Republican voters are broadly drawn from these demographics: - Low income, low education white voters. - Evangelicals. - The ridiculously rich. The first category are generally very poorly educated, usually live in rural areas and are highly xenophobic, racist, or both. A good percentage of them hate "socialism" and like "sticking it to the libs". Others are just so poorly educated they honestly don't realise what they're voting for directly impacts them. For example, CNN did an investigation into Trump voters who were on Obamacare policies because they couldn't get insured elsewhere at an affordable rate (pre-existing conditions etc). They knew he was talking about repealing the ACA, they just didn't believe him. Now they're staring medical bills down the barrel without coverage. The second group are religious nutters and believe....seriously believe....God got Trump elected. Since God is infallible, Trump must be a good man. You may think this sounds like I made it up, but it's a massive slice of the voting population over here. You have to live it and see it to believe it. I don't think the pastor class believe it; they're mostly con men who have worked out that religion gives you power and money in the US while fleecing the believers. But the rank and file evangelicals certainly believe it. The third category don't give a crap about anything else how low their tax rate is, and screw everyone and everything else. It's been interesting seeing recent commentary from some actual conservatives (not authoritarians calling themselves conservatives) who have belatedly realised that the conservative movement in the US has been largely held together by racism in recent times. Only now do they finally see it. Some of them are now pointing out how the Tea Party activist of yesterday is now cheering on the fiscally irresponsible policies Trump and the Republican are currently pushing. Unfortunately there are too few of them, although more and more are speaking out on a daily basis now. I don't think this is something you can truly understand unless you live here. I mean, look at the Roy Moore election in Alabama. The man is outed as a paedophile and a stalker, is known by law enforcement to engage in predatory activity to the point he was banned from shopping malls, and despite physical evidence and multiple testimonies from the underage girls he had targeted only very, very narrowly lost his election campaign. I cannot imagine how ludicrous that looks from the outside.
20+ years ago when I lived and worked in the US, I remember turning the television on shortly after moving there and being astonished to watch 2 preachers discussing some text in the bible and how it proved god wanted everyone to vote republican. I always thought god was a Democrat
One does wonder how feeding thousands of people, healing the afflicted for free without demanding insurance, and overturning money lending tables while decrying the rich would be compatible with the agenda the modern evangelicals support. The Jesus they idolise certainly doesn't seem to have much in common with the Jesus in the bible. As Dada said "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him."
This was on the BBC website last week. An interesting read along the same lines: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/stories-47675301
Yeah, I actually read that a couple of days ago - a really good read (albeit a sad one). John Oliver's section on this TV evangelism/seed money is free on Youtube, too (at least it is for me, can't speak for the UK). It ties into the subject (and is mentioned in the above article) and is similarly sobering, despite the light tone. EDIT: I think it was this one (can't 100% guarantee as I can't really watch it at work):
Clearly quite diverse. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ll-spectrum-of-protesters-to-trafalgar-square
Yes, the same seat in Alabama is back up again next year. Trump not keen to endorse him this time though.
Washington Post view: President Trump began his insults before Air Force One even touched down in London on Monday. But perhaps more worrying is the fact that the United Kingdom is flirting with economic suicide because some Brits bizarrely believe they can trust the U.S. president. That risk comes from the misguided hope that Trump’s offhand attacks on the European Union and praise for fellow con men such as Nigel Farage mean that he will ride in like a white knight and rescue the United Kingdom from its self-inflicted Brexit mess. This is a dangerous delusion. Too many British politicians have peddled the myth that Britain crashing out of the European Union without any agreement in place, the "no deal” Brexit, would be perfectly fine — partly because Trump will strike a quick and benevolent trade deal that would compensate for reduced access to European markets. That assumption is based on a woeful misreading of Trump. But the more people that believe it, the more likely it becomes that Brits will walk off an economic cliff, hoping Trump will help break their fall. The most plausible Brexit scenarios are the most extreme: either “no deal” or no Brexit. The hard-fought compromise that Theresa May negotiated with Brussels left just about everyone unhappy. It got knifed on the floor of Parliament, even stabbed in the back by members of May’s own party who voted it down repeatedly. Brexit compromise, it seems, is finally dead. The Conservative Party, or Tories, will now hold a leadership election. The winner will become the next prime minister. According to recent polling, a majority of Tories favor leaving the European Union even if it means crashing out without any arrangement in place. That’s at odds with most voters, but most voters don’t get a say in the Conservative leadership election. As “no deal” becomes more likely, politicians who hope to deliver it are increasingly dependent on Trump. They need him as a talking point to demonstrate that “no deal” would pave the way for better deals with other major economies. And Trump has pushed Britain closer to that economic edge, urging Britain to just “walk away” from Brussels. Trump’s advice on the matter is admittedly of dubious value, given that he also absurdly suggested that the United Kingdom could solve Brexit by suing the European Union. (It simply doesn’t work like that.) As Trump pushes for “no deal,” most economists agree that it would be one of the greatest self-inflicted economic wounds in modern history. The British government’s own dismal assessments suggest that the economy would shrink by up to 9 percent over the next 15 years. Conflict and crisis would likely return to Northern Ireland as a precarious peace and a fragile economy get rocked by the imposition of a hard borderwith the Republic of Ireland. And if you don’t believe that such an act of self-harm is a real possibility, then try to explain why the British government has been wargaming “no deal” scenarios in a nuclear bunker while becoming the world’s largest buyer of refrigerators in order to stockpile medicines to prepare for the looming but utterly avoidable catastrophe. In an effort to spin those alarming (but not alarmist) forecasts, dishonest politicians have told voters that there is a silver lining: that 330 million Americans will seamlessly replace 450 million Europeans as trading partners. But any hue of silver they see is just the smoke from a pipe dream, because a quick U.K./U.S. trade deal is impossible. The average amount of time that has elapsed between the launch date of negotiations and implementation of bilateral trade deals with the United States is 45 months — nearly four years. Even if Trump somehow fast-tracked negotiations, any Trump-backed deal would almost certainly die in Congress, particularly during a presidential election year. And if Trump loses in 2020, negotiations will have to be reset completely. All of this is a moot point anyway, because Trump is not benevolent toward American allies; he’s a bully. Despite May’s attempts to flatter him, Trump slapped tariffs on British steel and aluminum. It’s hard to fathom why anyone is foolish enough to believe that he would extend a helping hand when Britain is at its weakest bargaining position during the inevitable desperation that would accompany a “no deal” scenario. Most Brits would likely protest provisions that the American government would insist on, such as market entry to the National Health Service or lowering food standards to import American agricultural products, to name but a few. The “Special Relationship” is the most important alliance for both countries. The United Kingdom and the United States both stand to gain immensely from a closer partnership, including an eventual trade deal if Britain does exit the European Union. When Trump leaves office, the United States is likely to go back to behaving like an ally with shared values. But for now, Brexit Britain should not make any decisions based on the myth that Trump can be trusted to save the day.
And to add to the above: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/04/trump-says-he-turned-down-corbyn-request-to-meet Trump specifically just stated the NHS has to be on the table for negotiations...like everyone with half a clue has been saying on these boards for the last few days.
Presumably on our terms though rather than ones they would prefer and be no doubt lobbying the US government to demand.
I'm sure there is. Most ancillary services have already been privatised, cleaning, meals etc. Can't be paying decent pensions from the taxpayer can we? The problem is the threat to the overall model of providers, though these are increasingly privatised too and the threat to the free at point of access principle. The US could demand that all provider services are open to tender, all hospitals, GPs etc and then introduce tiers of insurance schemes through add ons to the model. Ultimately leaving the rump free service as some kind of Obamacare and the well off having botox and the fat pumped out of their arses in what was the local intensive care unit. Boots pharmacies are a good example of the rapaciousness of private companies in health care - staff cut to a core, targets for unnecessary medication reviews fleecing the NHS, pharmacist burn out, dispensing errors. Who owns Boots? Walgreens, massive US company. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/13/how-boots-went-rogue
Also, it’s likely to be a contract for services with limited impact rather than goods which could affect all NHS users - such as pharmaceuticals. Trump wants access to the NHS as it’s a big market for pharma. Drugs are much more expensive in the US: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-u-s-pays-3-times-more-for-drugs/ You see now why he is so keen on doing a “great trade deal”? Still, at least Brexit gives us the chance to reject neoliberalism, eh?
No need to apologise as you didn't correct him, just patronisingly put your own take on things in red.
Considering May had to tell him what NHS meant with the mic volume turned down, I'd suggest Trump was giving a stock answer to a question he had no clue about.
Sort of - but, once upon a time, Boots used to be a 'proper' pharma company - they discovered ibuprofen and the gazillions made from it 'caused' them to stop all drug discovery/manufacturing and turn into a retail giant. Also - you'd be surprised at the amount of people who think that all drugs cost £9 - the amount that a prescription charge.
Because Trump has no form for saying one thing and meaning another. If a trade deal goes ahead it won’t be solely at the whim of the President what goes in. When he says one thing then another it’s clear he has no mandate to decide. He is a fantasist. But what you should take away is that a deal will not be easy, will take years. Read the Washington Post article and then maybe hold back on your wishful thinking.
Because that ****wit has been told he said the wrong thing and he'd better backtrack? I wonder how the big pharma and Medicare lobbyists will react when he gets home? Maybe he'll have to backtrack again. Of course he'll backtrack again you dolt.
Phil Hammond said something very interesting the other week - how, for the all of the hyperbole spoken about the NHS, it's an averagely funded service that performs averagely well. Here "...averagely..." would be how people who are knowledgeable about stats talks about 'average' meaning a range of numbers from very good to very bad. One thing the NHS does pretty well is using NICE to act as a pox-doctor / brothel keeper when dealing with the whores of the pharma industry. For all the media stories/campaigns you hear about "...the NHS refusing to buy miracle drug..." you're not hearing that NICE can't justify buying a new drug that's (numbers pulled out of my arse) 35% more 'effective' than available treatments but 3500% times more expensive and will be used in the treatment of a handful a cases annually. The NHS uses its bulk drug buying power (through NICE) pretty effectively - so effectively that it, generally, enrages the corporate side of big pharma companies.
Haha, I thought I might have actually had a response from you that didn't contain personal abuse, until I read the last word. You really are incapable of discussing anything who disagrees with you, without hurling abuse. The NHS cannot "be on the table", it is the NHS's trade that they carry out that will be on the table when it comes to procurement, and quite rightly. We get stuffed by big pharmaceuticals when it comes to the costs, and £billions have been wasted and we need to be able to explore all options including from the US. Someone posted on here yesterday (with a link) that US drugs, at least the most popular newish drugs are way more expensive than ours, whilst others are usually cheaper than in the UK, so we have choices and we can even look to at Brazil, where theirs are 50% of the cost of ours (same article).
More stupid talk from Trump about hospitals in the UK, this time ‘everybody’ being stabbed. Maybe he should look closer to home, maybe Virginia this week? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/donald-trump-brands-nhs-hospitals-16257668
I think that was me. Well, yes - provided that you think that the US is not so powerful as to demand that pharmaceuticals are included in any trade deal, giving us no choice. What concerns me, and many, about Brexit (among other things) is that we will become a small fish ”negotiating” with a shark, rather than the dolphin-sized creature we currently are as a member of the EU. (Sorry for the laboured metaphor).
I think people have the perception that we must have a trade deal with the US if we leave the EU. I don’t think that’s true. We trade on WTO with the US and it’s been very successful for many years. By country they are our biggest trade partner. The only reason to change to a trade deal is if there is something in it for the UK. I’m yet to see any suggestions on what that might be.
