US Election November 5th

[Croolis]

Now do Trump.

Back of the net.

 

[mudman]

Now do Trump.

Why?

 

[Croolis]

Why?

Well, the thread is called "US Election November 5th". Are you just going to discuss the candidate you don't like?

 

[mudman]

I mean, let's face it, if you think Trump is going to be a better option than Harris for government you probably need your head flushed out, whether you're left leaning or the other. Policy, personal competency, chances of corruption and simply supporting the democratic establishment. All favour Harris.

As for being able to debate - I'm not going to check because I most definitely cannot be bothered, but I believe she was some kind of senior figure in the judiciary and a lawyer, so I imagine she probably can.

I know that Trump can't.

So what? This was about Harris so bringing Trump into it is a diversion.
Being a lawyer does not mean the ability to debate. It means the ability to arrive at the truth by the means of pertinent questions. The lawyer doesn't get questioned unless they end up as a witness or in the dock. Specious argument.

 

[Spectric]

Being a lawyer does not mean the ability to debate.

Starmer being a good example.

 

[mudman]

Well, the thread is called "US Election November 5th". Are you just going to discuss the candidate you don't like?

Well, there you are making assumptions. How do you know I don't like her? All I have said is that I think she is pretty awful in debate and doesn't seem to know what her policies. Maybe I think Trump is worse, maybe I think that on balance, he would be better. It will be interesting to see who wins and how things pan out in the next few years. But what annoys me is people declaring how great one candidate is based on their perception of the other. Examine your favoured candidate with a critical eye and make an honest point, not one based on partisan affiliations.

 

[Agent_zed]

But what annoys me is people declaring how great one candidate is based on their perception of the other.

Whether it's Harris or a bag of potatoes that was running against Trump, it wouldn't change my opinion of Trump.

 

[Chris152]

Whether it's Harris or a bag of potatoes that was running against Trump, it wouldn't change my opinion of Trump.

And unlike trump, a bag of potatoes could be of some help to the average person.

 

[RobinBHM]

All I have said is that I think she is pretty awful in debate and doesn't seem to know what her policies.

based on what?


I suspect youve never actually watched a number of examples of Kamala Harris in interviews, but rather just short clips that support your bias

You say she is pretty awful in debate: well Trump is a devious opponent and she rather destroyed him

here is Harris taking questions from reporters.......seems pretty good at answering questions to me


here is an interview on Fox news which is hostile to Harris............seems pretty good at answering questions to me:

Examine your favoured candidate with a critical eye and make an honest point, not one based on partisan affiliations.

Have you honestly appraised Kamala Harris objectively rather than just based on partisan affiliations?

Maybe I think Trump is worse, maybe I think that on balance, he would be better. It will be interesting to see who wins and how things pan out in the next few years

So do you think Trump is better?

 

[Croolis]

Well, there you are making assumptions. How do you know I don't like her? All I have said is that I think she is pretty awful in debate and doesn't seem to know what her policies. Maybe I think Trump is worse, maybe I think that on balance, he would be better. It will be interesting to see who wins and how things pan out in the next few years. But what annoys me is people declaring how great one candidate is based on their perception of the other. Examine your favoured candidate with a critical eye and make an honest point, not one based on partisan affiliations.

Well, you seem to be going out of your way to hedge about what you think about Trump but not hold back about being critical about Harris, so what do you expect? And equally, I myself have never said Harris was "great", just that I'd favour her over Trump for reasons I've already had a small go at. I'm not sure who your final sentence was aimed at. And I'm not sure why you think we can't compare her to Trump - see post #563 (i.e. who put you in charge of the thread?).

This thing about debating - yeah maybe, dunno, I've never been to law school so I don't know how much "debate" they do. But in the few things that I've seen her in, if we going to define them as debate, she seems to do all right <shrug>.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I don't think the debating talents of either candidate will make any real difference to their performance as president should they get elected.

Trump strikes me as incoherent. Harris is clearly intelligent and a capable debater. The move in opinion polls following the debate clearly favoured Harris - but it's in the margins not at the forefront of the choice the US electorate need to make.

Several interviews with Trump supporters characterise the reality - he is a seriously flawed individual but we will vote for him because he will deliver - economy, MAGA etc.

UK politics has similar dynamics. Lots of votes for Farage (and Boris a few years back). Not all their policies are intellectual plausible - but folk respond to hope and positivity more than reality.

"Take back control" (Brexit) and "make America great again" (Trump) resonate with the electorate - hence their success.

Starmer has no charisma - he simply did that required to deliver electoral victory. Not difficult - he would need to be seriously inadequate not to triumph. Labour won only 34% of the popular vote - the FPTP electoral system gave them an overwhelming majority of seats.

A purely personal view - I hope Harris triumphs. She is rational and intellectually competent. Trump is an unpleasant human being and by the end of the next term may even be suffering serious aging problems (like Biden).

 

[Croolis]

"Take back control" (Brexit) and "make America great again" (Trump) resonate with the electorate - hence their success.

I have a memory of seeing some clip a loooong time ago of Reagan, during his campaign against Carter, pulling this sulky, uptight face and jabbing his finger on a table or something saying "we just wanna be respected again!"

When he said that the statement at least had some small (very small IMHO) credibilty in the wake of the things that cost Carter the election (oil, terrorists). The MAGA message is just based on crap. The US's standing in the world, while now having to deal with China, isn't less than great still, is it? Those silly fookers ought to try living over here for a bit to see how a country really can take a nosedive.

But it's easy to push people's buttons innit. (see Farage )

 

[Jake]

So what? This was about Harris so bringing Trump into it is a diversion.

No it isn't because it's a binary choice - one or the other.

 

[Jake]

Starmer being a good example.

He'd chew you up in a heartbeat in a debate.

 

[XTiffy]

Do any of you really believe that your arguments for or against, will change any minds? Which to me are completely polar opposites. What a waste of energy.

 

[RobinBHM]

Do any of you really believe that your arguments for or against, will change any minds? Which to me are completely polar opposites. What a waste of energy.

I must admit, nobody is ever going to persuade me Trump is a jolly good chap

 

[XTiffy]

RobinBHM, reading many of your posts, No one is going to change any of your opinions.

 

[Croolis]

Do any of you really believe that your arguments for or against, will change any minds? Which to me are completely polar opposites. What a waste of energy.

Yeah but I've got a load of work I need to swerve.

 

[RobinBHM]

RobinBHM, reading many of your posts, No one is going to change any of your opinions.

I post facts not opinions, I realise that is upsetting for some people.

You cant change facts

 

[RobinBHM]

Yeah but I've got a load of work I need to swerve.