Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

Claude, the comment about the elites was in response to whoever was using Ed Miliband as an example,

What if it that makes Ed Milliband "elite" as opposed to, say, Arron Banks?

Actually, it's about the level of duplicity we are willing to tolerate.

Do you tolerate someone who is prepared to give Putin free rein because they have financial interests in Russia?

I'm afraid that being duplicitous is a common feature in politics.
And often a problem for ourselves too. We can all think that overall for the population in the UK it's best to have the NHS, but if I can afford it I'd rather go private and I'm glad private health exists so that I can use it. It's not many that would rather go NHS given the choice.

But, going back to the US election, ahem, what I find striking is when people defend Trump almost as a saint, or someone as only has the interest of the "people" at heart. He is just like any other politician. He may not need the money (we don't actually know...), but he certainly seems to crave the power.

If he was doing it for the people, he would have a more inclusive message. Less of hate and discord. He wouldn't focus so much on slights on his own person. Or on winning.

He is an amateur politician, but not in a good way either.

Actually, it's about the level of duplicity we are willing to tolerate. Personally, I won't tolerate someone who duplicitously takes us to war, who duplicitously sells arms to others for personal enrichment, and who does one thing while preaching something else. I can deal with other things and am willing to tolerate duplicity in other, what I perceive as lesser, evils.

*So the elites are the people without power, who lost the election?"

Sorry, but this is a dumbass way of posting. The political elites and their chattering class thought they had Brexit in the bag because they were depending on people staying with the devil they know rather than 'going for the wall'. And of course, that TV debate in which Clegg was saying of course we can control EU immigration but did not go on to explain how. When it was Farage's turn to speak he blew that lie out of the water. He said there was absolutely NO WAY, we have no sovereignty and we signed up for No Control.

If people have the facts, can check them, they can make informed decisions.

Lweji - I agree with your last post. My huge objection, and what Claude is saying, is that 'elites' who do one thing for themselves but something else entirely for everyone else are duplicitous. The Chakrabarti and selective education scandal is just the most recent example. We all understand living together is complex, and are willing to ride with that, but it doesn't have to be duplicitous. WW said that we all want the same thing - and we do, actually.

If Trump is being truthful about why he stood as a candidate, then I laud him. He knows about all the scandals that his opponent has been involved in, and the fines she has been given, so if he is standing for office to follow in Hillary's footsteps to get to the White House in order to enrich himself personally, then he will be found out quickly.

Maybe some are, but what makes me feel ill are those politicians and their advisers who KNOW that a course of action will not benefit the citizens of this country, and is entirely the result of their ideology. They want to put in place an ideology that is contraindicated for the welfare of the population.

I don't know if its due to ideology.

Quite a lot of politics seems to be driven to get votes, or simply work out a budget.
Ideology may get in the way, but it also leads to reduce funds to things like the NHS (or equivalent elsewhere) and increase defence expenditure. Or lowering taxes for businesses and higher incomes and reducing support for families. It gets in the way of the good of the people for the left as for the right.

I don't think it's a problem with any whizzkids, or any political side, or any system. It's almost inevitable. You have to make choices that will be informed by different aspects. Whether it benefits the population at large or not, is often a matter of perspective.

And it's probably true that many people, including many in government, fail to understand the complexities of government and economics.
It's inherently a chaotic system, in that small changes can produce huge effects, and our current models aren't good at predicting the effects. Not to mention that some events are basically unpredictable.
Even for the those with the best intentions, they can only do the best they can with the knowledge that they have. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Sadly, politics (and high finance) attract many people who are only after power or money. Take them all with a pinch of salt (or a truck load).

That includes Trump, btw.

So the elites are the people without power, who lost the election?

They are the people who did PPE and who are now in elite jobs, driving elite cars and living in elite abodes. They know each other (and Ed), and all hope to make a jump from their elite job to policy adviser (to Ed).

Who are the "whizzkids" you know?

It is their belief that the ordinary man in the street is too stupid to understand.

This is exactly right and describes perfectly the 'whizzkids' I know.

Kaija, you stirrer. :)

Anyway, it seems that Stephen Colbert agrees that there is a widespread conspiracy against Trump.

"Maybe some are, but what makes me feel ill are those politicians and their advisers who KNOW that a course of action will not benefit the citizens of this country, and is entirely the result of their ideology. They want to put in place an ideology that is contraindicated for the welfare of the population."

I can certainly agree with you on this.

And the reason why privileged people such as Self and Miliband (who seem to come from a similar North London pod) believe their way is the only way is not to do with a difference of opinion. It is their belief that the ordinary man in the street is too stupid to understand. Maybe some are, but what makes me feel ill are those politicians and their advisers who KNOW that a course of action will not benefit the citizens of this country, and is entirely the result of their ideology. They want to put in place an ideology that is contraindicated for the welfare of the population.

So why mention his Jewishness in a post dismissing his ideas?

Kaija you are deliberating trying to stir it. I am workingclass Jewish but not from a Marxist or Very Left background. Miliband and Self, I believe, belong not just to a talented bunch of people (elite) but to a political elite who think their way is the only way. Your inability to discuss by saying to me "tells us all we need to know" is puerile. That is something Self would say.

And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion WinchesterWoman.

But Claude's dismissal mentioned his Jewishness and his education in the first sentence.

Jewish is nothing to do wit it. He's a patrician privileged snob

so you give up

Claude, you seem to be suggesting that Will Self's views should be discounted because he is Jewish and educated. Which tells us all we need to know.

That should have said, "They are actually 'a thing' " (they do exist, are alive, and function only too well).

twitter.com/MFAEcuador/status/788511494296272896

I don't understand why people are so scornful of elites. I disagree with Claig on some things (Corbyn, Obama - you said in one of your posts that he has been a good President, and now Will Self) but there have always been and always will be elites, whatever form of government or economic system we observe. The difference is in degree. It's a sliding scale ranging from 'these elite people are ok' to 'these elite people are horrific to'. I'm not sure that this is controversial. This election is about that. (Elites can be defined as people who, by virtue of a mechanism such as wealth, talent, heritage or whatever make decisions).

I know Claig's "whizzkids". They are actually a thing.

wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-to-Frame-Assange-as-a-Pedophile-and.html?update3