centre left moderates like Clinton and Jess Phillips who pretty much accuse anyone who didn't vote for her of being sexist.

You just done listen do you? The like or Jones have been saying for years that if the left do not stand up for working people and offer an alternative then the far right will.

I agree. People are getting tired of the browbeating by the media and a liberal establishment that is increasingly detached from Joe public. People don't trust the media anymore, either. All the articles and stories about how awful Trump is had little effect in turning the US population against him, apparently, and not so surprisingly. I think the Trump and Trump supporter-bashing just made more people want to vote for him out of spite.

The media also fostered over-confidence in the anti-Trump and anti-Brexit populations. They thought victory was a sure thing. They were in a bubble with their John Oliver, their CNN, their social media... All the while a huge number of pissed off, disenfranchised citizens tired of being talked down to, feeling abandoned by the establishment and concerned for the future of their countries, were getting ready to do something the pundits and papers weren't expecting.

I don't listen? You've been repeating my original point as if it will come as news to me. This part of the conversation came about because you kept asking me my political stance and what I thought of Corbyn. I listened, 5 times now. I won't a sixth.

Owen Jones sat there sulking like a child because the presenter and fellow guest disagreed that it was PURELY a homophobic attack. They simply made the point that there is something more going on than just homophobia. Then he stormed off rather than put forward a coherent counter point, probably because it's hard to keep deflecting criticism of Islam when it keeps nspiring mass murder.

If that wasn't enough he refused to go on Channel 4 News with Douglas Murray, who is also a gay man, but a morally consistent journolist that has been argueing for years that Islam has an enormous problem with homosexuality, amongst other things. He got his way and they cancelled Dougla Murray.

Sounds like SJW 101 to me.

Haven't you noticed? Pepetarians call everyone who speaks out for social equality and progressiveness a SJW regardless of whether they are right or wrong about a certain issue. Ironically they also call it the "regressive left". They try to pigeonhole people into categories that fit their (narrow) world view. And everyone who is not of their opinion is (aggressively) ridiculed.

He was arguing about the inconsistency of the media. If the attack was on a Synagogue then no one would deny that it was purely an anti-semitic attack. People wouldn't go 'ah but the greater reason is...'

The presenters were very clearly trying to shift the focus away from homophobia on towards Islam, even though there is no proof that the perpetrator had any link with IS or Islamic extremism. The presenters were changing the facts, to suit their narrative.

I don't agree with him rushing out but I can understand it, given that two presenters were arguing to him that the mass murder of 50 gay people was somehow not solely a homophobic attack. The perpetrator very deliberately targeted a gay club,it wasn't an accident.

I could change the buzzwords and say the same thing in the opposite direction. The right don't get let off the hook for Trump, but the left has some serious soul searching to do.

What's worse is we've cried wolf too many times and no longer have even the lexicon to combat an openly bigoted president.

If we are at a point where we need to coddle right ideas then humanity as already lost.

The same logic could be applied to Muslims - better not offend them, else they just become terrorists.

I have no problem with criticising Trump or many of the reasons people voted for him. The bigger issue is the environment that allowed such an unqualified bigot to gain power. There is no one reason, and plenty of blame to go around, but the claustrophobic discourse, and throwing around the word racist, is a large part of it.

Trump is the logical conclusion, not the catalyst.