US Election November 5th

[sploo]

I’m in the US at the moment and watched the full thing plus the discussion afterwards (the latter channel hopping).

Trump was widely seen as a rambling angry man. The view on Harris is that she won but tempered by the Republican leaning commentators with her not having answered several questions/the moderation being biased.

My view is Trump lost it as his ego took over (his reaction to being told people left his rallies as they were bored is pure comedy) and the moderation was fair (pointing out it’s never been legal to abort a baby after it’s been born etc).

There is now an amazingly long list of Republicans who worked with Trump when he was in the White House saying he’s not fit for the job.

A great comment I read on the accusation of biased moderating was; "if there's asymmetric lying, there's going to be asymmetric fact checking".

 

[sploo]

It’s intriguing watching the discussion in the US following the debate. This article is quite interesting …

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/12/politics/laura-loomer-donald-trump-influence

I guess the Trump camp would label it as false news.

I hadn't previously heard of Loomer. When Marjorie Taylor Greene has the moral high ground on you, you must be really plumbing the depths.

 

[spanner48]

I don't think Americans have ever really understood irony.

I did once ask an American friend what he thought of irony. He said it was like bronzy – only greyer . . . .

 

[Noel]

I did once ask an American friend what he thought of irony. He said it was like bronzy – only greyer . . . .

That would be grayer……….

 

[spanner48]

That would be grayer……….

No. It would be greyer. I was writing in English; not Colonial . . .

 

[spanner48]

Not often you see US electoral managers make an obvious false step.

Watch yesterday's news clip of Starmer and Lammy being welcomed and greeted by Joe Biden and his team, to discuss authorising - or not - long-range missiles to be targetted inside Russia. WHERE WAS KAMALA HARRIS ? NOWHERE. There was literally an empty chair on Biden's left side. When asked, they said she was "busy" campaigning in Pennsylvania.

It would have taken just a few hours to helicopter her from there to the White House, have her sit beside him, ask a few pertinent questions of the two Brits, and make a short "statement to camera" on the need to balance the US's total commitment to supporting Ukraine's right to defend itself and its territorial integrity, with the tempering of caution against the risk of escalating the War into "WW3-danger territory"; then stating that a joint UK-US decision would be taken shortly. Then helicopter her back to Pennsylvania. About an hour each way, and two hours at the White House. That would have given her instant "foreign policy creds" nationwide –– something she has been widely criticised as lacking.

So: a clear case of "missing an open goal". Stupidity? Or Joe Biden having a last hog at the limelight?

 

[Spectric]

I think they realise that keeping her out of the way until after the election will give her more chance of success. As for poor old Biden he will have already forgotten who Starmer & co are, but maybe those trainers were deliberate so it might stick in his mind that trainer man paid him a visit.

 

[spanner48]

I think they realise that keeping her out of the way until after the election will give her more chance of success. As for poor old Biden he will have already forgotten who Starmer & co are, but maybe those trainers were deliberate so it might stick in his mind that trainer man paid him a visit.

Well; in any OTHER election, any sentient life-form which stood up and said, barked, howled, quacked, cheeped, roared, hissed, grunted or gurgled: "I'm not Donald Trump" would win by a mile. But this is the US . . . .

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I think they realise that keeping her out of the way until after the election will give her more chance of success. As for poor old Biden he will have already forgotten who Starmer & co are, but maybe those trainers were deliberate so it might stick in his mind that trainer man paid him a visit.

It may even be that she disagrees with Biden and wanted to avoid any public discord pre=election.

 

[John Brown]

I think they realise that keeping her out of the way until after the election will give her more chance of success. As for poor old Biden he will have already forgotten who Starmer & co are, but maybe those trainers were deliberate so it might stick in his mind that trainer man paid him a visit.

You do talk some nonsense.

 

[spanner48]

It may even be that she disagrees with Biden and wanted to avoid any public discord pre=election.

Maybe. But not necessarily. All she had to do was give the "speech to camera" that I suggested, then keep shtum. If the interviewer had insisted, she could have said "I've not had time fully to consider the Brits' arguments; so have not yet decided. I will take part in the US decision-making, which will be reached by consensus".

 

[spanner48]

It may even be that she disagrees with Biden and wanted to avoid any public discord pre=election.

Let's not forget the first year Politics 101 exam paper: Question 1: "How many of the following questions can you avoid answering?"

 

[Blackswanwood]

I think they realise that keeping her out of the way until after the election will give her more chance of success. As for poor old Biden he will have already forgotten who Starmer & co are, but maybe those trainers were deliberate so it might stick in his mind that trainer man paid him a visit.

I’m in the US at the moment and would say that couldn’t be further from what is happening.

When the meeting took place I’m pretty sure she was holding a rally in one of the swing states. It was packed out and widely covered by the media. She’s not being “kept out of the way” at all.

My sense (based on lack of US media
coverage) is there is little interest in a visit from the UK PM. This is probably why she wasn’t there. It’s all about priorities - hers being to beat Trump.

 

[HOJ]

there is little interest in a visit from the UK PM

I ask myself, why did he go, what did he achieve, and more to the point what did it cost us.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I ask myself, why did he go, what did he achieve, and more to the point what did it cost us.

Just going by what I’ve read on the Beeb and Sky news sites it’s all about how to respond to Russia over Ukraine. I agree though that a telephone or video call may have saved a few bob!

 

[Spectric]

I ask myself, why did he go, what did he achieve, and more to the point what did it cost us.

There was no real objective, these days a video conference would have achieved the same outcome but considering the pressure he is under in the UK then he used it as an excuse for a short break to escape.

it’s all about how to respond to Russia over Ukraine

Equally it should be about keeping the Uk safe and not a target for Russia. Like most things the west sticks it's nose into the problem is just made worse, we have managed through our lack of understanding to create an eastern alliance because we just could not accept China. Now we have places like Iran and North Korea being given Russian technology so they will become nuclear powers, whats next ?

It is being badly managed without taking reality onboard, politicians keep saying that Russia threatened this if we do this and we have got away with it on several occasions but there will be a point that goes to far, then there is no going back. Think of it as Hookes law in mechanical engineering, upto a given point a material returns to normal once the force is removed but exceed that point and permeant deformation occur where it does not return to it's previous state.

 

[Blackswanwood]

There was no real objective, these days a video conference would have achieved the same outcome but considering the pressure he is under in the UK then he used it as an excuse for a short break to escape.


Equally it should be about keeping the Uk safe and not a target for Russia. Like most things the west sticks it's nose into the problem is just made worse, we have managed through our lack of understanding to create an eastern alliance because we just could not accept China. Now we have places like Iran and North Korea being given Russian technology so they will become nuclear powers, whats next ?

It is being badly managed without taking reality onboard, politicians keep saying that Russia threatened this if we do this and we have got away with it on several occasions but there will be a point that goes to far, then there is no going back. Think of it as Hookes law in mechanical engineering, upto a given point a material returns to normal once the force is removed but exceed that point and permeant deformation occur where it does not return to it's previous state.

That’s one view. Another is that appeasement doesn’t work.

 

[HOJ]

What makes me curious with the PM's visit, and by my understanding, they were seeking permission to allow Ukraine to use the Storm shadow missles for targets within Russia.

The missiles are French/UK made, has he already got the the nod from the French? but needed a hand hold that if Russia kicks back, the USA will still support the UK.

And I don't get why the Defence Secretary was AWOL on the jolly trip.

 

[Lons]

............................................. and more to the point what did it cost us.

The equivalent of quite a few pensioners winter fuel payments I would suggest

 

[niemeyjt]

Now it seems Donald Trump hates Taylor Swift because she said something nasty about him.

What an unpleasant and spiteful man - and a scary one too