PGA Tour: America is all Effed up: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

What an awful, awful night.
The end.

"I can't see why people don't realise how they are being manipulated and increasingly living within self confirming bubbles."

I don't think there's a country on the planet more aware of media manipulation than the US, part of Trumps appeal was the main stream media's disdain for him, if you look at the coverage in the main stream media, they were completely anti Trump and pro Hillary. That just fed into Trumps anti establishment appeal imo. The media and celebrity fawning turned a lot of people off.

Exactly what I mean about manipulation. It is not in their interests to upset the golden goose...

Bet most in the middle and far east are pleased that Trumps president. At least they've got half a chance of not being napalmed by those brave liberators.

super_realist wrote:

Assassination attempt within a year? Would imagine so.

Trump's gang has all the guns, so no assassination.

Apart from that usually only good guys get assassinated, bad ones thrive.

MontysMerkin wrote:Bet most in the middle and far east are pleased that Trumps president. At least they've got half a chance of not being napalmed by those brave liberators.

Yeah, coz Republican President's don't bomb people. Ah....

To be fair, Trump is the only one who has said America should keep it's nose out of other peoples business. As the last president has shown, it is virtually impossible to stop the American war machine once it's in motion. At least Trump will again try to stop it, Clinton would love nothing more than to keep on rolling. Like I've said before this has got to be the poorest excuse for a democracy in the world. Fukin Congos more democratic!

Their politics are very infantile. Can you imagine Trump or Clinton in the House of Commons or can you imagine either of them in PMQ's? They'd get annihilated.

They make Milliband look competent.

Anyone want to discuss golf?

Hideki is back in Japan this week and leading after Round 1, he probably needs a a top 4 finish id finish to pass Adam Scott in the OwGR to reach #6

==================

Wang is tied for lead in South Africa with Englishman Fisher and Chilean Aguliar at -4.

Stenson at -3 with a hole to go

Some bad scores from Euro Ryder Cuppers in South Africa

Willet +3

Fitz, Pieters, and RCB at +4

Other Notables

Jaidee is +4 and last week's winner Olesen is at +5

===========

If Rory wins the RtD next week, he will finish the year #1

Milliband was defeated by murdoch (as much as you'd hate to admit it). The country's lurch to the right is media dictated. The fact that Corbyn is to the right of many early tory policies shows how preposterous the cry of 'radical left winger' is, and how easily we are manipulated by a few media barons with their own agenda (think Jonathan Pryce in tomorrow never diezzzzzzzzzzzzzz).

Sounds a bit tin foil hat Monty, there's as many lefty media outlets as there are Murdoch ones.

Super - I'm pretty sure Hillary could figure out the HOC in short order. She, like Obama, has an extremely strong intellect and ability to adapt. (Not saying she'd be a great Prez however.)

The popular vote went to Hillary. Hardly a "mandate for change" ... my guess is Trump's going to find some pretty rough sledding and wonder why he got into this gig in the first place ...

One thing that never came out in the election was Clinton's successful tenure as US Senator for New York State.

After a generation of New York City-centric predecessors had seceded "Upstate" to the Repubs, she travelled tirelessly thru'out the State which, apart from the City and one or two scattered manufacturing centres is staunchly hang 'em high Republican, and won over Repubs thru'out the State by attention to the needs, and advocacy for, the smallest towns and communities. Imagine Shotrock would largely agree?

But the human aspect which was so critical to this success never came out during her campaign. I have no doubt she'd've repeated this approach during a presidency but why she campaigned at the big-city level thru'out I've no idea.
Almost as if Repubs and media alike put her on the defensive early and she never switched on to the front foot.
And now she never will.

Shotrock wrote:Super - I'm pretty sure Hillary could figure out the HOC in short order. She, like Obama, has an extremely strong intellect and ability to adapt. (Not saying she'd be a great Prez however.)

The popular vote went to Hillary. Hardly a "mandate for change" ... my guess is Trump's going to find some pretty rough sledding and wonder why he got into this gig in the first place ...

Not so sure Shot, given the puerile standard of the debates, which neither candidate was able to put forward any actual policies, and just 100% soundbites with no substance, I'm pretty sure she'd be ripped to shreds in the HOC. It's a savage place if you can't back up what you're saying.

She might be intelligent, but the nature of politics of America is completely different and although insults fly in the HOC, it's usually coached in actual policy and an actual argument. Not the likes of " I don't know who invented Pokémon Go, but I want you to go go go and vote" That's just truly cringeworthy stuff. That's as bad as calling your pub quiz team "The A Team"

This isn't a UK is better than US, it's just that debate in the HOC is a better level than US.

I agree w/Shotrock; don't judge Clinton by what you saw in the debates, she'd handle PMQT just fine. Not sure about her rival, or even Bernie for that matter, but don't underestimate HC's intellect, her judgement maybe, and she'd put most of them in their place at PMQT.

I'm not doubting her intellect, just that the nature of American politics appears to be that you only have to talk convincingly without actually saying anything at all. Just seems a load of bluster and there doesn't seem to be any requirement to back up what you say with actual policy.
Obama, and perhaps Clinton apart, the likes of Palin, Trump, Bush Jr, McCain, that Mormon moron who dug up his atheist dad to posthumously baptise him a Mormon sort of prove you don't have to be particularly bright to get to that sort of level.

I'm sure we have a lot of poor politicians in Britain (I've watched the Scottish Parliament before and that is truly awful) but in general, the people we allow to run the country are capable of better debates than these two were.

A country has the politicians it deserves, no?

True, and you should see the ones in Scotland, or the ones representing Scotland in Westminster, truly awful, embarrassing and incapable of putting policy across.
In some ways the SNP in particular are very American like in their debates because they come out with loads of terrible soundbites that mean nothing and which they can't back up.

Clinton is pretty bl00dy smart, has had an extraordinary array of real life experiences to go with the high profile stuff you see.
I imagine that if you ever had nothing better to do (can't actually imagine that) and googled some of her congressional testimonies/interrogations you'd think there's maybe a light on there after all.

But one thing I agree w/Drumpf on, she's tired; all the stupidity about her email server and the torture the do-nothing-morons in Congress put her through, have thoroughly worn her down. Nowhere near the energy in her campaign that the high stakes demanded. Unfortunately.

Kwin - Agree with you on the Hillary "brand" integrating upstate in a masterful way.

Clinton may be pretty smart, she though doesnt come across as overly likeable, and I think she was the wrong choice for the Dems ( though no idea who else they had), she appeared to play the card that it was her turn in the WHite House. I think the Bush/Clinton Era needed to come to an end.

I also think Trump was the best of a bad bunch that put themselves forward from the Republicans, though if it was any of the other they probably would not have won.

The problem now, is that the proper politicians that will support Trump are all nutjobs with crazy views.

Probably about the best summing up so far...looks like it's all your fault Mac ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

JAS wrote:Probably about the best summing up so far...looks like it's all your fault Mac ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

He is so right. And Le Pen is next in line. The Left must stop their opinion policing. It makes them no better than the ones they criticize.

On the election night Fox showed the Family Guy episode when Lois runs for mayor. Pretty good timing, and hilarious to compare her campaign speeches ("9 - 11!") with reality.

Drumpf still thinks he's a candidate, twittering complaints that protesters are incited by the media.
You're their President-elect Drumpf, time to start acting like that.
I don't think the rest of the world can even begin to imagine what's about to hit them.
Early indications, for instance, are that the next head of the Environment Protection Agency will be a climate-change/global warming denier.
America needs help from every other country to help tell these clowns just how effed up they are.

I don't think anything is off the table. HELP!

Apart from 'bombing the hell out if Isis' I for one look forward to less intervention wars. Just as I look forward to the US stop policing the world. Just as look forward to Europe start taking responsibility for their own security and regional interests. Call that isolationism, but so what? Isn't that what political correct Europeans have cried for for decades? I think it's a bit hilarious that Europeans can even think about blaming Trump for now giving Putin a free ride in Ukraine. Europe should get its act together and either invest in NATO or treat it as the defense organization it was intended, or alternatively, work closer together in the EU or whatever feasible forum there'll be after the UK leaves.

pedro,
Bush opted not to take out Bin Laden in Afghanistan following 9/11, then invaded Iraq and it's all been damage control ever since.


Don't think you can blame most of the Dems, and certainly not Obama, for that.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not really blaming the Dems or Obama. Although I didn't hear Hillary advocate for less intervention, in fact it was probably more cold war rhetoric when it came to Russia. I blame those who criticize Trump for wanting the US to mind its own business. Why should we expect the US to nanny Europe and police the world as it was some sort of birthright?

Kwini

Can Trump simply veto the US being part of the Paris climate treaty or would he have to get it through the house/senate first?

pedro,
Don't disagree, but he'll have a hard-right S-of-State most likely and a nutjob Defence Sec'y so watch out. But Europe will probably have to figure out what sort of world it wants - with rising nationalism are you/we ready for that?

Mac,
It's expected that Drumpf will just ignore it. Irrelevant to his agenda.

So he doesn't officially withdraw but just fails to meet any of the targets?

Quite. Why would he do anything else given the agenda of so many Republicans - not a fight in Congress he'd consider worth engaging in.
Massive environmental (and development, financial) deregulation in prospect.

JAS wrote:Probably about the best summing up so far...looks like it's all your fault Mac ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

Had to hit the close button when he started talking about "getting lynched". Nice phrase to use when discussing the biggest setback to black rights in about 30 years.

Also, what part of the moment you vote for a guy like Trump that openly admitted to groping women it makes you a sexist doesn't he understand?

Who is he anyway?

Kwini

I am genuinely worried this is the week that humans finally lost the chance to combat the worst effects of global warming. I guess in a few decades when Africa is uninhabitable we can only hope there is a more immigrant friendly president in the white house.

McLaren wrote:
 Nice phrase to use when discussing the biggest setback to black rights in about 30 years.  

Yet they didn't bother to vote. Your usual soft bigotry of low expectations mac?

No pedro it isn't. In general not voting is a pretty despicable act in most cases as you know someone has to win so you should always make sure the least damaging or best candidate wins.

The overall turnout for 2016 was about 57% so you can't just say black people didn't turn out and secondly it is known that black people in many US counties face particular barriers to voting.

kwinigolfer wrote:pedro,
Don't disagree, but he'll have a hard-right S-of-State most likely and a nutjob Defence Sec'y so watch out. But Europe will probably have to figure out what sort of world it wants - with rising nationalism are you/we ready for that?

First and foremost I want an Europe where we take care of our own problems, especially because we should, could and ought. And I don't want another cold war. Whether that means 'seceding' Ukraine to Russia I won't speculate in. The apathy we see today in European foreign policy is partly due to us being used to the US taking care of our problems and defining our interests. You can blame Trump for many things, but not that he wants to downplay the US engagement overseas. Hopefully Trumps victory will be a wake up call for Europe, in every sense. But lets see what kind of policies the new administration puts forward.

All very well pedro, but if he starts nuking someone, North Korea, Iran, Islington, we're all f@cked.

pedro wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:pedro,
Don't disagree, but he'll have a hard-right S-of-State most likely and a nutjob Defence Sec'y so watch out. But Europe will probably have to figure out what sort of world it wants - with rising nationalism are you/we ready for that?

First and foremost I want an Europe where we take care of our own problems, especially because we should, could and ought. And I don't want another cold war. Whether that means 'seceding' Ukraine to Russia I won't speculate in. The apathy we see today in European foreign policy is partly due to us being used to the US taking care of our problems and defining our interests. You can blame Duck for many things, but not that he wants to downplay the US engagement overseas. Hopefully Trumps victory will be a wake up call for Europe, in every sense. But lets see what kind of policies the new administration puts forward.

The last time the EU talked about a specific EU reaction force/military, it was verbally stomped on very quickly by the U.S. They would not like a situation where the EU/Europe has its own, powerful military forces and was therefore less reliant on the U.S. Despite what Trump says.
I agree with you, but I don't think U.S. foreign policy will.

One of Trumps points is that he'd like to see the other NATO partners defense spendings increase to the 2% of GDP they'd agreed on years ago thus discouraging them from piggybagging on the US. Can't see that's unfair. Why do we, in 2016, still have thousands and thousands US military personnel based in Europe?

I think some posters are a bit selective in their arguments. It a) seems the apparant positive ideas won't get passed by congress, and b) all the crazy stuff will get passed hands down, despite a divided GOP? Maybe you should park your bitterness and actually try to grab some of the positive ideas the man has brought forward. In 2008 I bet none of you said no no no to all Obamas wet fantasies about ending wars, closing Gizmo etc., despite a Republican majority in congress?

Well, he DID end most of the wars, still burning embers and mayhem in places that his predecessor disrupted.
He's down to the dregs in Cuba and, no, he actually had a majority in Congress until the Tea Party racist, religious bigots roared in in 2010.

The Democrats need to grow themselves some balls (not from Costco) and I think you'll see a new wave of proactive leadership, in the Senate at least. They'll facilitate common sense legislation that the Repubs have consistently blocked (especially on infrastructure investment), and wage war against those that need to be opposed. There's a chance that the Dems, for a couple of years anyway, can be more effective in opposition than the Republicans allowed Obama to be, at least for the past couple of years.
Then hopefully Democrats will retrieve the Senate in 2018. If not, watch out.

McLaren wrote:No pedro it isn't.  In general not voting is a pretty despicable act in most cases as you know someone has to win so you should always make sure the least damaging or best candidate wins.

The overall turnout for 2016 was about 57% so you can't just say black people didn't turn out and secondly it is known that black people in many US counties face particular barriers to voting.

Mac, you're a Green voter FFS, what exactly are you doing to ensure the least damaging candidate wins?

More conspiracy theories about black voters?

What terrible fate would befall the nation if the Greens were in power?

You're claimed you should vote so the least damaging party wins.

In an election, only two parties can ever realistically contest, voting for the Greens is a vote for a party that can never win, yet you claim you should vote for the least damaging party, you vote on a party which can never cause any damage, but never cause any good either because they'll never assume power, so  depending on your point of view, in the UK, according to your claim, you should only ever be Labour or Conservative.

Your vote for the Greens by your definition is a complete waste.

McLaren wrote:

JAS wrote:Probably about the best summing up so far...looks like it's all your fault Mac ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

Had to hit the close button when he started talking about "getting lynched".  Nice phrase to use when discussing the biggest setback to black rights in about 30 years.  

Also, what part of the moment you vote for a guy like Trump that openly admitted to groping women it makes you a sexist doesn't he understand?

Who is he anyway?

Who he is Mac is somebody who is probably to the left of you but who realises that the left has lost its way completely because it would rather nitpick PC issues than tackle the big ones...which makes you wonder if the right of the left (Blairites/Clintonite) has been bought off. Now is the time for Corbyn and Sanders if they want it...I'm just not sure they do.

Mac, people like you are ALWAYS looking for offence. We get that you don't like Trump, but stop going looking for petty things to criticise him for. Black rights going back 30 years is just a preposterous claim to make and is every bit as sensationalist as the "Daily Mail" you like to denigrate so much. That's desperate stuff and only makes you look like those pathetic anti democratic "protestors" in America.

Given time he'll hoist himself by his own petard most likely unless his party censor what they let him say.

super_realist wrote:Sounds a bit tin foil hat Monty, there's as many lefty media outlets as there are Murdoch ones.

Name one (of any size or import).

The Guardian,
The Observer
The Mirror
The Scotsman
The Herald

The BBC is frequently seen as left wing too, as is Channel 4.

It's really lazy to say that the rise of centre right politics is due to the media and or Murdoch.
Left wing and right wing simply alternate after one has been in power long enough and people get bored of the other. I'm sure in the UK, we'll probably see another left wing government in the next 5-10 years.

Have you read these papers? They are definitely now right of centre (don't know about the scottish ones - doubt we could say they were of any size or import). These 'lefty' papers have shifted their position mightily in the last 5 or 6 years, and if you have read them for any length of time you would easily have noticed this shift. It's populism at it's worst and it has been driven by murdoch, dacre and their unlikable posse.

Are you saying The Guardian is now right of centre? That's a claim I'd expect to hear from Mac and his mad conspiracy theories. That is a left paper and always will be.

Please explain how Murdoch has had an influence on papers he doesn't even own, and where was this influence of Murdoch during the time when left wing governments are in power?

Left wing government? Ah you mean New Labour. If thats your definition of left wing then the lurch to the right is significantly worse than I feared! Blair was banging Murdochs mrs - it doesn't get more cosy than that!
70% of media output in the UK is owned by 3 companies. Not very good ones either. The media set the tone and the agenda.