There is no doubt that Trump is boorish and outrageous, I also believe that his genius was in spotting the huge numbers of people disaffected by the identity politics being pushed by the progressive political elite and its censorious nature.

His outrageous commentary poked the bear of the left leaning media and resulted in him getting more coverage than anyone else in spite of being outspent by more than 10:1 by Clinton, and their outrage only gained him a stronger following.

Paul Kelly (not a Trump fan) puts it very well:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paul-kelly/donald-trumps-election-a-rejection-of-identity-politics/news-story/147b11c08b64702d3f9be1821416cb72

As Donald Trump’s new presidency surges across our politics, creating chaos and uncertainty, there is one element in his victory where most Australian politicians remain in ideological denial — the revolt against identity politics.

Trump, in effect, was given permission to win the election by the US progressive class despite his narcissism, his coarseness and his smashing of the orthodox bounds of political and policy behaviour.

In retrospect, the 2016 US election story is a grand joke — enough voters in Middle America decided to tolerate Trump’s juvenile viciousness because they felt the narcissism of prevailing closed-minded progressive ideology was no longer to be tolerated. In the end, the alternative was worse than Trump. Is this too difficult an idea to grasp?

During the Obama era the US underwent a cultural revolution. Fuelled by social activists on race, sex and gender issues and the ­decisive swing by younger people to social liberalism as a way of life, the Democratic Party embraced identity politics as a brand. It mirrored the values transformation that swept through many American institutions: the academy, media, arts, entertainment and much of the high income earning elite. But revolutions are only guaranteed to bring counter-­revolutions in their wake.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Democrats lost the "unloseable" election
because they lost the white-working class and
pandered to elites. Hilary Clinton's campaign was
arrogant and out of touch. She acted as though she
had practically won before it even began. Her strategy
was short-sighted. The Democrats picked up affluent
votes but they lost poorer voters in greater numbers.
Working-class and blue collar whites either abstained
or voted for Trump. Hilary Clinton took them for
granted. No adds were run by Clinton in several
states including Michigan and Wisconsin. Whereas
Trump personally visited them. Big swings were
achieved in the groups the man targeted - such as
the less-educated whites and people in less
economic circumstances.

Clinton's campaign did not bother making an appeal to
working-class whites. Her glitzy-fund raisers did
not paint a picture of a woman connected to the
real suffering in the country. She came across as
someone who didn't care.

She did not listen to the legitimate grievances of the
voters and that cost her dearly. Trump on the other
hand promised change and to make "America Great Again."
How he will achieve that is a different question.
However, the American election should be a lesson for
the politicians in this country. Don't take anything
for granted. Listen to the voters.

Foxy,

The only voters that our pollies will listen to are the musicians and others at concerts, the ballet or the opera when they are given free tickets.
There are a few exceptions.

whether it be Trump or Clinton they are puppets that can be used to glorify God or deny Him. Trump is certainly making a far better fist of it by defunding funding the slaughter of the unborn unlike Clinton who would would use tax payer money to promote the slaughter of millions more unorn babies.

Foxy,

You got it in one. For 2016 the democrats became the greens.

Dearest Foxy,

As I understand it, Clinton didn't visit Wisconsin even once, a rust-belt state, heavily working-class, traditionally voting Democrat. Then she implies that they are 'deplorables'. Good one, Hilary.

It's interesting, given the emphasis on identity politics in the US, that she saw those 'deplorables' also in terms of having different identities - an entire 'basket' of them.

I look forward to the day when people recover from the inanity and insanity of identity politics and start to stick up for everybody's equal rights, when nobody is special, nobody is entitled to any more than anybody else because of some privileged victim status.

'Privileged victim status' - what is this fool saying ?!

Love always,

Joe

What a fascinating thread. Reality perceptively coming from keyboards often devoted to anything but.

I'd like to deal with the usual exception - runner who is incapable of respecting women's sovereignty over their own bodies because of what appears to be a couldn't-care-less dismissal of women's human rights to serve some sort of religion (polite word for superstition).

A differentiation of human rights does not start at conception, it starts when consciousness and self-awareness start to develop in the fertilised egg. This does not happen in the first 20 weeks.

Sensible legal systems (as in WA) respect female sovereignty as inviolable when there is no self-aware demand on it from a foetus, and thereafter they impose restrictions which take account of the human rights of the pre-born as well as those of the mother.

For a detailed account of WA law and how it differs from that in the less justice-conscious States study https://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/documents/Termination_of_Pregnancy_Info_for_Medical_Practitioners_Dec_07.pdf

There could be an additional restriction that would make sense: if someone seeks a third abortion the termination is offered only if sterilisation is performed at the same time.

Hey Emperor Julian,

You mention 'women's sovereignty over their own bodies'.

Now this might be a weird kind of point and I'm not sure if others will agree with me, (or even if I do) but if a woman is anti-abortion then that foetus represents a huge financial liability (or investment) for a man.

The woman can choose to say 'it has no value' or 'it has a great deal of value', either way the man may not have any say in the matter.

If a woman can entrap a man with pregnancy forcing him to work and pay for years to come, why can't a man entrap a woman with pregnancy, that is if we really believe in equality?

The point I'm trying to make (and I don't think I'm doing a very good job) is that if that if an unborn fetus is also an extension of a mans body (growing inside a female) then why does he have no rights in the ultimate decision whether the child lives or dies, whether he is required to simply pay the cost of abortion or pay for a new human being for many years to come?

What right do women have to full sovereignty over their bodies, when it takes two people acting irresponsible to firstly get pregnant and the fetus is just as much a living extension of the man as it is the woman, only growing inside the woman?

Don't everyone go nuts, it's just a hypothetical...

HI AC,

You're right: you didn't make a good job of it.

How's this for an option ? If a bloke doesn't want his pregnant girlfriend or wife to have an abortion, he signs a declaration that, once she has gone through the childbirth, he will thenceforth take over all care of the baby, until it is eighteen ? As well, he will pay for any medical complications affecting the mother ?

Seems a fair deal: the woman goes through the process of carrying a child, birthing it and recovering afterwards, while the bloke undertakes to give up his job, care for the baby 24/7, guide it through its childhood, drop off and pick it up to and from school, makes its lunches, etc., tolerate its 14-16 tantrums (okay, 12-18 tantrums), during or after which time the mother has the option to 're-connect' if she wishes ?

Of course, if she works, she may be required to pay some sort of baby and child maintenance for those eighteen years. But of course, she would be free to marry if she hasn't already, have other children (but see above: fatherly duties) and carry out all the above duties in relation to other children.

If a bloke isn't prepared to take on any of his fatherly duties, then the woman alone should have the option of termination.

How's that sound ?

Joe

AC,

The issue about abortion is the rights of the woman over her own body.

No human being should have the right to remove the human rights of another, whether it be a disabled person or a foetus. Which is why most democratic countries allow abortion to a certain stage. Most countries chose 20 weeks as the maximum termination age as it is generally considered plenty of time for a woman to make a decision to terminate, and after which the foetus might survive without the mother.

Of course the father has no human rights to be infringed, and however unfair it may seem, has some responsibility for the child. The very act of sexual intercourse essentially carries the risk of a pregnancy and the financial consequences.

anyone with a half a bit of intellectual honesty knows that in the vast majority of cases a woman has the right to have sex or to not have sex, she has contraception available in nearly all Western countries. To kill her offspring in the name of rights is repulsive.

Shadowminister wrote;

"His outrageous commentary poked the bear of the left leaning media and resulted in him getting more coverage than anyone else in spite of being outspent by more than 10:1 by Clinton, and their outrage only gained him a stronger following."

Here is a Bloomberg breakdown of the campaign donations and spending. The ratio is 2:1 not 10:1. Shadowminister's alternative fact?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Hey Loudmouth,
"You're right: you didn't make a good job of it."
Yeah I mucked it up good.. but you kind of got what I was saying though...

"Hows that sound?"

Umm... It sounds like it's more on the complicated side of that which I was aiming for but it demonstrated the 'equality' thing well enough.
I was thinking more about pregnancy and pre-birth 'equality' issues.

I read an article yesterday in which feminists spoke about what they want.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/why-arent-men-changing-their-name-after-marriage/8226970
(please excuse quoting the language)

"You can tell whether some misogynistic societal pressure is being exerted on women by calmly enquiring, 'And are the men doing this, as well?' If they aren't, chances are you're dealing with ... 'some total f-ing bull-t'."

"Feminism is not about choice — and won't be, at least until every woman has the opportunity to make the same choices, with the same consequences."

"Same choices with the same consequences", her words not mine, I'm just following the 'equality' path wherever it leads.

So basically if we're all going to be about 'equality' what I want to know is when does a man have the right to entrap a woman for 18 years; and when does a man get the right to terminate a pregnancy he doesn't want despite the woman's objection?

People scream for 'Equality' but then it seems they only want the aspects of 'equality' which are more liberal to themselves, not the results of other aspects of this same equality which goes against their interests.

You know; if we're really going to be serious about being fair.

Hi C,

I agree, "Same choices with the same consequences" is nonsense: women get pregnant, not men; women carry a child for nine months, not men; women breast-feed, not men; usually it's women who have to stay home looking after a baby/child/teenager/baby for 18 years, not so often men. Not much biological equality there.

So yes, women have much more responsibility and obligations once they decide to carry a child to birth and beyond. A man's pleasurable duties are, or can be, over once he has done the deed. So clearly, there is no 'equal choice' over what happens next: a woman has far more of the burden, so she should have much more of the decision-making.

So yes, if a man signs a declaration (and doesn't then skip the country) that he wishes to raise a child from birth, then he doesn't really have the right to have a say in what a woman decides to do. Of course, if they were married and living together, it would be a different story. Better still if they loved each other.

What ?! Love may have something to do with sex ?!

Cheers,

Joe