US Election November 5th

[sploo]

My point in my last comment stands, is your opinion based on just a dislike of a person or the actual policies that have been put forward by both teams?

I dislike both candidates to be honest but as far as policy goes, I can only see one that will actually benefit America.

If it's policy you are talking about and not character then fair enough, that's your opinion. I won't ridicule it I'll just disagree and move on. Seems like we all forgot that's a possibility.

Ok, well for a simple starter; he doesn't understand trade tariffs. He seems to be wedded to the notion that slapping import tariffs on goods is beneficial because it'll hurt foreign companies and help the US. The problem is that those costs are paid by the US importer, get passed onto US consumers, and historically what happens is that domestic alternatives also rise in price (because the foreign competition is more expensive).

We could go into some his darker stuff; such as his claim to want to engage in mass deportations, but that would merely be the tip of the iceberg.

 

[RobinBHM]

in the past about polices and what she would enforce as president scares me a lot

Which specific policies scare you?

The ones she has announced she would do as president, not what she has said historically

 

[NickDReed]

Does he actually have any policies? He moans about immigrants, pretends to care about people's standard of living, doesn't want abortion after birth etc., but does he actually have any policies? Or just concepts of plans, coupled with vengance on his political opponents?

Are you in favour of abortion after birth!...............brutal, but in my life I have met people who may have benefitted from it I suppose.

 

[sploo]

Are you in favour of abortion after birth!...............brutal, but in my life I have met people who may have benefitted from it I suppose.

I rather suspect Chris was poking fun at another one of Trump's (many) insane claims: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s...de-ivf-donald-trump-kamala-harris-debate-2024

 

[danst96]

Which specific policies scare you?

The ones she has announced she would do as president, not what she has said historically

It's what she's said historically that scares me because that's what will come through in her presidency if she gets it. Her messaging and positioning on issues has flip flopped throughout the entire campaign depending on who's she's talking and trying to appeal to. That tells me we would see something different. Furthermore she has thrown Biden under the bus several times and contradicted many things that were done during his time in order to appeal to voters all the time ignoring the fact she was second in command and a huge part of that government. The American population won't forget she was part of the last 4 years administration which anyway you paint it, have been a pretty terrible time for Americans.

As for her policies, her position on the border, her position on the economy and a clear Marxist leaning, her position on fast tracking illegal immigrants to a voting position in an attempt to secure future elections, her position on Christianity, the fact she's in bed with the WEF. Why do you think the media hate trump so much? Because he goes against the mainstream agenda. It's also why he has the support he has, Americans are sick and tired of big government. Big government being something the Brits relish on.

 

[NickDReed]

I rather suspect Chris was poking fun at another one of Trump's (many) insane claims: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s...de-ivf-donald-trump-kamala-harris-debate-2024

Fascinating, I had no idea, just looked into it and watched the clip of him saying it during what I assume is one of the debates.



I've not been able to find a recording of the specific radio interview, I would be interested to hear the full discussion of the point. According to the BBC 'Virginia's Democratic Governor Ralph Northam defended the bill in an interview to radio station WTOP.

The paediatric neurologist said the measure allowed termination "in cases where there may be severe deformities" or when there is a "foetus that's not viable" outside the womb.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47066307

No idea what was in the bill itself, but if that quote is accurate Governor Ralph Northam probably as a political leader needed to clarify what was meant by 'outside the womb'. I'm guessing ectopic pregnancy, right?

Regardless, the pro life lot are bound to jump on anything that allows the termination of a pregnancy. And the pro life lot generally fall into Trumps voting base so it's not the sort of opportunity for rhetoric a politician was likely to pass up.

 

[RobinBHM]

Trumps manifesto:
1) stop immigrants eating cats and dogs

2) stop abortions after birth

3) stop windmills that cause cancer

4) stop asylum seekers escaping from asylums

5) impose national abortion ban, or not depending which day of the week it is

6) concepts of a plan on something or other

7) give Ukraine to Putin.............because America first right


He could win bigly with such a great manifesto eh

 

[danst96]

As for roe v Wade, all trump did was put the decision back into the hands of individual states, he didn't ban abortion which is something the left try to parrot.

He gave individuals the right to make the decision in their own state based on their beliefs and the ability to choose the government they would like to represent on that matter because for many people like myself and id say, over 150 million Americans who don't necessarily agree with abortion. I'll say this right now, I will not be drawn into an argument about abortion, I have my beliefs you have yours, let's leave it there, this thread isn't about that.

 

[danst96]

Trumps manifesto:
1) stop immigrants eating cats and dogs

2) stop abortions after birth

3) stop windmills that cause cancer

4) stop asylum seekers escaping from asylums

5) impose national abortion ban, or not depending which day of the week it is

6) concepts of a plan on something or other

7) give Ukraine to Putin.............because America first right


He could win bigly with such a great manifesto eh

Interesting, sounds like you have put a lot of thought into it. Either that or your leaning and dislike of an individual warps your ability to research properly.

 

[danst96]

Ok, well for a simple starter; he doesn't understand trade tariffs. He seems to be wedded to the notion that slapping import tariffs on goods is beneficial because it'll hurt foreign companies and help the US. The problem is that those costs are paid by the US importer, get passed onto US consumers, and historically what happens is that domestic alternatives also rise in price (because the foreign competition is more expensive).

We could go into some his darker stuff; such as his claim to want to engage in mass deportations, but that would merely be the tip of the iceberg.

You could also argue that the tariffs are aimed at stopping industry from leaving America.

The auto industry is going to be the largest one that it impacts because it's true that many foreign manufacturers are setting up shop next door in Mexico and it's starting to impact on US production. Gives the consumer more choice at the same time as ruining an industry within your country. What is a better option? Give full reign to the market and allow Chinese and other foreign manufacturers slowly or not so slowly erode your manufacturing base and eliminate thousands and thousands of jobs and impact the entire economy accordingly? Or protect your manufacturing base, protect jobs and encourage manufacturers to stay in the US? We moan so much in the UK about having little to no manufacturing these days, it's as a result of little to no tariffs on certain imported goods.

 

[RobinBHM]

As for roe v Wade, all trump did was put the decision back into the hands of individual states

During his presidency he used his power to appoint 3 supreme court judges enabling them to reverse Roe Vs Wade and put america backwards socially by 50 years

He gave individuals the right to make the decision in their own state based on their beliefs

that is false

Women now have no choice on abortion in 13 states

he didn't ban abortion which is something the left try to parrot.

wrong

 

[sploo]

You could also argue that the tariffs are aimed at stopping industry from leaving America.

The auto industry is going to be the largest one that it impacts because it's true that many foreign manufacturers are setting up shop next door in Mexico and it's starting to impact on US production. Gives the consumer more choice at the same time as ruining an industry within your country. What is a better option? Give full reign to the market and allow Chinese and other foreign manufacturers slowly or not so slowly erode your manufacturing base and eliminate thousands and thousands of jobs and impact the entire economy accordingly? Or protect your manufacturing base, protect jobs and encourage manufacturers to stay in the US? We moan so much in the UK about having little to no manufacturing these days, it's as a result of little to no tariffs on certain imported goods.

Unfortunately there's no simple or easy answer to that; which plays perfectly to the populists (like Trump) as they make grand claims about how they can fix all ills.

As previously noted, putting import tariffs on foreign goods often doesn't do anything to help domestic consumers. I did recently see an interesting analysis looking at the effect of some historic US import tariffs, and noting that in a few cases it had resulted in companies opening sites in the US. However, once you factored the negative cost to the US economy vs the number of US jobs created, it came out to something like $800,000 expense for each of those extra US jobs.

 

[ey_tony]

Sir Keir Starmer is a truly excellent leader
I shall now sit back and watch Tonys head boil

You honestly really believe that?
Far from being an excellent leader I see him and his ministers as utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt with an agenda to mislead and brainwash the public

Given the information that is now emerging surrounding the the Southport killings and attempted murders by Rudakubana it is clear to anyone with even a modicum of integrity that there was an immediate cover up by the police and no doubt Starmer and his government, all dismissing any terror links associated with the killings. Do they really think the public is stupid?
When very soon after the incident the police found the evidence of an Al Qaida training manual on Rudakubana's phone and Ricin poison in his home, yet days after they kept up the same pretense ....of course there wasn't a terror link, just as the moon is made of cheese and not rock! Evette Cooper and Starmer should resign.

Instead they created a smoke screen and deflection with the attention on far right Islamophobic accusations of outraged people which was highly convenient for them.
Had the authorities been open and honest from the outset instead of coving up the obvious religious terrorist link then it's unlikely that the speculation and misinformation would have circulated and it's unlikely the subsequent actions by hotheads would have taken place. Even the labeling of the riots as Farage riots is another action of this corrupt bunch.

I'm not particularly a Farage fan but as new information emerges he has been certainly vindicated over his comment that there were things that the public weren't being told and I think this will be Starmer's and this government's 'Partygate' moment.

Once the facts are known, which will happen sooner or later Starmer's integrity will be in the gutter where it belongs. The problem is that even if he goes, who do they have that could take his place?

The real issue is that as with most European countries, far right politics is rearing it's ugly head primarily because of the EU's migration policies and if this government continues to fail to acknowledge that there are issues associated with uncontrolled migration then I fear that a 'real' far right and not just a bunch of hot heads will emerge and that wouldn't be good for Britain.

 

[RobinBHM]

Interesting, sounds like you have put a lot of thought into it. Either that or your leaning and dislike of an individual warps your ability to research properly.

If you have a valid counter argument to any of those points please can you put those forward..........but you will struggle as they are all true.

 

[RobinBHM]

The problem for politicians is that if they were brutally honest and told it like it is, no one would vote for them so they each preach the kind of politics they think will appeal to the most voters.
All politicians will hound and denigrate their opposition that is their job but where Starmer has been found wanting is that he and his mates criticised the Tories for the very things that he himself and his cronies have been seen to be guilty of.
Just look at the fuss he made over the prospect of the winter fuel allowance being withdrawn...he called them virtual monsters and then what does he do?
He has absolutely no integrity whatsoever.

I'm not left wing as you'll have gathered but I found Jeremy Corbyn much more genuine, agreeable and true to his beliefs even if I didn't agree with him and his policies.
He was arguably far more trustworthy and I'd add that Starmer is far worse than such as Corbyn as you knew where you were with him...with Starmer I wouldn't trust him as far as I could have thrown Eric Pickles.

Starmer only won by default due to the orchestrated political agitation and hounding of the Tories by the media who wanted a government change and now they've got it and look at the results!
Logic should have told Starmer et al that if the incumbent government couldn't fix the problems which would have ensured another term in office then the problems ran far deeper and more problematical than they assumed.

All this nonsense about the black hole soundbite they keep repeating is exactly that. Everyone else seemed to know that there were budgeting deficits so if they couldn't figure that one out before assuming power then it doesn't bode well for the future with them in charge. They've used the notion of the black hole soundbite to justify their incompetence in assessing the situation. everyone can see through that ploy.

I dread to think what this lot would have been like during dealing with the aftermath of the 2008 recession, dealing with the Covid recession and then the recession brought on by the war in Ukraine.

Tony, you missed the final sentence in my post

I shall now sit back and watch Tonys head boil

 

[Fergie 307]

You could also argue that the tariffs are aimed at stopping industry from leaving America.

The auto industry is going to be the largest one that it impacts because it's true that many foreign manufacturers are setting up shop next door in Mexico and it's starting to impact on US production. Gives the consumer more choice at the same time as ruining an industry within your country. What is a better option? Give full reign to the market and allow Chinese and other foreign manufacturers slowly or not so slowly erode your manufacturing base and eliminate thousands and thousands of jobs and impact the entire economy accordingly? Or protect your manufacturing base, protect jobs and encourage manufacturers to stay in the US? We moan so much in the UK about having little to no manufacturing these days, it's as a result of little to no tariffs on certain imported goods.

Not just foreign manufacturers, the US manufacturers have been doing it for years. My 1993 Jeep was made in Mexico, presumably to take advantage of cheaper labour.
America first is all very well if people are prepared to accept that they have a choice. Drop their wages to the level of those pesky foreigners who are currently making the imported stuff they buy, or pay a lot more for the same thing made by their fellow Americans.
The other issue he doesn't seem to grasp is that those he imposes tariffs on can reciprocate or worse.
Suppose China took it into their heads to ban the export of goods to the US. Would hurt them for sure, but the effect on the US economy would be immediate, and catastrophic.

 

[Chris152]

I wonder what the plan in No 10 is if there's a trump victory. (Once they've figured how to run a bath, of course.) Clearly the US won't be a reliable partner at a number of key levels; the need to strengthen relations again with our European neighbours would seem a smart move. Could be interesting, and the only positive I can see of that outcome.

ps Has anyone else noticed that he's changed from orange to a sort of sickly bronze colour lately?

 

[sploo]

ps Has anyone else noticed that he's changed from orange to a sort of sickly bronze colour lately?

I had noticed that the patina had grown darker. Maybe he's changed the supplier of his shoe polish.

 

[ey_tony]

I'd just love to see images of the critics on here who make fun of Trump's appearance. Seems the typical shallow MO of the left... they have to make the attack personal.
C'mon lads, don't be shy, post your images so that we can all have a gander at what YOU like and why you feel so emboldened as to ridicule the looks of others.

 

[Agent_zed]

It's what she's said historically that scares me because that's what will come through in her presidency if she gets it. Her messaging and positioning on issues has flip flopped throughout the entire campaign depending on who's she's talking and trying to appeal to. That tells me we would see something different. Furthermore she has thrown Biden under the bus several times and contradicted many things that were done during his time in order to appeal to voters all the time ignoring the fact she was second in command and a huge part of that government. The American population won't forget she was part of the last 4 years administration which anyway you paint it, have been a pretty terrible time for Americans.

As for her policies, her position on the border, her position on the economy and a clear Marxist leaning, her position on fast tracking illegal immigrants to a voting position in an attempt to secure future elections, her position on Christianity, the fact she's in bed with the WEF. Why do you think the media hate trump so much? Because he goes against the mainstream agenda. It's also why he has the support he has, Americans are sick and tired of big government. Big government being something the Brits relish on.

To be fair this is the closest answer I've seen to what is wrong with Harris' policies. But even then it is still extremely vague.

her position on the border, - What is that position? The Dems brought forward a bi-partisan border bill, which was quashed by Trump as it would mean he couldn't complain they weren't doing anything.

her position on the economy - what is that position?

and a clear Marxist leaning - 'Marxism is a political and economic theory that aims to create a classless society where everyone works for the common good.' What is wrong with that? Trump is an elitist billionaire who gave tax breaks to the rich, is that better?

her position on fast tracking illegal immigrants to a voting position in an attempt to secure future elections, - This is just nonsense propaganda

her position on Christianity, - what is her position. Trumps appears to be flogging chinese made bibles with his name on it, or using one as a prop for photoshoots.

the fact she's in bed with the WEF. How exactly? Trump is currently promising government positions to Musk (the richest man in the world). Surely no conflict of interest to the man who is entirely propped up by government funding!?

Why do you think the media hate trump so much? - Fox, Dailymail, GB news don't appear to hate him. Some others do because he is a liar and a cheat and has numerous criminal convictions and keeps saying horrendous things.