leicsmac

If Trump does win, I wonder if there will be more questions asked about the electoral college system and its fairness (or lack thereof)? I doubt anything on that score will change for the time being (would need a constitutional amendment, I think) but there may be more feeling about it going forward. For example, the entire reason that in some parts of the US women now have more rights dead than alive is because of that system electing presidents that then chose Supreme Court judges to make it possible.

I would be interested in more specific details here, especially given the opinion above that the previous government lied to the OBR. Given the election result, I would assume a majority did.

Oh, I'm sure he will. He's not exactly shy about showing derision to anyone outside his immediate circle of sycophants. I do hope that there is agreement that the vast majority of policy decisions of any Trump administration would likely be a net negative for the UK and the rest of the world in the short term, and certainly in the long term. Unfortunate that the working person (along others) decided to vote in such policies, then.

Yeah. Though energy generation rather than transportation is by far the biggest issue in that regard.

You're making the tragic error of introducing logical deduction into the matter.

It is indeed. But sadly these events aren't going away any time soon and at some point the UK will be affected, directly and/or indirectly.

As for domestic goals, more brutality towards "illegals" will be seen as a win, I would think.

Welcome to the digital era, where facts of a matter appear to mean nothing and the consequences of that are becoming ever more apparent.

Think this is a fair argument, however: - not sure why he wouldn't have done the "right" thing before then in terms of codifying his legacy and - it's the ones behind him that might also get in the way there I do hope Harris can pull the win out of the fire here to make such questions moot, but sadly there may be serious unrest no matter the result.

It's an analysis based on multiple outcomes run from data on all the states including the swing ones. Out of every hundred times the model is ran, Trump wins 52 and Harris wins 48. Depends how far ahead you look. His policies will lead to diminished resources in various areas that could well be a catalyst for war. "I'm a businessman. Blood is big expense." I'd take that too, but see above. And on the future itself, really.

Yep, born 40 years too late or 40 years too early. That being said, I'm hopeful that we'll have a definitive answer on whether or not there is microbial life elsewhere in our Solar System within the next two to three decades.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl490zrz45o Good analysis of the two candidates on policies outside their border from the Beeb. I hope that the lady that thinks Trump (if he wins) cannot stall the green energy transition is right.

There's a few things in there for the more expert, too - some of the more recent discoveries I knew nothing about.

Yeah, fair to say. Fivethirtyeight now has is 52-48 in favour of Trump, so a slight closing there over the last few days.

Is such discussion of results before polling closes even legal?

It was rather conspicuous by its absence. Apparently those involved just had a "slightly different version of events".

... and who would have thought a reasoned response to the incident was to take out the anger on any random face of a different skin colour (because they're all dangerous apparently) and seek to burn down where they live? Also shocking.

Fun fact: If Trump does win, it will likely remain a fact that the only time that astronauts have landed on the Moon will be when the President of the United States was a felon. Apparently crooked leaders are good for manned spaceflight programs. Who knew?

Which is rather sad considering that people like Hinchcliffe are saying what Trump and the Repubs really think of such ethnic groups and they'll turn on them as soon as they stop being useful for them to get power.

The Aussies are extremely good at the mental aspect of the game. England should be meeting that fire with fire, it stands a better chance than any other way. It definitely had them rattled in the aftermath of Lords 2023.

Traditional closed borders "X first" nationalism of that type simply won't survive the pressures on our species caused by resource scarcity and population growth that are coming. That only ends Mad Max into style unless we face such problems as a species, IMO.

Speaking personally, I would say anyone who pursues nationalism the way they and some other leaders do given history shows rather clearly where that ends is at least rather short sighted, and at most willing to see the world burn of they can be lord of the ashes. Whether that's "anti-intellectual" or not is up to the beholder, clearly.

... perhaps everyone having their own version of fact delivered to them ( often in spite of what facts actually exist) isn't the best idea for society going forward? In any case, foreign and economic policy are hardly the only areas that matter right now, or even the most important.

Hillary (and Trump, and Tate, and SYL) should be (mostly) free to spout whatever comes out of their mouths ("fire in a crowded theatre" argument aside). When people listen to it and act upon it, that's when they should be held accountable. Trump's meltdown on Twitter over the 2020 election was just amusing right up to the point that his supporters stormed the Capitol on his (implicit) instructions. But following this line of argument, I would agree you either regulate everyone in terms of such speech, or no one. In any case, as per above, this false equivalence is hardly the only reason Trump should be nowhere near office anyway.