UBER has long been criticised for its intrusion into local taxi businesses among other things. I have a relative who works for a local black taxi company in and around Chester; when I asked him about the decision he said: “It was always going to happen when the laws and rules are repeatedly ignored and the safety of the public was constantly being ignored great news for us black cab drivers hopefully now the rest of the country will follow suit”. He’s just one of thousands who believe chastising the corporation was the right move to take. The company is said to exploit its drivers; before April this year, employees were not given sick pay among other rights that other workers have had for years. On top of that, another controversy has arisen regarding UBER’s plan to introduce driverless cars, which would cost thousands of jobs regardless of the licence decision. Taking away their license does send a straightforward and blunt message that their conduct is unacceptable.
Uber has definitely gotten me out of a couple of bad situations. I don't know if removing them makes women safer. I fear not. #uberlondon
On the other hand, though, many believe that UBER offers a reasonable and affordable service that’s done entirely from an app; others have said that they feel much safer and more secure taking a service that gives full details of the driver. But by far the biggest complaint registered by the company is the loss of jobs that will come if UBER cannot operate in the capital. This year there was said to be 30,000 drivers in the city and with the non-renewal coming into effect, many employees and their families are anxious as to how they will pay the bills. There’s no doubt the cancellation of UBER’s license will have a knock-on effect on its employees but is a price worth paying to teach the corporation a lesson in lawful business etiquette? Do we stand up to big business at the expense of those working under them?
Or could there be a happy medium between the two sides? A means to punish bad corporate behaviour without removing their operations completely? Perhaps a company fine would be more sufficient, a chance to improve their business ethics? Personally, I can’t speak for the service as a whole; I used it just once when I headed to New York and journeyed to Fairleigh Dickson University. It was helpful to have payment done by card rather than cash in hand, not to mention the driver calling me on arrival to save massive phone use charges abroad. It’s good to have an efficient service for customers, but at the same time relying too much on corporate companies gives them more influence to the point where they can control the market; this is where the rules and ethics fly out the window, infecting other aspects of the economy as a result, particularly public services. Whether UBER will succeed in repealing their licence remains unclear, but it’s drawn quite the vocal reaction from both sides of the debate.
Boris Johnson; what a character… That’s probably the simplest way to describe the UK’s current Foreign Secretary. For many years he’s been in the spotlight, his time as the mayor of London being one example, though recently this has often been for the wrong reasons; last year he was one of the spearheads behind the leave campaign and while he wasn’t quite as vitriolic as Nigel Farage, Johnson still gained infamy for his use of a bright red bus with the slogan: “We send £350 Million a week to the EU; let’s spend that money instead on the NHS”. Of course, we know that this trick worked and Boris hoped this would propel him towards a leadership position, which instead went to Theresa May. Dishonesty and its openness have drastically increased in the UK since last year’s referendum; a willingness to twist facts and get the result you want, in turn gaining a higher ability to impose your personal interests on everyone else.
Johnson’s veering off to the side to write a self-promoting article speaks volumes of how the press plays a significant role in political procedure. The papers hold UK politicians to account but often they’re known to throw their support behind a specific party in the election; the Daily Telegraph in Boris Johnson’s case is no different. Media ownership by rich moguls is a big problem in the UK and this facilitates a medium where a pompous self-interest takes centre stage. Since Johnson repeated the false £350 million claim, the Telegraph has followed up with further articles showing fellow politician Michael Gove throwing his support into the mix; they spread the slogan without questioning it, common people read and move towards believing them; with such a massive disconnect with politics in the UK, this is how it usually goes. In return, many politicians find themselves working for newspapers, the most recent of which being George Osborne becoming the editor of the Evening Standard and Nick Clegg joining the i Paper as a columnist.
Nowadays I find myself in a somewhat similar position; writing this blog and expressing my individual opinions with a journalism degree under my belt while pursuing a planned career in international affairs, particularly through the UK’s Civil Service. I’m of the opinion that you check your biases at the door when working for this sector; what would happen if I suddenly leaked some information to the press or wrote an article bigging myself up while working to undermine my superiors? I’d probably be sacked immediately, no questions asked. This comes back to my previous post on leadership where a lack of accountability has allowed the higher-ups to get away with breaking the rules set out by democratic institutions. In my opinion, the rules and ethical conduct of country branches should travel all the way to the top, ensuring accountability is maintained and that neglect of position and responsibility is cut down. As for Boris Johnson, he’s likely to keep his job, despite the frustration from commentators, with Theresa May apparently working to rein him in so as not to look to wobbly. Where he goes from here is anyone’s guess, but he’s sure to be discredited further if continues to spread falsehoods.
(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)
What does it mean to lead a country in the 21st Century? While for the most part we’ve moved past the dictators and conquerors of eras past, there are still many cases throughout the world where the few are being catered to while the many are either being pushed down or worse, tricked into following the wrong stories or ideas. The United States continues to have problems with its leadership, striking a nerve over the past couple of weeks.
Recently President Donald Trump hit headlines (for the 200th time this year? I’ve lost count…) on his refusal to condemn the toxic surge of white supremacists in Charlottesville, before going on to equate Nazism with the counter-protesters (Some of whom are violent themselves) standing against it. A shameful move, but the impact it had on the society at large is arguably even worse. Trump’s actions continue to damage America, but it’s also a damning example of a leadership problem that exacerbates rather than working to solve societal problems. Some of his more unsavoury supporters go along with his dismissal of the media as saboteurs and while the mainstream hasn’t been wholly balanced across presidencies, Trump should expect to be scrutinised because without coverage there is little knowledge or awareness of what leaders currently stand for. This in turn not only generates a collection of opinions on a leader but also creates a ripple effect on common people. On the one hand, leaders mislead the people to maintain their own positions or on the other, they give themselves so much status and power that citizens cannot hope to hold them to account.
He refuses to openly condemn white supremacists because it’s unhelpful towards his own self-centred goals; he wouldn’t dare anger his most ardent fans when they’re the most important group towards keeping his floundering presidency alive. They keep the likes flowing on social media and the hate running through the minds of thousands. Keep them beholding to his wildly divisive presidency and they won’t see the real problems at the very top of management. Operating within his own self-interest is the name of the game and this attitude is very damaging to the society he represents. The same also goes for fact as it is twisted and skewed to manipulate people.
Not only are people more emboldened to go out and march for a disgraceful cause, it also feeds and enhances their superiority complexes; they believe in their disgusting beliefs with a greater passion and take bolder steps to defend it. Typically, I have believed that there is good and bad in every person, but Nazism is evil, no matter which way you frame it. Having demonised themselves throughout World War II, the fact that there are people getting behind this cause shames those who fought and died over seventy years ago. We’ve reached the point where individuals are defending Nazism, a movement that committed genocide. It should never be given a platform to spread but the way America’s leader has handled the problem only amplifies this.
How you choose to represent the people and lead reflects the amount of responsibility resting on your shoulders; the people spot you so much in the media and in society that they typically form an opinion or reaction from it. Leaders should set an example to follow, not bring popularity to the worst aspects of society while turning a blind eye to behaviours that should have died out decades ago. They say that once an idea comes about, it never truly dies; efforts must be made, especially from leaders to promote and shape progressive ideas and work to shut out hateful ones, but right now that’s not on the agenda as accountability erodes and greater control is enacted either through misdirection or placing one’s self above others. The same also goes for corruption; instead of facing ramifications, it is instead swept under the rug and many unethical decisions that directly affect common citizens are hidden away behind closed doors, leaving the media, mainstream or otherwise to scrape out the details.
Indeed, no leader or the country they represent has ever been completely spotless which brings us to the official definition of the word: “the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.” Surely now is the time to refine that statement by adding on at the end: “with good grace, ethics and accountability”. We have the modern systems to include the people in political procedure including NGOs and some efforts from the UN but more of an effort needs to be made to raise awareness of leader’s deeds and how they are held to account. UNA-UK, an organisation working to build a bridge between the UK and the UN has suggested some measures to bring more accountability regarding the sustainable development goals, which speaks volumes of greater issues. If you have stonewalling and deflections at the highest levels of governance then the world’s problems will be very difficult to solve; therefore, leadership and ethical conduct are becoming increasingly important as world issues affect more and more people.
(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)
From August 7th to 12th I journeyed to New York for the 20th Youth Assembly at the United Nations, an event which brings together a vast collection of people aged between 16 and 28. Most applicants were chosen based on their individual initiatives and their contributions to society at large. I took part in the event with five other team members under Global Young Voices, who served as a media partner. After posting the event around a few times on social media, I thought I’d share a bit more of it here.
Heading to New Jersey for the first part of the event, I found that Fairleigh Dickson University (We were based on the Florham Campus) was the birthplace of Global Young Voices. Two members of the team attended the university on study abroad and came up with the media outlet between them; from here FDU threw in their support, which in turn both grew GYV and allowed us to attend the Assembly. A sort of prologue to the Youth Assembly took place at the university called “Sustainable Ventures for Sustainable Development” (SVSD) which interestingly, was made up of mostly African, Chinese and Middle-Eastern groups and their initiatives.
Two of the first people I interviewed at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Suaad and Juwahar were from Dubai and had received some recognition for their initiative: “Hope for Opportunity” which aims to promote Saudi Arabian assistance in the refugee crisis. I was struck by how positive and uplifting they were; they understood the kind of injustices in the world yet they believed in their ideas and wanted to take them to the next level. That’s the same thing I can say about each of the delegates who attended the session; they all had such great ambitions and a powerful resolve that brought everyone together as a community. The speakers and panellists at the session would only continue to build these bridges.
From here, we and the delegates who attended the SVSD moved to New York and UN Headquarters. The opening ceremony featured a range of speakers and saw the GYV set about covering the sessions. There was a wide variety here from Microsoft showing up to teach coding and how robotics can shape the addressing of world issues, a media panel featuring GYV’s founders Edy and Camilla and plenty of other inspirational stories. I remember one speaker in a climate change session receiving a standing ovation after her impassioned speech on living in a United States with difficulties accepting and tackling the very real issue. Throughout the week I did a variety of tasks from collecting images, taking notes of each session and presenting each interview (Live or otherwise) to go up on the GYV website; the latter I thought went very well as I brought a relaxed presence to the delegates who each took it in turns to answer questions. The only real downside was that all the work we did over the four days meant we had little time to explore the city which was probably a little disappointing for those who hadn’t visited New York before. Personally I’ve visited the Big Apple three times over the years, the last being in 2012 where I passed through on a school ski trip.
The main goal of the trip though was to run our own session at the UN Assembly; entitled “A Society for All: Stories across Borders, the goal of which was to grant more exposure to initiatives while also building delegate’s confidence in delivering their ideas to others. In the lead-up to the session I was introduced to Ceylin Sener, a sixteen-year-old from Turkey who was chosen to present her initiative, the “Humans First Club”, a group which has assisted Alzheimer’s patients and taken education to children in underdeveloped rural communities. Ceylin, along with three other speakers each gave a ten-minute speech in the style of a TED talk. We all worked together very well and I thought Ceylin really rose to the challenge of delivering that ten-minute speech. The event was my first time mentoring another person and when it came to feedback, I felt I was quite precise with tips. But to improve I feel I could have gone the extra mile by practicing with Ceylin alongside the presentation slides more; there were also a few gaps when it came to presenting on the day such as when and who would change the slides throughout the speech. Despite these gripes, each of the four speeches got some great reactions from the audience, a full house who took up the entire conference room; all ten of us are sure to keep in touch long after the Assembly.
All in all, the Youth Assembly was a fantastic event and a real honour to attend as both a citizen of the UK and a member of Global Young Voices. Looking back on an event as big as this really hammers home the importance of many things; networking and collaborating with others, the kind of passion and commitment that can take you to the heights of world leadership (Which some delegates were singled out for in the closing ceremony) and of course the notion that if we all work together by pooling initiatives together then real positive change will come about. I especially enjoyed how the event was a blend of media and governance, bringing the two experiences together.
I’d like to thank many different people; my two colleagues at the Cooperative store who covered an entire week’s worth of shifts, my parents for supporting me in these opportunities, the FDU staff for accommodating us and assisting with equipment, and finally the Global Young Voices team for allowing me to come along and everyone I met and spoke to during the week; you were all amazing people and I’m hoping we’ll be able to attend again in the future.
The UK’s General Election in 2017 was an amalgamation of paradoxes, coming only two years after the previous one in 2015 and a year after the EU Referendum When campaigning first got underway in April this year, the Conservatives expected an easy win, a landslide that would, as the Daily Mail put it: “Crush the saboteurs” and give them free rein to do whatever they wanted to the UK, even if it came at the expense of everyone who wasn’t earning £100,000 or more a year. On top of that, they hoped that such an audacious announcement would send the other parties into panic mode, giving them barely enough time to organise a campaign to combat the Conservative onslaught. The results were far from what the Conservative party wanted. While they still came out on top with 318 seats in Parliament, this was just short of the 326 needed to form a complete majority. Labour came in second with 262, a drastic increase on their previous result, while the other parties including the Liberal Democrats and SNP in Scotland made average ground by comparison. UKIP were the biggest losers of the night, winning no seats as their leader Paul Nuttall resigned shortly afterwards. All in all, the BBC ranks the overall voter turnout at 68.7% but the real gap between votes showed with age differences. The younger crowd turned out in droves to support their preferred candidate who would deliver change while the elderly were on the opposite end of the spectrum, going with what they voted for numerous times over the years and wishing to keep things as they were.
What went wrong with Theresa May’s campaign is down to many things; from the moment she first announced the election, she was u-turning on something she had promised not to do and from there her public opinion went downhill quickly. She barely met with any voters out on the road, refused to meet and debate with her biggest opponent and came off as incredibly weak whenever she did show up on televised debates. In short, May hid away from the public eye, manufactured her “strong and stable” position with robotic repetition and waited for the billionaire owned press to spin the election for her. Her gamble was a failure because she underestimated the power of the voters, who this time had an inspiring and capable leader to get behind. Now she’s facing calls to resign; respectfully she should, considering how David Cameron had the good grace to step down after his EU Referendum fell flat last year. According to the blog Another Angry Voice, 60% of all Tory MPs want her to resign but May insists on clinging on. Instead she’s letting her advisors take the fall which may only be the first of many wobbly steps towards maintaining her power. That and her new cabinet which doesn’t seem all that progressive so far; with a few exceptions, most of the higher ups in the Conservative party are keeping their jobs. Things aren’t much better since last year. We have an environment secretary who doesn’t believe in climate change, a justice secretary who doesn’t believe in LGBT or human rights, a health secretary with schemes to destroy the NHS and a foreign secretary who hasn’t been all that effective so far. After further research, the DUP is merely a number to cobble together a government, unable to vote on any issues in the UK.
Of all the political parties in the UK, it’s UKIP who have been the biggest wild card. Formed from a set of disillusioned Conservatives who broke away to build their own party, UKIP has been difficult, a thorn in the side of their former party for years. Even the entire EU referendum was proposed by David Cameron to get the rebels in line. Last year, the United Kingdom Independence Party was one of the staunchest supporters of the leave campaign and celebrating across the country when the result came; Nigel Farage declared Brexit the UK’s Independence Day and despite only having a single MP in parliament, the party nevertheless made their mark.
2016 was a difficult year in many ways, there was much in the way of bitterness and little in the way of understanding; what went wrong over the past 365 days could almost be considered a chain reaction of sorts; there was something radical about this year, a point where numerous systems and sensibilities were suddenly thrown out the window in a blind rage. This is something I’ll try to consider and reflect on here, however difficult it may be from a purely UK perspective.
When talking about the Western world however, most eyes point to the UK and the United States who both took grossly misguided steps that may well end up destroying the values of openness, acceptability and freedom. The picture above explains better than words what happened to both nations in 2016; two lying conmen, masquerading as anti-establishment standing in a gold-plated lift with smug grins on their faces over how they managed to trick two of the most powerful western nations into voting against their own interests. They really did bring change this year; specifically, they made things worse and both times, events that should have derailed the two conmen had little to no effect. In the UK, MP Jo Cox was murdered by a far right terrorist chanting “death to traitors, freedom for Britain” while in the US, Trump could get away with making vulgar remarks about women and walking free from his criticism of a disabled reporter and countless ethnic minorities. It was blindingly clear that the two cons were disastrous. Britain has been hurled to the back of the queue on the world stage and into a period of uncertainty without any plan or a deal that would leave us better off and the United States has an incredibly misguided and potentially dangerous presidency coming in January 2017. On both sides of the world, the two big votes were fraught with infighting, vitriolic exchanges across social media and many instances that whipped some (not all) people into frenzies of anger and resentment. This often happens with any election but 2016 felt so unhinged and furious in the West that the structure of politics, left and right, looked set to come crashing down; not for reasons of progress but for more efficient division and manipulation of the masses to go down a specific path.
This erosion and hacking of Britain’s democracy didn’t stop at the EU referendum; Theresa May’s government passed the snoopers charter into law, perhaps the most extensive surveillance laws in the world; no discussion, no debate, they were simply put through and will come into effect next year. All companies will be required to hold browsing data (Categorised by who, what, when and where) for thousands of people across the UK with public authorities having free rein to access devices. On top of this, the government can demand a backdoor into devices from companies to allow for even more intrusion; consider the notion of all MPs being exempt from the charter and you have an extremely suspicious law coming into effect. Then there was the successful bid for Sky by media mogul Rupert Murdoch; after his last attempt was derailed by the phone hacking scandal in 2011, NewsCorp will now take over the large British broadcaster for £11.2 billion, handing over even more control to corporate media. It doesn’t bode well for public perception (which for years has been manipulated by the tabloid press) and it certainly doesn’t bode well for journalism either as a greater control and agenda is enacted on the media. Some have stated that Sky News won’t turn into Fox News in the States, but it may be worth taking their future coverage with a grain of salt. What could happen next? According to an account in the book: Hack Attack by Nick Davis, Murdoch may wish to steamroll British regulator Ofcom, imposing a complete domination of the UK press without any barriers. That’s worth keeping an eye on.
Looking ahead to 2017, what kind of progress can be made? Can we manage to learn from the massive uptake of xenophobia and division? Or will some nations, especially the West, descend into further nastiness? It may well come down to common people, who can’t be blamed for 2016’s missteps as they were horribly misled by the people above them, to make the biggest action against changes that will negatively impact them in the future, not to mention challenge racism, bigotry and those who would cause further damage and division. To close, I think this alternative Christmas message from Brendan Cox suits best; it’s something that everyone should watch and consider as we go into the new year.
(Images in the public domain used for the purposes of review and criticism)
As 2016 comes to a close, politics is looking to the future after a set of thunderous earthquakes; there’s one particular trend I’ve noticed. After a Supreme Court ruling, the triggering of the Brexit process was debated in Parliament. I had some hope that the Labour and Liberal Democrats would be able to halt its progress. Perhaps both parties could have pulled together and fight the Brexit con, letting the people know why their vote was the product of lies and manipulation. But it was not to be as parliament voted vastly in favour (461 for to 89 against) of making the Conservatives release a plan for Brexit and aiming to trigger article 50 for next year at the end of March. The controversial move is all but confirmed; quite disappointing but did they really have much of a choice? To go against a vote, even if it was a con would be a bad move from any party wanting to win the next election. Consider the tabloid media’s attack on the UK’s judicial judges after they stated that Brexit could not be triggered without a vote in parliament first (Which is a fundamental part of our democratic process). If Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron denied Brexit from going through, the media would tear into them relentlessly and they might as well kiss the 2020 election goodbye. It’s this kind of acceptance that compels parties to act for the bigger picture rather than making moves that could anger the populous. It is also indicative of just how much sway external forces and the media have over the UK. Conversely, the move is certainly holding the current government to account; if Theresa May and her cabinet fail to deliver a comprehensive Brexit plan before then, they will be held as incompetent by their rival parties, thus diminishing their own reputation.
It’s not just the UK who is tossing around ideas of appeasement; Germany’s next election is taking place between August and October 2017 and this has brought further measures which could be tied in with the events to come. Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently endorsed her party’s proposition for a partial burqa ban, stating that “the full facial veil is inappropriate and should be banned wherever it is legally possible”. When an election is bearing down on you, do you maintain your common policy or alter it somewhat to put more emphasis on integration while also making a light appeal to the far-right sects that have become more common in recent years? It’s easy to suggest that the need to stay in power and win elections is the principal goal of any political party, but this may well come at the cost of inclusiveness. The far right and populism is a side that can no longer be ignored in this regard and it’s possible that aspects of that political viewpoint may slowly become a larger consideration for the left to deal with in the future. We’ll have to watch 2017 carefully.
(Images used for the purposes of review under fair use. Tabloid headlines in public domain)
Update (November 27th 2016): With the amount of media attention the motion has received, City University is looking to undergo a more vigorous discussion over whether or not the tabloids should be taken off of campus stores. The person behind the motion has also stated that ban may have been too extreme a word, suggesting boycott be used.
City University has made the choice to stop selling tabloids on campus and I was one of around 200 students sitting in the Great Hall on November 17th, looking to get a sense (As a uni program rep) of how student concerns were being taken into account and implemented. After a few fairly simple motions, a lone student (whose name I won’t give to avoid personal attacks) announced a motion to ban the sale of tabloid newspapers because of the hateful messages they put out. The move was being done in partnership with the Stop Funding Hate campaign, which has been encouraging companies (most recently LEGO, the Cooperative and John Lewis) to withdraw their advertising and remove their association with a nasty set of newspapers. The decision is not unlike Bournemouth University’s choice to remove lads mags a year or two ago.
There was much debate with some comparing the move to fascism, before we eventually chose to pass the motion; but is this really the case when confined to a single institution? One which aims to promote diversity and cooperation? Will the papers be forced to disappear overnight because one major institution chose to stop selling them? No; all students are still more than welcome to buy them outside the campus; we did not call for a complete ban across the nation for the tabloids. It is instead an effort towards changing their vile tone which could be achieved with enough support from companies and universities alike.
A British student union has outlawed newspapers whose editorials it disagrees with to combat 'fascism'. pic.twitter.com/YNPf0sYcFj
I read an article from Conservative magazine “The Spectator” recently which had much criticism of the decision; one interviewee argued that the best way to deal with bad journalism is to “do it better”; this was a message directed squarely at the university’s journalism students. But I ask critics this: How can you change the way the tabloids are ran when their owners and other people at the top will always set the agenda and the way their papers are made? If an editor at the Sun suddenly turned around and said that their negative tone needed to be scaled back then it’s possible their superiors would find someone else to follow through.
The bottom line is that the tabloids will not care about open discussion, especially the moguls who own them; they only want to sell as many papers as possible and the only way to challenge that corporate status quo is to put a dent into their profits. Only then will they realise that their rhetoric is not acceptable in a modern society that can and should be committed to embracing people from all walks of life, not demonising people who aren’t British citizens. The passed motion I feel is not a contributor to censorship; rather it is aimed at rejecting the hateful messages that these papers have been writing endlessly in recent years while also cosying up to the power elite on the side. The UK media has many flaws and I view this as a step towards changing things.
Why did Trump win? What was it that convinced millions that he had their best interests in mind? Really it was a collection of factors and components, some of which were hardly down to Trump himself. First of all the media attention was concentrated on him beyond reasonable doubt; from beginning to end, Trump’s face was plastered across every TV station and every front page, his unethical behavior being under constant viewing; according to the New York Times, Trump received two billion dollars worth of free media. The likes of Tim Cruz and Jeb Bush had no chance of gaining the Republican nomination when the media wasn’t interested in them. In the eyes of the media Trump was a source for an endless string of stories sure to get some attention and clicks but right from the get-go, the election proved to be very one sided, especially during the nomination process.
This “whitelash” and sense of entitlement against the establishment was evident across America. A perspective was taken on by the masses; if a media outlet is supporting Clinton then they were automatically assumed to be bribed or part of the corrupt establishment. The more the media pushed against Trump, the more people vowed to go against it, proclaiming that they were taking control; even when they were being truthful, people chose to disregard it; some became so hell bent on mistrusting anything remotely close to the mainstream that viewed Trump with a reverence unheard of in any election. Combine this with a massive complacency on Hillary’s part and you begin to see why Trump claimed the Oval Office this year.
If a nationalist can obtain the most powerful position in the world, then there is absolutely no doubt that other far right parties will be spurred more than ever to spread their toxic perspectives. Most recently French far right leader Marine Le Penn celebrated Trump’s victory, proclaiming that their new world was being constructed. What kind of world could this be? One where the far right triumphs all over Europe, seceding from union into isolationism and selfishness? It’s a scary prospect indeed.
But all of this fear could be completely unfounded; Trump could get into the Oval Office next year and suddenly do a 180 on much of his hateful rhetoric, or perhaps his drastic policies may need scaling back and thus reduce the damage they might do. Was his campaign all lip service to get him into the most powerful office in the world? Already he has stated that he will not completely scrap Obamacare as he initially promised and will not throw Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran out the window either. Despite his many failures as a businessman though, Trump certainly knows how to get people on his side because of a sly charisma that Clinton just didn’t have; his speeches were uninhibited and vulgar compared to every other candidate in recent memory. This in turn weaponised the populous against his opponent, creating a group that would follow him religiously. This comes back to a point I made in a previous post; “if you are an American who for years “if you are an American citizen who for years has listened to politicians sound sophisticated while accomplishing nothing, you might just be primed for something that is everything they are not”. It’s this kind of approach that has fuelled the rise of post-truth politics and in turn it’s created a nasty collection of borderline evangelicals in the political space.
‘Mr. Brexit’ Nigel Farage Speaks at Donald Trump Rally in Jackson, MS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj4K9fr_WgY
How Donald Trump made hate intersectional: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/how-trump-made-hate-intersectional.html
Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html
America and Britain Are Being Hit by the Same ‘Whitelash’: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/america-and-britain-are-being-hit-by-the-same-whitelash
Marine Le Pen: Donald Trump has shown how we can ‘build a new world’: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/13/marine-le-pen-donald-trump-has-shown-how-we-can-build-a-new-world/
After campaigning against Obamacare, Donald Trump wants to keep two major provisions: https://mic.com/articles/159253/after-campaigning-against-obamacare-donald-trump-wants-to-keep-two-major-provisions?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.8Jg9YJsyo
Trump Just Announced He Will Not Cancel Obama’s Iran Peace Deal: http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/11/12/trump-just-announced-will-not-cancel-obamas-iran-peace-deal/
In Context: Hillary Clinton and the ‘basket of deplorables’: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/