US Presidential Election 2024

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Sir Steve Howard said:

Russia have warned about NATO expansion for decades.

The West promised they wouldn't do this and broke this promise again and again.

Poke the bear and see what happens

 

Ukraine were apparently ready to negotiate with Russia quite early on into the 'Special Military Operation' and our very own cretin Boris Johnson did everything in his power to prevent this from happening.

'Fighting to the last Ukrainian'. We obviously have no issue with Ukrainians dying for our agenda

Clearly that's a matter of debate.

 

Is the same true for all the other threats to life and health that were listed above?

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyBoy said:

anyone watch the bbc panorama programme last night on this election? fascinating stuff and biggest election ever for America people are saying. Could be a lot of unrest whatever the result 

I fear this may be right.

[bovril]

kind of like a pub jukebox the internet should have a list of banned phrases but it should just be "poke the bear" 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

I think Harris is going to win reasonably comfortably

The latest swing state data suggests the exact opposite. 

[grobyfox1990]

32 minutes ago, JonnyBoy said:

anyone watch the bbc panorama programme last night on this election? fascinating stuff and biggest election ever for America people are saying. Could be a lot of unrest whatever the result 

Yeh was the usual terrible TV hyperbole. Featuring a range of supporters at the extremes with television editing, with a British slant to it, telling you nothing new. 2016 was the biggest election ever, then it was 2020, now its 2024. Largely uninformative of any substantive issues. It was just an advert to get people to watch the BBC election coverage next Tuesday.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh was the usual terrible TV hyperbole. Featuring a range of supporters at the extremes with television editing, with a British slant to it, telling you nothing new. 2016 was the biggest election ever, then it was 2020, now its 2024. Largely uninformative of any substantive issues. It was just an advert to get people to watch the BBC election coverage next Tuesday.

There was a legislative coup attempt last time round. Is it really all that hyperbolic?

[grobyfox1990]

The posts on here are hugely dramatic, almost like an anxiety prescription is needed for a lot of people. Burgerman's intentions are clear. He wants to win, clear himself of all his criminality, get revenge on his political opponents, get a load of buildings over the line, eat lots of McDonalds and drink lots of diet coke. He can promote his media company (up 45% since the first debate btw) and get all foreign dignitaries to stay in his properties. Musk will get all tech-related and clean energy contracts.

He will try and build a Bush or Clinton like dynasty and get Eric in next, but the GOP won't have that. He's not going to drill baby drill as its completely uncommercial to do so.

[grobyfox1990]

Just now, leicsmac said:

There was a legislative coup attempt last time round. Is it really all that hyperbolic?

Hilary also denied the election results in 2016, claimed Russian interference and did not rule out continuing to question the results until Xmas 2017.

I am referring to the BBC documentary which was hyperboilc, they want to incite extreme views and get viewers next Tuesday, the panorama doc yday was an advert, the last thing it is was insightful lol. It said nothing net

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Hilary also denied the election results in 2016, claimed Russian interference and did not rule out continuing to question the results until Xmas 2017.

I am referring to the BBC documentary which was hyperboilc, they want to incite extreme views and get viewers next Tuesday, the panorama doc yday was an advert, the last thing it is was insightful lol. It said nothing net

I thought the documentary was great from the point of view that they actually spent the time to explain the motives behind Trump fans being Trump fans and articulated clearly his attributes that make him appealing to millions. Bit extreme, and inaccurate IMHO, to just call it a trailer for the coverage.

 

Agree with your earlier post though about most of the policy things he's saying is likely not happening. He's trying to get into office for the sole reason of avoiding prison which is what unsettles me most about him. 

[grobyfox1990]

3 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Hilary also denied the election results in 2016, claimed Russian interference and did not rule out continuing to question the results until Xmas 2017.

I am referring to the BBC documentary which was hyperboilc, they want to incite extreme views and get viewers next Tuesday, the panorama doc yday was an advert, the last thing it is was insightful lol. It said nothing net

 

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There was a legislative coup attempt last time round. Is it really all that hyperbolic?

Edit just gone through our analyst newsletters - she was denying the 2016 results and trying to incite action up until 2020.

 

Here's the last denial quote I can find from the JPM research desk from October 2020

 

"There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’"

 

A good one from 2017:

 

Trump "knows he’s an illegitimate president," Clinton said. "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did … I know he knows this wasn’t on the level."

[grobyfox1990]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

I thought the documentary was great from the point of view that they actually spent the time to explain the motives behind Trump fans being Trump fans and articulated clearly his attributes that make him appealing to millions. Bit extreme, and inaccurate IMHO, to just call it a trailer for the coverage.

 

Agree with your earlier post though about most of the policy things he's saying is likely not happening. He's trying to get into office for the sole reason of avoiding prison which is what unsettles me most about him. 

Ok that's a great point. If you wanted info on the extremes, it was all there. I guess I have spent too much time laughing at the extreme Trump supporters. I am more interested in how he appeals to urbanites, young people and highly qualified types 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Hilary also denied the election results in 2016, claimed Russian interference and did not rule out continuing to question the results until Xmas 2017.

I am referring to the BBC documentary which was hyperboilc, they want to incite extreme views and get viewers next Tuesday, the panorama doc yday was an advert, the last thing it is was insightful lol. It said nothing net

 

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 

Edit just gone through our analyst newsletters - she was denying the 2016 results and trying to incite action up until 2020.

 

Here's the last denial quote I can find from the JPM research desk from October 2020

 

"There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’"

 

A good one from 2017:

 

Trump "knows he’s an illegitimate president," Clinton said. "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did … I know he knows this wasn’t on the level."

Rather a lot of difference between talking and having your supporters storm the building with members of Congress in when results are being certified, but fair enough.

 

I just hope that you and other voices are right if he wins (I'm still yet to see any kind of evidence that market forces can address the truly big problems out there, so hope is all I have), because the alternative is... not good.

Edited 29 October 2024 by leicsmac

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Ok that's a great point. If you wanted info on the extremes, it was all there. I guess I have spent too much time laughing at the extreme Trump supporters. I am more interested in how he appeals to urbanites, young people and highly qualified types 

Louis Theroux at the orgy...

 

Observe the weirdos. 

[grobyfox1990]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

Rather a lot of difference between talking and having your supporters storm the building with members of Congress in when results are being certified, but fair enough.

 

I just hope that you and other voices are right if he wins, because the alternative is... not good.

There is no difference between Hilary and Trump in this matter. They both continuously tried to incite action by questioning the integrity of a democratic election process through their words. They knew their words had deep meaning. 

The only difference is that Trump supporters are so stupid that they actually engaged in action. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

There is no difference between Hilary and Trump in this matter. They both continuously tried to incite action by questioning the integrity of a democratic election process through their words. They knew their words had deep meaning. 

The only difference is that Trump supporters are so stupid that they actually engaged in action. 

And that's a critical difference and I've no idea why someone would think it's not.

 

NB. History is full of the worst possible events being preceded by someone saying, "nah, that'll never/ could never happen..."

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And that's a critical difference and I've no idea why someone would think it's not.

 

NB. History is full of the worst possible events being preceded by someone saying, "nah, that'll never/ could never happen..."

So a subsect of idiots, perhaps 0.00001% of Trump voters engaging in action is a critical difference and reason not to vote from McDonald's man. I'm sorry but that is far fetched and unconvincing.

They both engaged in very dangerous rhetoric and continually denied the results of the election. They both tried to incite violence via the media. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

So a subsect of idiots, perhaps 0.00001% of Trump voters engaging in action is a critical difference and reason not to vote from McDonald's man. I'm sorry but that is far fetched and unconvincing.

They both engaged in very dangerous rhetoric and continually denied the results of the election. They both tried to incite violence via the media. 

... and I'm sure the members of Congress and Capitol police on January 6th felt the same way, given the events?

 

Of course, there are a multitude of reasons to not vote for the man, that's just one.

 

Anyhow, you're free to downplay what's going on - like I said, I just hope that you're right and I'm wrong if he wins. We both have the privilege of being able to either respect people's fears over there or not without consequence, after all. For now, anyway.

[westernpark]

1 hour ago, Sir Steve Howard said:

Russia have warned about NATO expansion for decades.

The West promised they wouldn't do this and broke this promise again and again.

Poke the bear and see what happens

 

Ukraine were apparently ready to negotiate with Russia quite early on into the 'Special Military Operation' and our very own cretin Boris Johnson did everything in his power to prevent this from happening.

'Fighting to the last Ukrainian'. We obviously have no issue with Ukrainians dying for our agenda

Your reasoning is outrageous. Fundamentally a country is allowed the right to self-determination, those countries have the right to choose to join NATO, not be dictated to by an autocrat who has eroded his country’s democracy. With the threat of invasion, or actual invasion.
Our country, the US, the West, face an existential threat from Russia. They have meddled in and are continuing to meddle in the US and over here, undermining democracy. By effectively helping to promote candidates who are anti intellectual, by whipping up the working class over nonsense culture wars. I am a very socially conservative person but even I realise that culture war stuff should be nowhere near a salient election issue.

Johnson was a cretin but his Russia response was spot on. Biden may have messed up on Gaza, however his Russia response has been outstanding. He has always recognised the threat that Putin poses.
Do not side with the autocrat and do not side with the politician who admires the autocrat. 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Sir Steve Howard said:

Trump's Ukraine-Russia stance will save a lot of lives. The current Western approach is to send thousands of Ukrainians into the meat grinder

They are not actually sending them anywhere.  They are not the ones crossing over into another country  and invading it.THEY are the ones being attacked. The responsibility should always be on the aggressor to stop the bloodshed not the defender..

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... and I'm sure the members of Congress and Capitol police on January 6th felt the same way, given the events?

 

Of course, there are a multitude of reasons to not vote for the man, that's just one.

 

Anyhow, you're free to downplay what's going on - like I said, I just hope that you're right and I'm wrong if he wins. We both have the privilege of being able to either respect people's fears over there or not without consequence, after all. For now, anyway.

Are you condoning Hilary's continuous election denial? Because if do, you do not believe in the core of Western democracy, which is an extremely dangerous viewpoint. The actions Hilary and Trump engaged in were out of order. Excusing Hilary of any blame for her words of incitement is akin to Andrew Tate and Yaxley-Lennon tweeting out their bile and excusing themselves of any blame because no one takes action.

 

You can be absolutely sure, given how tight this race is, that Harris and the Dems will call foul play if they lose this election. They have form for it. Let's hope their incitement is not met by violence

[bovril]

13 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Your reasoning is outrageous. Fundamentally a country is allowed the right to self-determination, those countries have the right to choose to join NATO, not be dictated to by an autocrat who has eroded his country’s democracy. With the threat of invasion, or actual invasion.
Our country, the US, the West, face an existential threat from Russia. They have meddled in and are continuing to meddle in the US and over here, undermining democracy. By effectively helping to promote candidates who are anti intellectual, by whipping up the working class over nonsense culture wars. I am a very socially conservative person but even I realise that culture war stuff should be nowhere near a salient election issue.

Johnson was a cretin but his Russia response was spot on. Biden may have messed up on Gaza, however his Russia response has been outstanding. He has always recognised the threat that Putin poses.
Do not side with the autocrat and do not side with the politician who admires the autocrat. 

It's interesting that a lot of people who defend Russia's actions are also quite nationalistic and very concerned about defending traditional (European) values and upholding sovereignty. And yet you have a European country that is bravely fighting to protect its own culture, sovereignty and territory against a Russian army containing thousands of conscripts from Asia, and they won't defend it.

[HighPeakFox]

There appears to be considerable denial that there has been Russian interference in not only US elections, but elsewhere too. This is not tinfoil hat stuff, there is massive evidence that this took and takes place.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Are you condoning Hilary's continuous election denial? Because if do, you do not believe in the core of Western democracy, which is an extremely dangerous viewpoint. The actions Hilary and Trump engaged in were out of order. Excusing Hilary of any blame for her words of incitement is akin to Andrew Tate and Yaxley-Lennon tweeting out their bile and excusing themselves of any blame because no one takes action.

 

You can be absolutely sure, given how tight this race is, that Harris and the Dems will call foul play if they lose this election. They have form for it. Let's hope their incitement is not met by violence

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.

[Sir Steve Howard]

3 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

There appears to be considerable denial that there has been Russian interference in not only US elections, but elsewhere too. This is not tinfoil hat stuff, there is massive evidence that this took and takes place.

The US have interfered in pretty much any election (and the rest) they could get their hands on in the last hundred years.

[Zear0]

 

He's a commie, get him! 

[HighPeakFox]

4 minutes ago, Sir Steve Howard said:

The US have interfered in pretty much any election (and the rest) they could get their hands on in the last hundred years.

What's your point?