The DNC didn't glean any signals from the large crowds and passion swirled up around Bernie Sanders' campaign and message? SMH.
this baffles me too. They railroaded her nomination, alienating their most mobilized electorate in the process. When Obama was elected in 2008 he was seen as an outsider, or at least a fresh face. Hillary is cut from the same cloth as Kerry and Gore, and look how well they did. I think the Democrats figured electing a black president was change enough and they could go back to the usual game, plus their campaign seemed to be basically "we elected a black president, now it's your moral duty to elect a woman president."
i have to say that i'm deeply concerned (i.e., my panties are being wetted) for people of color because of how Trump acted in the campaign. and not because of what he might do in office (Dems can filibuster a lot... at least until the next elections in 2018) but more because of how he has emboldened white supremacists in the country. racist white folks have been steady mobbin in the run up to the election and since yesterday morning - just have a peak into Shaun King's FB feed, if you don't believe me.
i think the reason Democrats didn't care about Bernie's obvious appeal is that they are a key institution in the establishment, and he was interested in changing the status quo. and it's really all about motivating your base to come out to the polls, so they didn't think they needed him to win. so of the (roughly) 50% of Americans who sat this one out, yes, some of those were Bernie supporters who couldn't stomach voting for their abuser and against their interests. but if it was a Clinton-Sanders ticket, then I suspect that some of the powerful people and corporations (remember, they're "people" too now, and they are a LARGE source of campaign $$s) who comprise the establishment (banks, business owners, higher class folks) would have sat out the election or reduced their material support. and again, it's not necessarily in the DNC's interest to change the status quo if they can elected without doing so.
These protesters. SMFH. My message would be: don't be mad at Trump - be mad at the Dems. Trump won the election because Hillary and the Dems got lazy, they misread why people supported him and why many supported Bernie. Losing an election to Trump? That's bordering on criminal neglect. A shitty message of I'm a woman so I deserve your vote didn't cut it. Neither was don't vote for him. She was so centrist she offered nothing but political vanilla when the people, long tired of two parties so similar the illusion of choice has vanished, wanted something tangible even if it was dressed in hate. Many will have voted for him because of his hateful talk, but many voted for him despite it - blacks, latinos, women. Most of Trumps rhetoric was far right, but some of his economics were far left (and closer to Bernie). It was different, Hillary was more of the same.
Not sure if everyone will be offended by me posting a British perspective on this but we do have a bit of history this year on this kind of thing
Think this pretty much nailed it for me.
Summary: Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists. The "left" and the liberal media need to start fucking engaging with people rather than dismissing any alternatives as stupid. Start debating.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Not sure if everyone will be offended by me posting a British perspective on this but we do have a bit of history this year on this kind of thing
Think this pretty much nailed it for me.
Summary: Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists. The "left" and the liberal media need to start fucking engaging with people rather than dismissing any alternatives as stupid. Start debating.
These protesters. SMFH. My message would be: don't be mad at Trump - be mad at the Dems.
I disagree.
Trump has promised to do some very terrible things to certain groups of people in the country, and he needs to know that he can't do those things without peaceful resistance.
The DNC seem like terrible human beings but they may well hang themselves in how they respond next, so progressives should be happy that they have an opportunity to take control of the party.
These protesters. SMFH. My message would be: don't be mad at Trump - be mad at the Dems.
I disagree.
Trump has promised to do some very terrible things to certain groups of people in the country, and he needs to know that he can't do those things without peaceful resistance.
The DNC seem like terrible human beings but they may well hang themselves in how they respond next, so progressives should be happy that they have an opportunity to take control of the party.
Trump made all kinds of outlandish threats, most of which the constitution and congress would stop him from enacting (EDIT: I think!?!?). If it was the other way round, a Hilary victory and angry Trump voters marching the streets, I'm sure the condemnation would be there. Unless a law is passed that actually holds politicians to account for the lies they say on the campaign trail (and they're all guilty), it's empty posturing. Besides, Trump doesn't have unilateral support among the GOP; plenty of them are moderate & progressive enough to be against his most divisive rhetoric. The protests are counterproductive and aimed at the wrong people imo. This is the only real positive of the Trump win as I see it - the Democrats have 4 years to look at themselves and ask how they got so far from understanding the populace that a demagogue like Trump could win, or they can go with the wisdom of the super delegates next time and see what changes.
These protesters. SMFH. My message would be: don't be mad at Trump - be mad at the Dems.
The DNC seem like terrible human beings but they may well hang themselves in how they respond next, so progressives should be happy that they have an opportunity to take control of the party.
There are already mumbles of Tim Kaine 2020 from the inside.
These protesters. SMFH. My message would be: don't be mad at Trump - be mad at the Dems.
The DNC seem like terrible human beings but they may well hang themselves in how they respond next, so progressives should be happy that they have an opportunity to take control of the party.
There are already mumbles of Tim Kaine 2020 from the inside.
That's crazy talk...
I'm not the biggest of Moore fans, but Dems should be listening to his 5 point plan.
These protesters. SMFH. My message would be: don't be mad at Trump - be mad at the Dems.
The DNC seem like terrible human beings but they may well hang themselves in how they respond next, so progressives should be happy that they have an opportunity to take control of the party.
There are already mumbles of Tim Kaine 2020 from the inside.
Not sure if everyone will be offended by me posting a British perspective on this but we do have a bit of history this year on this kind of thing
Think this pretty much nailed it for me.
Summary: Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists. The "left" and the liberal media need to start fucking engaging with people rather than dismissing any alternatives as stupid. Start debating.
See this right here, this message went down like a cup of cold sick during Brexit time on the Brit thread. Funny how some dudes have gone awol on this one. Or maybe lawo. ;)
I agree with most of the above sentiment in the video. But i would hardly call Clinton the left's choice. Surely it was Bernie ? Clinton failed in part because she didn't speak to the left. People feel disenfrachised on both sides right and left. You could see this in how popular trump and bernie where. I think a big part of the problem is the two party system and the mindest that you have to vote for the less shit of the two shit choices on offer. To give perspective. Only 51% of Americans voted. Hillary won the popular vote yet Trump won. That means that only one in four Americans voted for Trump.
Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists.
Humour me - what is the point of attempting to make this distinction?
It's a message that progressives/liberals/ The Left seem reluctant to acknowledge in the immediate aftermath of an electoral defeat, certainly in the case of Brexit this summer. So actually it is just a statement of the obvious for those who refuse to hear it. In light of Trump, it appears that The Left are starting to wake up to the fact that a powerful message is being delivered from the electorate that can no longer be swept away as inherent racism etc. What's your take on that?
You just wrote three paragraphs saying nothing other than it's "obvious."
I don't know enough about Brexit so I am not going to speak on it.
My take is that if one buys the knife, sharpens it and places it in the hand of a person who has made their intentions clear, it doesn't give one leeway to claim innocent bystander just because they didn't do the stabbing himself. It's not as if Trump brought anything substantial to the table other than ideas and actions rooted in hate and fear. My take is I don't believe one supports a xenophobic misogynist racist with no qualifications to run a country and concern for or valuing safety, equality, justice and dignity for all is also one of their character traits. Ducks, smoke, fire.
Then with all due respect, you are not hearing a key message being delivered via the result. People are rebelling against more of the same. Those "qualified" will just deliver the same 'Just suck it up' shit. Of course there is a majority chance that things will get worse, but with the establishment it is a 100% guarantee of things not getting better. Dont matter how anyone wraps that up in expert opinion, qualified for the job etc. Joe Schmoe wants a chance of an upward turn in fortunes. Trump and Brexit offered that. Hilary and Bremain didn't. He ain't listening to your well reasoned arguments on the prospects of being led by a serial groper, or the possible effects of disconnection with a trading bloc. And every time he gets called a racist xenophobic misogynistic economically illiterate idiot, he becomes more certain that his vote was justified.
Joe Schmoe wants a chance of an upward turn in fortunes. Trump and Brexit offered that. Hilary and Bremain didn't.
this is just the same kind of platitude as you are criticizing when people say "everyone who voted for Trump is a racist." Joe Schmoe (people in lower income brackets) voted in the majority for Hillary.
Trump got less votes than the Republican candidates got in the past 2 elections. He just basically got the default Republican vote.
Hillary got nowhere near the votes Obama got in the past 2 elections. She failed to galvanize support for her. Her campaign boiled down to "I'm not Trump," and I guess that's not enough to convince people who always vote Republican to not vote Republican, and it wasn't enough to convince people who were skeptical of her to vote for her.
I don't base my observations on large scales of people data (surely a discredited notion by now), just on interaction with two groups: work dudes, all liberal and intelligent financial whizzes making serious money; and football/local friends, mostly right leaning and intelligent manual workers seeing their world diminish yearly. I know which group is loving the feeling of power and sense of overdue redress they experience now. I know which group used logic and expertise to discount the idea that their world view wasn't majority shared. And I know exactly how much of a fuck the second group give about the hurt sensibilities of the first.
FIrst it was Marmite. Now Toblerone have shifted the cost of Brexit onto the customer. The UK hasn't even left yet, but the rich will find a way to make sure it's the poor who bear the brunt of it, and if/when that happens, how do you stop seeing that as confirmation bias? It does no one any good to say "I told you so", but if it goes tits-up, we may see a tone that further alienates voters from the Left.
But I agree with your point - I know I had misjudged the mood bloody-mindedness of Britain. Brexit was a shock, Trump I was disappointed, but not surprised.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists.
Humour me - what is the point of attempting to make this distinction?
Hi Bassie,
First of all, let me say that I share your disdain with the U.S. presidential election outcome. I am bothered that the leader of the U.S. has such irredeemable personal qualities. In the aftermath of the election, I have been doing a lot of reading and I have reached some insights into the results. A key point I have gleaned from my reading was that the decision to elect Trump was about hope rather than reason. To coin The Voices of East Harlem's song title, the "Little People" were largely ignored in Hillary Clinton's campaign platform. I have been reading about how terrified these folks are with respect to their economic futures. They're living in places where a lot of industry has gone off-shore, leaving them to scramble to make ends meet. President Obama curried a lot of favor with these folks owing to his bail out of the auto industry, thus saving the affected regions from further economic ravages. The knocks on Trump's character were largely irrelevant to them relative to their more basic, sustenance needs. Then, history has shown that some of the more effective presidents were not void of characterological flaws (e.g., Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, to name a few) which, I guess, allowed Trump voters to write off his character flaws. Bear in mind, I do not agree with this, just trying to make sense of the matter.
The above summary leads me to another point. Abraham Maslow talked about his hierarchy of needs ranging, in ascending order, from biological, safety, belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization. I envision some of the Trump voters as relegated to the most basic biological and safety needs, thus rendering the higher-order needs of belongingness, esteem, and actualization largely irrelevant. Owing to this, they probably did not feel any dissonance in voting for a man who espoused and propagated the worst values of man. Instead, I imagine they were willing to place hope in an unqualified and sorely flawed candidate over one whom they distrusted. I must add that Hillary Clinton was by no means blameless in all of this as her actions stoked such distrust (e.g., Benghazi, email scandal, the Clinton Foundation, ties to Wall Street bankers, the 'basket of deplorables" comment). The outcome, to me, owes to the strong disdain for Clinton rather than a strong preference for Donald Trump. I lay the matter at the feet of the Democratic National Committee, which preordained Hillary Clinton as the 'choice' of the party despite the fervor toward Bernie Sanders, whose platform spoke more to the hopes of the "Little People" than Clinton's. Finally, I have to say that surely a fair share of the Trump electorate did make their vote based upon hate; however, in my reading, I have learned that a large share of voters, who supported President Obama in 2012, voted Republican largely because of Hillary Clinton being at the top of the ticket. So, in essence, it appears that Michael Moore was spot on in his analyses of the likely presidential election outcome. Most importantly, Moore noted (and I wholly agree) that Trump misled the "Little People" as he is incapable of addressing their problems.
Maslow and Alderfer are very pertinent to the story around Trump, and Brexit too. Venice citizens kicking up today. It's Italy next, I tells ya. Unless Euro non-rights do some extremely urgent quick fixes.
Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists.
Humour me - what is the point of attempting to make this distinction?
Hi Bassie,
First of all, let me say that I share your disdain with the U.S. presidential election outcome. I am bothered that the leader of the U.S. has such irredeemable personal qualities. In the aftermath of the election, I have been doing a lot of reading and I have reached some insights into the results. A key point I have gleaned from my reading was that the decision to elect Trump was about hope rather than reason. To coin The Voices of East Harlem's song title, the "Little People" were largely ignored in Hillary Clinton's campaign platform. I have been reading about how terrified these folks are with respect to their economic futures. They're living in places where a lot of industry has gone off-shore, leaving them to scramble to make ends meet. President Obama curried a lot of favor with these folks owing to his bail out of the auto industry, thus saving the affected regions from further economic ravages. The knocks on Trump's character were largely irrelevant to them relative to their more basic, sustenance needs. Then, history has shown that some of the more effective presidents were not void of characterological flaws (e.g., Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, to name a few) which, I guess, allowed Trump voters to write off his character flaws. Bear in mind, I do not agree with this, just trying to make sense of the matter.
The above summary leads me to another point. Abraham Maslow talked about his hierarchy of needs ranging, in ascending order, from biological, safety, belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization. I envision some of the Trump voters as relegated to the most basic biological and safety needs, thus rendering the higher-order needs of belongingness, esteem, and actualization largely irrelevant. Owing to this, they probably did not feel any dissonance in voting for a man who espoused and propagated the worst values of man. Instead, I imagine they were willing to place hope in an unqualified and sorely flawed candidate over one whom they distrusted. I must add that Hillary Clinton was by no means blameless in all of this as her actions stoked such distrust (e.g., Benghazi, email scandal, the Clinton Foundation, ties to Wall Street bankers, the 'basket of deplorables" comment). The outcome, for me, owes to the strong disdain for Clinton rather than a strong preference for Donald Trump. I lay the matter at the feet of the Democratic National Committee, which preordained Hillary Clinton as the 'choice' of the party despite the fervor toward Bernie Sanders, whose platform spoke more to the hopes of the "Little People" than Clinton's. Finally, I have to say that surely a fair share of the Trump electorate did make their vote based upon hate; however, in my reading, I have learned that a large share of voters, who supported President Obama in 2012, voted Republican largely because of Hillary Clinton being at the top of the ticket. So, in essence, it appears that Michael Moore was spot on in his analyses of the likely presidential election outcome. Most importantly, Moore noted (and I wholly agree) that Trump misled the "Little People" as he is incapable of addressing their problems.
Maslow and Alderfer are very pertinent to the story around Trump, and Brexit too. Venice citizens kicking up today. It's Italy next, I tells ya. Unless Euro non-rights do some extremely urgent quick fixes.
I think Europe is a busted flush. (Patois)De party done(/Patois). Murdoch and his killjoys done stuck a Tracy Chapmans (sic) on and the sobererest are realising it's time to get their coats and hog the the one taxi who's working nights. Britain had them on speed-dial.
I think it should have gone on till the break of dawn, I was waiting for Club Tropicana to drop and shit, but he wasn't getting any action and he saw them hurban ruffians necking his tins of Spezzie (and they only brough half a bottle of Tesco vodka). Klaus got his head down the khazi, talmbout Spiros spiked his Lowenbrau.
IF YOU GET THE ANALOGY.
At least L*o got a result with that Spanish Catalan bird...
At least L*o got a result with that Spanish Catalan bird... :
And A*i too with the fraulein.
Der Dutchies have a chance to put finger in the dam tho with elections soon. I know they are bit-part players but still might slow the flow. Plus their right wing dude has a worse haircut than Donald and Boris combined. Mis-shapen head too. France is the biggie. If Le Pen does a Donald, it's a total new world order. Fuck, we might even see Corbyn and them emerge from the echo chamber and start to, you know, engage with real people.
Right wing Euro dudes need to get their gun ownership rates up if they really want to compete in the coming wars. The entire unarmed left are just sitting ducks of course, like in every country.
Comments
i think the reason Democrats didn't care about Bernie's obvious appeal is that they are a key institution in the establishment, and he was interested in changing the status quo. and it's really all about motivating your base to come out to the polls, so they didn't think they needed him to win. so of the (roughly) 50% of Americans who sat this one out, yes, some of those were Bernie supporters who couldn't stomach voting for their abuser and against their interests. but if it was a Clinton-Sanders ticket, then I suspect that some of the powerful people and corporations (remember, they're "people" too now, and they are a LARGE source of campaign $$s) who comprise the establishment (banks, business owners, higher class folks) would have sat out the election or reduced their material support. and again, it's not necessarily in the DNC's interest to change the status quo if they can elected without doing so.
i dunno...
Trump won the election because Hillary and the Dems got lazy, they misread why people supported him and why many supported Bernie.
Losing an election to Trump? That's bordering on criminal neglect. A shitty message of I'm a woman so I deserve your vote didn't cut it. Neither was don't vote for him. She was so centrist she offered nothing but political vanilla when the people, long tired of two parties so similar the illusion of choice has vanished, wanted something tangible even if it was dressed in hate. Many will have voted for him because of his hateful talk, but many voted for him despite it - blacks, latinos, women. Most of Trumps rhetoric was far right, but some of his economics were far left (and closer to Bernie). It was different, Hillary was more of the same.
Think this pretty much nailed it for me.
Summary: Not everyone who votes for these people are racists and sexists. The "left" and the liberal media need to start fucking engaging with people rather than dismissing any alternatives as stupid. Start debating.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Trump has promised to do some very terrible things to certain groups of people in the country, and he needs to know that he can't do those things without peaceful resistance.
The DNC seem like terrible human beings but they may well hang themselves in how they respond next, so progressives should be happy that they have an opportunity to take control of the party.
Unless a law is passed that actually holds politicians to account for the lies they say on the campaign trail (and they're all guilty), it's empty posturing.
Besides, Trump doesn't have unilateral support among the GOP; plenty of them are moderate & progressive enough to be against his most divisive rhetoric.
The protests are counterproductive and aimed at the wrong people imo. This is the only real positive of the Trump win as I see it - the Democrats have 4 years to look at themselves and ask how they got so far from understanding the populace that a demagogue like Trump could win, or they can go with the wisdom of the super delegates next time and see what changes.
There are already mumbles of Tim Kaine 2020 from the inside.
I'm not the biggest of Moore fans, but Dems should be listening to his 5 point plan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/read-michael-moore-s-5-point-facebook-plan-for-taking-america-back-from-donald-trump-a7408971.html
1-4 especially.
Now is the time to get to work.
Get behind people like Bernie, Warren and Tulsi Gabbard!
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Then we see if euromang follows the Anglo-Saxon model and gives the establishment a bloody nose.
If so, the Euro big guns are going to look mad weak, and maybe 50:50 as to whether they can reverse the tide.
Funny how some dudes have gone awol on this one.
Or maybe lawo.
;)
Clinton failed in part because she didn't speak to the left.
People feel disenfrachised on both sides right and left. You could see this in how popular trump and bernie where.
I think a big part of the problem is the two party system and the mindest that you have to vote for the less shit of the two shit choices on offer.
To give perspective. Only 51% of Americans voted. Hillary won the popular vote yet Trump won. That means that only one in four Americans voted for Trump.
So actually it is just a statement of the obvious for those who refuse to hear it.
In light of Trump, it appears that The Left are starting to wake up to the fact that a powerful message is being delivered from the electorate that can no longer be swept away as inherent racism etc.
What's your take on that?
I don't know enough about Brexit so I am not going to speak on it.
My take is that if one buys the knife, sharpens it and places it in the hand of a person who has made their intentions clear, it doesn't give one leeway to claim innocent bystander just because they didn't do the stabbing himself.
It's not as if Trump brought anything substantial to the table other than ideas and actions rooted in hate and fear.
My take is I don't believe one supports a xenophobic misogynist racist with no qualifications to run a country and concern for or valuing safety, equality, justice and dignity for all is also one of their character traits. Ducks, smoke, fire.
People are rebelling against more of the same. Those "qualified" will just deliver the same 'Just suck it up' shit.
Of course there is a majority chance that things will get worse, but with the establishment it is a 100% guarantee of things not getting better.
Dont matter how anyone wraps that up in expert opinion, qualified for the job etc.
Joe Schmoe wants a chance of an upward turn in fortunes. Trump and Brexit offered that. Hilary and Bremain didn't.
He ain't listening to your well reasoned arguments on the prospects of being led by a serial groper, or the possible effects of disconnection with a trading bloc.
And every time he gets called a racist xenophobic misogynistic economically illiterate idiot, he becomes more certain that his vote was justified.
Trump got less votes than the Republican candidates got in the past 2 elections. He just basically got the default Republican vote.
Hillary got nowhere near the votes Obama got in the past 2 elections. She failed to galvanize support for her. Her campaign boiled down to "I'm not Trump," and I guess that's not enough to convince people who always vote Republican to not vote Republican, and it wasn't enough to convince people who were skeptical of her to vote for her.
I know which group is loving the feeling of power and sense of overdue redress they experience now.
I know which group used logic and expertise to discount the idea that their world view wasn't majority shared.
And I know exactly how much of a fuck the second group give about the hurt sensibilities of the first.
FIrst it was Marmite. Now Toblerone have shifted the cost of Brexit onto the customer. The UK hasn't even left yet, but the rich will find a way to make sure it's the poor who bear the brunt of it, and if/when that happens, how do you stop seeing that as confirmation bias? It does no one any good to say "I told you so", but if it goes tits-up, we may see a tone that further alienates voters from the Left.
But I agree with your point - I know I had misjudged the
moodbloody-mindedness of Britain. Brexit was a shock, Trump I was disappointed, but not surprised.Hi Bassie,
First of all, let me say that I share your disdain with the U.S. presidential election outcome. I am bothered that the leader of the U.S. has such irredeemable personal qualities. In the aftermath of the election, I have been doing a lot of reading and I have reached some insights into the results. A key point I have gleaned from my reading was that the decision to elect Trump was about hope rather than reason. To coin The Voices of East Harlem's song title, the "Little People" were largely ignored in Hillary Clinton's campaign platform. I have been reading about how terrified these folks are with respect to their economic futures. They're living in places where a lot of industry has gone off-shore, leaving them to scramble to make ends meet. President Obama curried a lot of favor with these folks owing to his bail out of the auto industry, thus saving the affected regions from further economic ravages. The knocks on Trump's character were largely irrelevant to them relative to their more basic, sustenance needs. Then, history has shown that some of the more effective presidents were not void of characterological flaws (e.g., Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, to name a few) which, I guess, allowed Trump voters to write off his character flaws. Bear in mind, I do not agree with this, just trying to make sense of the matter.
The above summary leads me to another point. Abraham Maslow talked about his hierarchy of needs ranging, in ascending order, from biological, safety, belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization. I envision some of the Trump voters as relegated to the most basic biological and safety needs, thus rendering the higher-order needs of belongingness, esteem, and actualization largely irrelevant. Owing to this, they probably did not feel any dissonance in voting for a man who espoused and propagated the worst values of man. Instead, I imagine they were willing to place hope in an unqualified and sorely flawed candidate over one whom they distrusted. I must add that Hillary Clinton was by no means blameless in all of this as her actions stoked such distrust (e.g., Benghazi, email scandal, the Clinton Foundation, ties to Wall Street bankers, the 'basket of deplorables" comment). The outcome, to me, owes to the strong disdain for Clinton rather than a strong preference for Donald Trump. I lay the matter at the feet of the Democratic National Committee, which preordained Hillary Clinton as the 'choice' of the party despite the fervor toward Bernie Sanders, whose platform spoke more to the hopes of the "Little People" than Clinton's. Finally, I have to say that surely a fair share of the Trump electorate did make their vote based upon hate; however, in my reading, I have learned that a large share of voters, who supported President Obama in 2012, voted Republican largely because of Hillary Clinton being at the top of the ticket. So, in essence, it appears that Michael Moore was spot on in his analyses of the likely presidential election outcome. Most importantly, Moore noted (and I wholly agree) that Trump misled the "Little People" as he is incapable of addressing their problems.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Venice citizens kicking up today.
It's Italy next, I tells ya.
Unless Euro non-rights do some extremely urgent quick fixes.
TRUE SAY FAM.
I think it should have gone on till the break of dawn, I was waiting for Club Tropicana to drop and shit, but he wasn't getting any action and he saw them hurban ruffians necking his tins of Spezzie (and they only brough half a bottle of Tesco vodka). Klaus got his head down the khazi, talmbout Spiros spiked his Lowenbrau.
IF YOU GET THE ANALOGY.
At least L*o got a result with that
SpanishCatalan bird...Der Dutchies have a chance to put finger in the dam tho with elections soon. I know they are bit-part players but still might slow the flow. Plus their right wing dude has a worse haircut than Donald and Boris combined. Mis-shapen head too.
France is the biggie. If Le Pen does a Donald, it's a total new world order.
Fuck, we might even see Corbyn and them emerge from the echo chamber and start to, you know, engage with real people.
Unless you are a nonce with friends in the right places.