An Englishman and his take on American politics

He says it very well, I think

Bump

Well, the clip cut out at 3:34, so I’ve had limited opportunity to hear all of it.  But he sounds like someone unfamiliar with the nuances of American politics.  Don’t get me wrong…he’s hitting the right musical notes, but only from afar.

For example, what are these “damning economical and social struggles” of which he speaks?  He sounds as if he's plastering a wall…give us specifics.  The American society is going through unbounded economic success right now, with unemployment at below 5% and the Dow average at a record high.  It sounds as if he wanted to gloss over that part.  Or maybe he just didn’t know.

That’s the problem with pundits from afar…they don’t take the time to know what is really going on.  He talks as if HRC is a net negative, yet he has no specifics as to what she is supposed to have done wrong.  Again, he’s just plastering a wall.

Well…that’s my take.

Original Quill wrote:Well, the clip cut out at 3:34, so I’ve had limited opportunity to hear all of it.  But he sounds like someone unfamiliar with the nuances of American politics.  Don’t get me wrong…he’s hitting the right musical notes, but only from afar.

For example, what are these “damning economical and social struggles” of which he speaks?  He sounds as if he's plastering a wall…give us specifics.  The American society is going through unbounded economic success right now, with unemployment at below 5% and the Dow average at a record high.  It sounds as if he wanted to gloss over that part.  Or maybe he just didn’t know.

That’s the problem with pundits from afar…they don’t take the time to know what is really going on.  He talks as if HRC is a net negative, yet he has no specifics as to what she is supposed to have done wrong.  Again, he’s just plastering a wall.

Well…that’s my take.

I did manage to listen to the entire video, and I largely agree with your take on this young man's perspective, Quill.  He clearly feels more sympathy for the Bernie movement, but he doesn't seem to have more than a superficial understanding of American politics.  First of all, despite all of the news reports of disgruntled Bernie supporters, the overwhelming majority are going to do as Sanders did and support her.  What he did not address was exactly why Sanders lost, despite his huge draw on college campuses.  Clinton inspired a larger segment of the Democratic base--largely Hispanic and African American voters.  Sanders was not able to overcome her advantage.  Nevertheless, he seemed to see everything through the lens of his own youthful demographic, forgetting that Sanders wasn't likely to do as well as Clinton in a general election to bring out large numbers of those voters.  So, whatever Hillary's weaknesses were amongst youth, they were complemented by her strengths amongst ethnic minorities and older voters.  He also seemed to know very little about the difference between primaries, where the bulk of the voters reflect just one side of the political spectrum, and a general election, where the battle is almost always for voters at the political center.  

Anyway, his final take on the race was instructive.  If he could vote in November, he would vote for Hillary, despite his dismissal of her appeal to him.  That is exactly the calculus that will go through the minds of Bernie supporters who choose to vote.  Hillary's real need now is to appeal to middle-of-the-road independents and Republican voters who cannot stand Donald Trump.  Trump will not have the same draw on Sanders voters precisely because they agree with Bernie (and this young British observer) that progressive causes would fare better under Hillary than Trump.

I thought he made alot of sense.

Quill, try it again perhaps? May have just been a glitch at the YouTube end.

eddie wrote:I thought he made alot of sense.

Quill, try it again perhaps? May have just been a glitch at the YouTube end.

I think it's on my end. I keep getting notices to do...

Copernicus wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, the clip cut out at 3:34, so I’ve had limited opportunity to hear all of it.  But he sounds like someone unfamiliar with the nuances of American politics.  Don’t get me wrong…he’s hitting the right musical notes, but only from afar.

For example, what are these “damning economical and social struggles” of which he speaks?  He sounds as if he's plastering a wall…give us specifics.  The American society is going through unbounded economic success right now, with unemployment at below 5% and the Dow average at a record high.  It sounds as if he wanted to gloss over that part.  Or maybe he just didn’t know.

That’s the problem with pundits from afar…they don’t take the time to know what is really going on.  He talks as if HRC is a net negative, yet he has no specifics as to what she is supposed to have done wrong.  Again, he’s just plastering a wall.

Well…that’s my take.

I did manage to listen to the entire video, and I largely agree with your take on this young man's perspective, Quill.  He clearly feels more sympathy for the Bernie movement, but he doesn't seem to have more than a superficial understanding of American politics.  First of all, despite all of the news reports of disgruntled Bernie supporters, the overwhelming majority are going to do as Sanders did and support her.  What he did not address was exactly why Sanders lost, despite his huge draw on college campuses.  Clinton inspired a larger segment of the Democratic base--largely Hispanic and African American voters.  Sanders was not able to overcome her advantage.  Nevertheless, he seemed to see everything through the lens of his own youthful demographic, forgetting that Sanders wasn't likely to do as well as Clinton in a general election to bring out large numbers of those voters.  So, whatever Hillary's weaknesses were amongst youth, they were complemented by her strengths amongst ethnic minorities and older voters.  He also seemed to know very little about the difference between primaries, where the bulk of the voters reflect just one side of the political spectrum, and a general election, where the battle is almost always for voters at the political center.  

Anyway, his final take on the race was instructive.  If he could vote in November, he would vote for Hillary, despite his dismissal of her appeal to him.  That is exactly the calculus that will go through the minds of Bernie supporters who choose to vote.  Hillary's real need now is to appeal to middle-of-the-road independents and Republican voters who cannot stand Donald Trump.  Trump will not have the same draw on Sanders voters precisely because they agree with Bernie (and this young British observer) that progressive causes would fare better under Hillary than Trump.

Wow! That was an xlnt summary. Hats off....

Let's get you started on the 'reputation' scale.

It's a very well-rounded take on things IMO

Of course the Left around the world sympathize with Bernie.
Hillary would not be considered Left wing in our systems.


I disagree with the 'fall in line' comment as that anti democratic attitude is what has caused the rise Trump on the Right.
the Fact the Democrats are doing the same speaks volumes of how corrupt and how pointless voting for them is.
Like he says from the 6 mins mark.
Telling the progressive left that do not fall for party politics to fall in line is pushing us away.

veya_victaous wrote:Of course the Left around the world sympathize with Bernie.
Hillary would not be considered Left wing in our systems.

I disagree with the 'fall in line' comment as that anti democratic attitude is what has caused the rise Trump on the Right.
the Fact the Democrats are doing the same speaks volumes of how corrupt and how pointless voting for them is.
Like he says from the 6 mins mark.
Telling the progressive left that do not fall for party politics to fall in line is pushing us away.

In the US, the Republican and Democratic parties are not really the same as in multiparty systems. They represent a coalition of interest groups, where the Republicans are, broadly speaking, conservative, and the Democrats progressive. So Bernie Sanders grudgingly joined the Democratic Party in order to be considered a contender for President. After the convention, he immediately quit the Democratic Party, although he will still caucus with Democrats and need their help to pass bills in the Senate.

Choosing to remain aloof from the Democrats has cost Bernie politically, because he was not really seen as a committed Democrat by those who had been in the Party for a while. Elizabeth Warren is just as progressive, but she has more political clout precisely because she works within the Democratic coalition. If progressives hope to move the Democrats to the left, they do so more effectively by working within the party. Third party and independent movements usually do little more than bleed votes from one of the major parties, which tends to defeat the goals of people attracted to them.

but the 'committed democrat' is the problem!!
for Almost half of the voters in the democratic primaries
there is quite obviously a reasonable portion of the US left wing that
Do not want to perpetuate the Party Politics nonsense.

It is the Same issue as the Repubs, the Institution of the democrats has become a bloated corrupted festering organisation that no longer represents the will or good of the people accurately. Failure of Democrats to acknowledge that is only going to cost them votes in the future as failure of the repubs to acknowledge that has cost them this election.


...
So Since Bernie wasn't a Dem
DID the Dems put up a single other candidate?
or was it the Hillary gravy train all the way?

lord knows she has a lot of major corporation she needs to pay back for their backing of here mediocre Candidacy, and they are probably annoyed since she failed last time and they have had to wait 8 years for the dividends of their investment in her.

veya_victaous wrote:
Of course the Left around the world sympathize with Bernie.
Hillary would not be considered Left wing in our systems.

..............................

I agree with that positioning of Hillary Clinton...

Down here, she would be considered "centre right" on the political spectrum -- pretty much covering the same area as Kevin Rudd on the right-wing of the Labor party, or where Malcolm Fraser was with the Liberal Party "wets" of the 1970s and early '80s..

As far as the Democrat and Repub's party systems go -- they are both "free market" oriented, make them both right wing (though the Repub's do have their protectionist/isolationist groups -- as do the Lib/Nat' coalition down here).  The Democrats' health and labour policies would make them a centre-right group, while the Repub's increasingly Laissez faire and anti-science mutterings have seen them drifting ever closer to the extreme-RW fringes and becoming more irrelevant by the day..

As for Bernie Sanders, while many Americans may view him as a strong 'socialist' and a LEFT wing "liberal", down here he would probably be at home in the Labor party, with a few like-minded nurses and school teachers sharing his centre-left ideals...

And the American Greens ? They're relatively 'light green' in comparison with those in Oz and NZ, and over in Europe..    

@Wolf
I think that is another part, the US left is going "we don't underastand"
but we do,
we just think poorly on how right wing they are by our spectrum.

yeah Bernie if anything would be in the rigth side of the Labor party.
no way he is left enough for our greens

I gave y'all an eloquent treatise on how the right managed to gain a stranglehold on my country for decades a while back, and was ignored. Like most of what I do here -- pearls before swine.

At least I can die knowing people weren't ready for my level of genius ...

I'll give you a hint, though -- nobody but the good ol' USA was ever framed as the only entity that could overcome that "leftist" scourge of the USSR ...

Ben Reilly wrote:I gave y'all an eloquent treatise on how the right managed to gain a stranglehold on my country for decades a while back, and was ignored. Like most of what I do here -- pearls before swine.

At least I can die knowing people weren't ready for my level of genius ...

Well you cannot come down whilst you're doing a great work, can you?

Ben Reilly wrote:
I'll give you a hint, though -- nobody but the good ol' USA was ever framed as the only entity that could overcome that "leftist" scourge of the USSR ...

I BELIEVE that in the long run History will recognise that the USSR largely self destructed mainly through foolishly trying to match the USA in military spending, when the Soviet economy was probably less than a third that of America...        

veya_victaous wrote:but the 'committed democrat' is the problem!!
for Almost half of the voters in the democratic primaries  
there is quite obviously a reasonable portion of the US left wing that
Do not want to perpetuate the Party Politics nonsense.

That is equally true for many on the right. In fact, it is a popular affectation to be tired of both parties and to style oneself as an "independent", but I suspect that most people vote reliably Republican or Democratic because of their preference for conservative or progressive policies. I don't agree with you that the "committed voter" is the problem. From my perspective, it is the uncommitted ones. They don't understand how representative democracies work, especially those that evolve two-party systems (See Duverger's Law).

veya_victaous wrote:It is the Same issue as the Repubs, the Institution of the democrats has become a bloated corrupted festering organisation that no longer represents the will or good of the people accurately. Failure of Democrats to acknowledge that is only going to cost them votes in the future as failure of the repubs to acknowledge that has cost them this election.

Again, we just disagree on this. I think that only the will of the voters counts in a democracy, and that is adequately represented. If people make bad choices out of ignorance or stupidity, that is on them. Those who choose not to vote or participate in the democratic process don't get a pass or have a right to complain because they were too lazy or confused. They are just as responsible as the voters. Sorry if that sounds like a harsh judgment on my part, but it is the way I honestly feel. If Hillary turns out badly, I will blame myself for my choice.

veya_victaous wrote:...So Since Bernie wasn't a Dem
DID the Dems put up a single other candidate?
or was it the Hillary gravy train all the way?

Yes, there were quite a few: Martin O'Malley, Lawrence Lessig, Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Webb. There were also a slew of the usual unknowns that decided to run for whatever reason. Only Sanders posed a real challenge to Hillary, but the press did not scrutinize his past very carefully. They were mainly interested in keeping his chances alive, because it made for some nice drama. Republicans would have preferred to run against Sanders, because he would have been easier for them to redefine. We've already seen all of Hillary's warts and blemishes.

veya_victaous wrote:lord knows she has a lot of major corporation she needs to pay back for their backing of here mediocre Candidacy, and they are probably annoyed since she failed last time and they have had to wait 8 years for the dividends of their investment in her.

Unfortunately, our system is skewed to favor the wealthy. Sanders was small potatoes to the big donors, but he did have to contend with the gun lobby. Like any Vermont politician, he discovered that he had to play along with them to get elected, and he did what he had to. Hillary represented Wall Street interests when she was a senator from New York precisely because so many jobs in her state depended on that. Politicians from my state of Washington go to bat for Microsoft and Boeing, because so many of their constituents work for those corporations. Indeed, corporations are known to open up factories and business centers in some states precisely because of their strategic importance in Congress. Bernie Sanders was never going to change any of this. His power in the presidency would have depended on the votes of senators and House representatives who were beholden to special interests. Citizens United has virtually legalized bribery. I am not so cynical as to believe that Hillary Clinton is in the pocket of every large corporation nor so naive as to believe that Sanders was pure as the driven snow. However, I do believe that Clinton has a better chance than Bernie of reforming the system, and that is why I supported her over Bernie, despite the fact that his rhetoric and campaign skills were far better than hers.

4EVER2 wrote:While I'm often the offset to just plaster up a 'meme' image just because it encapsulates so much about the what & how I feel about the Republican party and what they've sadly have become! 

This is quite factual and the truth should be tattooed to those that supported the 'T-Bagger Party' that IMO destroyed the good thinking people within the Republican party! What few they had left.

There's a lot of truth to that, 4Eva.  The Bush administration lies tore apart the Republican Party, just as the principals tore apart the Middle East with the removal of Saddam.

The Tea Party started, or at least gained substantial momentum in 2008, at the close of the Bush administration.  Bush and Cheney gave the lie to the notion that America was the good guy, what with rape, torture, lies and murder.  They blew up a lot of myths.  

In the wake there have been a lot of movements--the Tea Party among them--casting about for themes to recover from the debris field.  Unfortunately, out the disheveled refuse has come Donald Trump, at a time when the RW is not yet reconstituted.

Ben wrote:I gave y'all an eloquent treatise on how the right managed to gain a stranglehold on my country for decades a while back, and was ignored. Like most of what I do here -- pearls before swine.

At least I can die knowing people weren't ready for my level of genius ...

Unfortunately, Ben, I missed that.  I would love to see it.  Could you run it again on this thread?

JUST IMAGINE what the USA could have done for their education, research, health and welfare budgets over the past two decades, with two-and-a-half trillion $$$$.....

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

JUST IMAGINE what the USA could have done for their education, research, health and welfare budgets over the past two decades, with two-and-a-half trillion $$$$.....

Not to mention a fully funded healthcare program.

I look upon modern government has having two core functions: protect us from the enemy within, and then from the enemy without.  The enemy within is of course our own illnesses and maladies.   The enemy without are those who would attack our borders.

We have missed countless opportunities to institute a socialized healthcare and medical program.  But, it's how we have advanced the military defense side to such a degree that it is disturbing.  

In the absence of an enemy at our gates, and thus being too bored, we have turned our military defense apparatus into an ego-gratifying, baby-killing, meddler into other peoples' business.  Billions upon billions of dollars have been churned into F-22's and supercarriers so that we might feel the thrill of killing women and children over the evening news, when we might have used the same money to cure cancer or advance robotics so that disabled people might walk again.

Why do the RW lust after killing so much, but become so penurious about helping people to survive?  It's pure frivolity. I'll never understand.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
JUST IMAGINE what the USA could have done for their education, research, health and welfare budgets over the past two decades, with two-and-a-half trillion $$$$.....

INDEED ...or taken better care of our returning wounded Vets, fixed the antiquated VA and all of their out dated computer systems, paid back the millions the Republicans have stolen out of the Social Security Fund ...perhaps had a budget surplus

Quill stated > > >
Not to mention a fully funded healthcare program.

I look upon modern government has having two core functions: protect us from the enemy within, and then from the enemy without.  The enemy within is of course our own illnesses and maladies.   The enemy without are those who would attack our borders.

We have missed countless opportunities to institute a socialized healthcare and medical program.  But, it's how we have advanced the military defense side to such a degree that it is disturbing.  

In the absence of an enemy at our gates, and thus being too bored, we have turned our military defense apparatus into an ego-gratifying, baby-killing, meddler into other peoples' business.  Billions upon billions of dollars have been churned into F-22's and supercarriers so that we might feel the thrill of killing women and children over the evening news, when we might have used the same money to cure cancer or advance robotics so that disabled people might walk again.

Why do the RW lust after killing so much, but become so penurious about helping people to survive?  It's pure frivolity. I'll never understand.

Sad isn't it, that our POWER MOGULS; people well invested in all of those many subcontractors {war contracts for those ongoing replaceable weapons - equipment - meals - uniforms - misc.} that bilk millions of money off of our tax dollars - keep the MEGA BUDGET BUSTING WAR MACHINE WELL FUNDED by the very people's hard earned - highly taxed low wages   

While cutting the funding for assistance programs - health benefits - all the very agencies that help those low wage earners     War makes 'SOME' lesser thinking humans very - very wealthy!

veya_victaous wrote:

CUTE ... but far off base!  
No one to date has had more 'FREEBIE' press time by every talking head seated in front of a live mic/or a lap top for a Political OP'ed piece then 'CHEETO-JESUS'  ---ever!
The blow are is just that addictive - they don't want to miss out on his next mental verbal dump and be the FIRST TO REPORT IT!

but compared to Jill,
Hills is getting heaps

veya_victaous wrote:but compared to Jill,
Hills is getting heaps

Who is Jill Hills? Is she that Green Party candidate?

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:but compared to Jill,
Hills is getting heaps

Who is Jill Hills?  Is she that Green Party candidate?

there is a comma and line break

Jill Stein
and Hill 'the Corporate shill' Clinton


the Left vote should be able to be split
if more than a 3rd of your nation votes for trump then the Trumpocalpse is obviously necessary

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who is Jill Hills?  Is she that Green Party candidate?

there is a comma and line break

Jill Stein
and Hill 'the Corporate shill' Clinton


the Left vote should be able to be split
if more than a 3rd of your nation votes for trump then the Trumpocalpse is obviously necessary      

Your as funny as a HEART ATTACK; how'd you like to have a 'Charles Manson' with a billionaires financial backing running for your PM office and people actually excited enough to   kneel at his feet just to cow-tow to his every mental dribble? 

Oh, yes --- you'd be one irate Aussie with a 'Postal Attitude' and a need to VENT! 

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who is Jill Hills?  Is she that Green Party candidate?

there is a comma and line break

Jill Stein
and Hill 'the Corporate shill' Clinton


the Left vote should be able to be split
if more than a 3rd of your nation votes for trump then the Trumpocalpse is obviously necessary      

Frankly, I think it would certainly be fun if Trump were elected.  Would that hand the Repug Party a resounding defeat?  Beautiful.

Watching Trump grind this country into wood chips would provide the perfect opportunity for new beginnings...read as: Pacific States of America.  

Best of all worlds.

4EVER2 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who is Jill Hills?  Is she that Green Party candidate?

there is a comma and line break

Jill Stein
and Hill 'the Corporate shill' Clinton


the Left vote should be able to be split
if more than a 3rd of your nation votes for trump then the Trumpocalpse is obviously necessary      

Your as funny as a HEART ATTACK; how'd you like to have a 'Charles Manson' with a billionaires financial backing running for your PM office and people actually excited enough to   kneel at his feet just to cow-tow to his every mental dribble? 

Oh, yes --- you'd be one irate Aussie with a 'Postal Attitude' and a need to VENT! 

we did have 'Tony Abbott'
he was just a puppet for Rupert
and Rudd was a megalomanic if there ever was one.

And We have at least somewhat real democracy, not the Charade you have in the USA.
Preferencal voting and the system would be greatly improved, it is a bad system and should be changed.

IF you need the threat of Trumpocaplse to get you off your ass to change it, then so be it.
You are in no different postion then the Brexiters, the Hill shepherds are starting to dominate the west.
thus the west will inevtiably fall, as that is the cyclical way of empires.

And AGAIN if you think so many Americans are going to vote for Trump, than the USA deserves Trump.
the West has put itself in this postion by reducing education and working constaly to keep the poor, dumb and poor. it is going to have an effect.

If there is no stomach for revoltuion than we must accept the west demise as merely a process of evolution.
Quill might get his way, if trump wins and see the split of the United States, with the likely fall of the EU too
there is no competitor for China and it will be undisputed leader of the world like the USA has been the last few decades.
the western empire that rose in the 1500's will end in the 2000's, 500 years aint bad.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who is Jill Hills?  Is she that Green Party candidate?

there is a comma and line break

Jill Stein
and Hill 'the Corporate shill' Clinton


the Left vote should be able to be split
if more than a 3rd of your nation votes for trump then the Trumpocalpse is obviously necessary      

Frankly, I think it would certainly be fun if Trump were elected.  Would that hand the Repug Party a resounding defeat?  Beautiful.

Watching Trump grind this country into wood chips would provide the perfect opportunity for new beginnings...read as: Pacific States of America.  

Best of all worlds.

that is right

even those that hate trump cannot deny he will bring about change.

the USA is stagnating politically and socially. A kick up the arse may get it's dirve back.
Or destroy it, which doesn't mean fire and brimstone, it means spliting up the federation.
the Uk has already voted for self destuction, so what is ot stop the USA doing the same?

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Frankly, I think it would certainly be fun if Trump were elected.  Would that hand the Repug Party a resounding defeat?  Beautiful.

Watching Trump grind this country into wood chips would provide the perfect opportunity for new beginnings...read as: Pacific States of America.  

Best of all worlds.

that is right

even those that hate trump cannot deny he will bring about change.

the USA is stagnating politically and socially. A kick up the arse may get it's dirve back.
Or destroy it, which doesn't mean fire and brimstone, it means spliting up the federation.
the Uk has already voted for self destuction, so what is ot stop the USA doing the same?

I agree. I don't want another civil war, but if the sides just came to an agreement...this isn't working, let's get a divorce, that would be a good thing. At least for the Pacific states...we couldn't go wrong. Most of the wealth, and all of the future is out here, anyway.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who is Jill Hills?  Is she that Green Party candidate?

there is a comma and line break

Jill Stein
and Hill 'the Corporate shill' Clinton


the Left vote should be able to be split
if more than a 3rd of your nation votes for trump then the Trumpocalpse is obviously necessary      

Frankly, I think it would certainly be fun if Trump were elected.  Would that hand the Repug Party a resounding defeat?  Beautiful.

Watching Trump grind this country into wood chips would provide the perfect opportunity for new beginnings...read as: Pacific States of America.  

Best of all worlds.

that is right

even those that hate trump cannot deny he will bring about change.

the USA is stagnating politically and socially. A kick up the arse may get it's dirve back.
Or destroy it, which doesn't mean fire and brimstone, it means spliting up the federation.
the Uk has already voted for self destuction, so what is ot stop the USA doing the same?

Yep. That's right. Smash it all apart becasue it ain't fucking working as it is.
You can't keep gluing the pieces together. Chuck it away and make a new one.

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

that is right

even those that hate trump cannot deny he will bring about change.

the USA is stagnating politically and socially. A kick up the arse may get it's dirve back.
Or destroy it, which doesn't mean fire and brimstone, it means spliting up the federation.
the Uk has already voted for self destuction, so what is ot stop the USA doing the same?

Yep. That's right.  Smash it all apart becasue it ain't fucking working as it is.
You can't keep gluing the pieces together. Chuck it away and make a new one.

Assuming you are genuine in your position, I doubt that you and I have the same motives.  A lot of Brits are disappointed at seeing their status and prestige in the world melt away. America-bashing gives some brief vent to those feelings of loss.  But that is far from my motive.

I have the personal feeling that the US simply grew too large to be a functional political unit.  It would be as if Europe were simply lumped together without regard for regional, linguistic and cultural differences--indeed, isn't the US geographically larger than all of Western Europe, excluding Greenland and Russia, of course?  I think it's an unworkable situation.  Indeed, you see the EU disintegrating for that very reason.

We in the US already have one gigantic ideological rift over race, left to simmer from the Civil War.  That means the entire South is incompatible with the rest of the country.  Indeed, the Republicans have understood this rift quite well, and have notoriously exploited it to create divisiveness with the Atwater southern strategy.  Beyond this, what do the Midwestern plains, the Ohio River Valley or the Rocky Mountains have in common with the decidedly ocean-oriented Pacific Coast?  And the Pacific and Atlantic oceans have nothing in common, as each looks to a different part of the world for culture, trade and industry.  It's a jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces simply do not fit.

If the United Kingdom were suddenly paired with Bulgaria and Turkey, perhaps you could feel, as well as know, what it is like.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:


Yep. That's right.  Smash it all apart becasue it ain't fucking working as it is.
You can't keep gluing the pieces together. Chuck it away and make a new one.

Assuming you are genuine in your position, I doubt that you and I have the same motives.  A lot of Brits are disappointed at seeing their status and prestige in the world melt away.  But that is far from my motive.

Really based on what evidence?

Or is that just another one of your poor sterotype perceptions?

So lets see the evidence?

You then make an even worse sterotype and a case for a Northern state Brexit for the south, based on a prejudice you then hold based off again a prejudice view of Southern Amricans. Through what I can only dexcribe is based off a poor guilt by association aspect, which of course would include Ben as he is a Texan.

You never ever really think through your views do you?

Your views is also extremely pessimistic over the fact you claim the south is incompatiable with the North, yet if someone claimed this based (as you are doing on the people of the South) on Muslims. You would completely contradict yourself, even though within both groups there is a majority neo-Conservative religious movement. The reality is each year athiesm is growing and with the growth of athiesm, more and more secular values are taken on by people. If many Muslim countries and certain US states did not censur educational science like evolution for example. Then more and more people would either adapt secular values to their religion or leave religion altogether. The only reason Muslim numbers are still growing is based on the fact over higher birth rates and again a censurship of other beliefs. With an indoctrination from birth of Muslim children. I would though never claim they could never be incomptiable, because the Christian west used to once be the same. So your views are based off what I can only describe as a poor prejudice you hold of RW people which is ironic to the thread I posted on this.

Again religious beliefs are at th core of the problem when literally believed.

Humans may be prejudiced by nature, but a new study has found that who we choose to hate may depend on our overall intelligence. The finding reconfirms the idea that it may be human nature to dislike those who are different from us — including those who look and think differently. According to the study, people of lower intelligence, as measured by cognitive ability, tend to be prejudiced against non-conventional or liberal groups, as well as groups that have little choice in their status, such as people defined by their race, gender, or sexual orientation. On the other hand, individuals of higher intelligence were likely to be prejudiced against groups considered conventional and groups perceived to have "high choice" in their associations, such as conservatives.

"People dislike people who are different from them," study authors Mark Brandt and Jarret Crawford told Broadly. "Derogating people with different worldviews can help people maintain the validity of their own world view."

The duo’s findings are based on the results of a questionnaire completed by 5,914 volunteers. Brandt and Jarrett measured the volunteers’ intelligence and then asked them whether or not they believed a specific stereotype about a group was justified. The reason for these differences in stereotypes, however, is more complicated than simply not liking those who are different from you. For example, the researchers explained that less intelligent people often like to view other groups as being distinctly different from them as a way to help see them as distant and therefore less of a threat. Sadly, people of both high and low intelligence showed the same amount of prejudice, just toward different groups. But all hope is not lost. Another recent study found that prejudice, particularly prejudice against transgender individuals, can be reduced with a simple 10-minute conversation with someone from the marginalized group.

Source:Brandy MJ, Crawford JT. Answering Unresolved Questions About the Relationship Between Cognitive Ability and Prejudice. Social Psychology & Personality Science . 2016

http://www.medicaldaily.com/who-you-hate-linked-how-smart-you-are-new-study-prejudice-cognitive-ability-393693

I think it is pretty common to hear a Brit nagging away at the accomplishments of the US.  One gets the feeling that their jealousy is borne of a longing for past glory and faded pride.  Victor and Syl are heard most often on this kick around here.

It's the same sentiment that keeps them belittling "the colonies" of OZ, Kiwi and Canada.  You tear down in order to build yourself up.

It does no good to psychoanalyze my motives, didge.  Everyone has heard it, so the nods are all around the room.

I'm much more concerned about the issue of US regionalism and divisions.

Original Quill wrote:I think it is pretty common to hear a Brit nagging away at the accomplishments of the US.  One gets the feeling that their jealousy is borne of a longing for past glory and faded pride.  Victor and Syl are heard most often on this kick around here.

It's the same sentiment that keeps them belittling "the colonies" of OZ, Kiwi and Canada.  You tear down in order to build yourself up.

It does no good to psychoanalyze my motives, didge.  Everyone has heard it, so the nods are all around the room.

So you are going off a poor view based on a couple of Brits out of 62 million and that is just in the Uk alone

Thus you have nothing that amounts to any form of real evidence, just an opinion you hav formed from a couple of British posters

Neither at the US but shows its faults, as i do where it is behind many European countris on progression and the reason is because of a religious neo-conservatism. Which does not effect the European nations to the same extent bar a couple of exceptions.
People from all quarters take the mick out of the others nations, that is just banter, but many never held any such views utill that banter started from the Colonials quarter. IE you, Ben, Veya etc.

Original Quill wrote:I think it is pretty common to hear a Brit nagging away at the accomplishments of the US.  One gets the feeling that their jealousy is borne of a longing for past glory and faded pride.  Victor and Syl are heard most often on this kick around here.

It's the same sentiment that keeps them belittling "the colonies" of OZ, Kiwi and Canada.  You tear down in order to build yourself up.

It does no good to psychoanalyze my motives, didge.  Everyone has heard it, so the nods are all around the room.

I'm much more concerned about the issue of US regionalism and divisions.

Quill. I have never bashed Americans - there you go again, making everyone the same.

And as far as "country bashing" goes and your PoV on 'jealousy' - you're all as bad as each other.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think it is pretty common to hear a Brit nagging away at the accomplishments of the US.  One gets the feeling that their jealousy is borne of a longing for past glory and faded pride.  Victor and Syl are heard most often on this kick around here.

It's the same sentiment that keeps them belittling "the colonies" of OZ, Kiwi and Canada.  You tear down in order to build yourself up.

It does no good to psychoanalyze my motives, didge.  Everyone has heard it, so the nods are all around the room.

I'm much more concerned about the issue of US regionalism and divisions.

Quill.  I have never bashed Americans - there you go again, making everyone the same.

Not at all. There are many British gentlemen and gentlewomen who realize it is gauche, like spitting. One of the finest gentlemen on this site is Irn Bru, and I would never accuse him of such behavior.

Nevertheless, everyone here knows what I mean. We've all heard it, and can connect with an incident or two.

eddie wrote:And as far as "country bashing" goes and your PoV on 'jealousy' - you're all as bad as each other.

I don't think you can ignore jealousy as a motive for this. In particular, when one country spawns so many others, and then takes a dive beneath their own spawn, there is going to be some resentment. Although I've never been in Brazil, I've met and known some Brazilians in Lisbon, and I've run into this attitude there. Likewise, you hear Spaniards indiscriminately insulting Mexicans. In fact, I am most fond of my Mexican friends, and that has had the effect of turning me way off on Spaniards--I can't think of one that I particularly like.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Quill.  I have never bashed Americans - there you go again, making everyone the same.

Not at all.  There are many British gentlemen and gentlewomen who realize it is gauche, like spitting.  One of the finest gentlemen on this site is Irn Bru, and I would never accuse him of such behavior.  

Nevertheless, everyone here knows what I mean.  We've all heard it, and can connect with an incident or two.

eddie wrote:And as far as "country bashing" goes and your PoV on 'jealousy' - you're all as bad as each other.

I don't think you can ignore jealousy as a motive for this.  In particular, when one country spawns so many others, and then takes a dive beneath their own spawn, there is going to be some resentment.  Although I've never been in Brazil, I've met and known some Brazilians in Lisbon, and I've run into this attitude there.  Likewise, you hear Spaniards indiscriminately insulting Mexicans.  In fact, I am most fond of my Mexican friends, and that has had the effect of turning me way off on Spaniards--I can't think of one that I particularly like.

Jealousy has zero to do with this

Many posters when they first came here had no bad words to say about the US or Australia

That again started by the Americans and Australians on here

You see I was actually on here before you were Quill

Mainly as i joined bcause someone was impersonating my username Didge, but the reality is it started off a them and uss conflict on here between posters and it mainly stemmed from the Amricans on here who were constantly boasting off claims and slants on the Briitish based off the views of some of these posters.

That is how it all started

I think jealousy is the prime incentive.  Or, perhaps resentment is the better term.  Europe was once the parent figure(s) of all of these nations around the globe, and now the children have outgrown the father.  

Many of them were abused children, and so the children understandably abandon the parent.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance...the parent breeds resentment at being outdone by the children, and at being abandoned by them.  I believe Spain is the champion in this, but we see it in all such countries.

Original Quill wrote:I think jealousy is the prime incentive.  Or, perhaps it's resentment.  Europe was once the parent figure of all of these nations around the globe, and now the children have outgrown the father.  

Many of them were abused children, and so the children understandably abandon the parent.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance...the parent breeds resentment at being outdone by the children, and at being abandoned by them.  I believe Spain is the champion in this, but we see it in all such countries.  

You offer no reasons as to why people would resent or even be Jealous of the US?
Its a federal system, which people have voted to get out of that exact same system with the EU.
You offer up negative reasons based poorly again I might add as to why you wrongly think people could be Jealous.

The only thing I find interesting is the outdoors of the Us and any cultural History.
As to anything else its genesis was from European anyway and is nothing more than an extension of European idealism and beliefs by people who once lived here and moved over there.

South and central America feels me with more wonder at its ancient history and peoples that once lived there.

You see your thought process is negative not positive which I believe is leading you to a negative conclusion on this

Original Quill wrote:I think jealousy is the prime incentive.  Or, perhaps resentment is the better term.  Europe was once the parent figure(s) of all of these nations around the globe, and now the children have outgrown the father.  

Many of them were abused children, and so the children understandably abandon the parent.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance...the parent breeds resentment at being outdone by the children, and at being abandoned by them.  I believe Spain is the champion in this, but we see it in all such countries.

Why don't you start a blog and then read it aloud to yourself everyday? I'm sure you must be your biggest fan.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think jealousy is the prime incentive.  Or, perhaps resentment is the better term.  Europe was once the parent figure(s) of all of these nations around the globe, and now the children have outgrown the father.  

Many of them were abused children, and so the children understandably abandon the parent.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance...the parent breeds resentment at being outdone by the children, and at being abandoned by them.  I believe Spain is the champion in this, but we see it in all such countries.

Why don't you start a blog and then read it aloud to yourself everyday?  I'm sure you must be your biggest fan.

You are angry and upset...not favorable qualities for one given the responsibilities of a mod. Nevertheless, I forgive you.

However I also note, if you you are going to play in the sandbox, you've got to learn a certain detachment.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think jealousy is the prime incentive.  Or, perhaps resentment is the better term.  Europe was once the parent figure(s) of all of these nations around the globe, and now the children have outgrown the father.  

Many of them were abused children, and so the children understandably abandon the parent.  It's called reduction of cognitive dissonance...the parent breeds resentment at being outdone by the children, and at being abandoned by them.  I believe Spain is the champion in this, but we see it in all such countries.

Why don't you start a blog and then read it aloud to yourself everyday?  I'm sure you must be your biggest fan.

You are angry and upset...not favorable qualities for one given the responsibilities of a mod.  Nevertheless, I forgive you.  

However I also note, if you you are going to play in the sandbox, you've got to learn a certain detachment.

On the contrary, it is you who is floundering. I'm just having a leisurely midday. I am not insulting you...but it is indicative of the way you post on the board, that you feel that way.

Good, glad you're ok.

Original Quill wrote:Good, glad you're ok.

Can't argue with your own words can ye?