On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
So PB has moved from Trump can't possibly win to he will drop dead in a week or so.
How have you set a filter on PB so that you don't see the vast majority of posters on here? There's a couple of people I'd consider filtering out sometimes if I knew how.
And yet you find yourself unaccountably replying to those very same people.
I can hear the birds singing. The fog over the hill is rather attractive. I have four limbs that still function. A wife who loves me.
There is much to be grateful for and cheerful about.
In terms of US politics, I can't think of much. It's a major reverse. No sugar-coating that.
The big thing is a third term. When George W Bush won in 2004, the last time the Republicans won the popular vote in the Presidential election, he was very bullish about his mandate, but practical power drained away from him pretty quickly, it being his second term. Can Trump avoid becoming a lame duck?
As it's a fairly ominous morning, ift seems one of those moments to deive into the admiittedly erratic Nostradamus predictions for the next few years.
"A naval battle,. The Red Adversary will become pale with fear, Leaving the Great Ocean in dread."
Never mind Nostradamus, what about his cousin Leondamus? A few predictions from him so that we know what certainly won't be happening would be useful.
There were plenty of us suggesting Harris would win the PV and lose the College. So half right. The majority of us despise Trump but we're fearful of the win.
You and Casino are making shit up.
Er... you appear to be replying to the wrong post??
A new day has dawned, has it not? Congratulations to people who booked winnings, commiserations to the rest of us. I thought the Don's victory speech was a bit low-energy. He looks very old. I suspect things will be a bit of a shitshow until Vance takes over.
And then it will be a high-energy shit show.
The only hope is that he does ANOTHER 180 degree turn having got power. "Surprise!!!" But I'm not holding my breath.
To the extent there was a polling failure when the polling herded around a "too close to call" - which was fair from the prespective of the actual result - that failure was around the gender gap. Specifically the extent to which the male vote went to Trump. Certainly fooled me.
I wish America well. I feel it is going to need it. Americans will either discover Trump lied about his intentions on the economy - tariffs, forced migration of the people who do the shitty jobs that make America tick over - or worse, he will be true to his word. There has to be some hope that the House goes Democrat and imposes some brake on the craziest of the crazy. But the January 6th rioters will be pardoned, the law suits against Trump dropped and there will have ultimately been no sanction for the attempted overthrow of democracy. Ironically, democracy survived to give him another chance. Which democracy delivered him.
They are a hornery bunch, those American voters. Lord knows just how hornery they will be by 2028. If they get any sort of chance to exercise meaningful democracy again - in a world where artifical intelligence will be filtering artifical truth.
The rest of the world will have to do some heavy lifting for four years. Perhaps the rest of us will come out of this experience chastend - and strengthened. Glasses will being raised in Moscow, in Beijing, in Pyongyang. But maybe the European capitals will be the ultimate beneficiaries as the brightest and the best in America give up on the place. We should certainly be prepared to welcome them into our research departments, our Universities, our manufacturing, the City.
Maybe they will go back home in four years. Or by then, home will be here.
She's gone to bed. Pathetic really. Poor candidate.
She conducted herself with great dignity throughout the campaign.
No, dignity would have been:
- insisting on some kind of competitive process rather than just being anointed by the party - not hiding away from interviewers for six weeks - admitting that the Biden administration made plenty of mistakes.
She did none of those. She was a poor candidate with no vision or charisma who was only there because Biden picked her because of her race and gender and she deserved to lose. Unfortunately for the world, Trump, rather than Mitt Romney or George HW Bush, is the beneficiary of her flaws.
I don't know why the rest of the networks aren't calling it at this point. Trump is 4% (110k votes) up in Wisconsin with >95% reported. Also over 4% up (60k votes) in Nevada with >90% reported. Also over 4% up (205k votes) in Michigan with 89% reported. I can understand not calling Arizona as that is further behind
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
For all of you bewildered as to why Trump won again and so comprehensively, perhaps I can crave your indulgence and repost the link to the article I wrote for PB on the Trump phenomena back in early 2021.
Nothing really has changed since Trump's first win in 2016. Indeed in no small part because of Trump and of course because of Biden as his successor, for millions of Amernican who see themselves as MIddle Class, things have only got worse.
And the sad fact is that, just as in 2016 and 2020, there is no real prospect of a Trump presidency making it any better.
As an aside, interstimg to see what has changed since then - Trump's relationship with Twitter being the most obvious.
As I say they have abandoned democracy because of the price of eggs.
That will always be the case. At the most extreme, starving, penniless people have little interest in democracy and this is just a milder version of that. It has ever been such since the birth iof the idea of democracy.
Pythagoras may have been willing to die for his rather strange philosophical ideas but most people are not.
Dunno, millions went to war against Hitler in 1940s.
They went to war for their own immediate survival rather than for any great philosophical ideals.
So I know this won’t be one that will be universally appreciated, but I do hope that this goes some way to making the “establishment” (for want of a much better term) realise that the populist effect wasn’t an aberration in 2016 (for the US, Brexit or elsewhere) and that everyone wasn’t going to neatly fit back into a cozy consensus over the next decade.
Those forces are still there. And in some ways, the pull is getting worse.
It is time for our leaders to wake up to the challenges in front of them, and stop focussing on luxury beliefs at the cost of fundamentals.
The idea that 'Woke' is over is laughable; a Trump win means it goes from being a trend that had probably peaked to a renewed act of resistance.
No it doesn't. Woke has thrived because corporate boardrooms have been spending on woke initiatives. Under Trump this all comes to a grinding halt. Companies will fall in line with the new Trump admin very quickly and fundamentally there's just going to be less money to be made being woke.
'money to be made being woke'? I thought it was 'go woke go broke'?
Thanks for the selective quote? Less money and it's falling fast. Another huge bomb in gaming just came out, 10 years of development, $250m spent plus marketing and Dragon Age Veilguard couldn't even get past 100k players on PC, it's biggest platform but far.
The market has trended away because "get woke, go broke" is legitimately a thing and o expect Trump and Musk to make it even more difficult for woke companies to do well in the US.
As it's a fairly ominous morning, ift seems one of those moments to deive into the admiittedly erratic Nostradamus predictions for the next few years.
"A naval battle,. The Red Adversary will become pale with fear, Leaving the Great Ocean in dread."
Never mind Nostradamus, what about his cousin Leondamus? A few predictions from him so that we know what certainly won't be happening would be useful.
There were plenty of us suggesting Harris would win the PV and lose the College. So half right. The majority of us despise Trump but we're fearful of the win.
You and Casino are making shit up.
Er... you appear to be replying to the wrong post??
I thought I was replying to Topping. The Trump brain haze is catching.
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
Seriously we are quibbling over the timing of concessions from one side when Trump has never conceded 2020. Absolute joke the different standards applied.
I thought the Democrats were supposed to be better than Trump ?
So I know this won’t be one that will be universally appreciated, but I do hope that this goes some way to making the “establishment” (for want of a much better term) realise that the populist effect wasn’t an aberration in 2016 (for the US, Brexit or elsewhere) and that everyone wasn’t going to neatly fit back into a cozy consensus over the next decade.
Those forces are still there. And in some ways, the pull is getting worse.
It is time for our leaders to wake up to the challenges in front of them, and stop focussing on luxury beliefs at the cost of fundamentals.
The idea that we can ignore the looming disaster of climate change is the ultimate luxury belief. Billionaires are lobbying against net zero policies while buying up half of New Zealand to ride it out, while regular people are left to the hurricanes and floods.
Joking aside, I have certainly made a tit of myself wish-casting subsamples on american elections before, so comiserations to the many people around here in that position this morning.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
So America has decided to give power to a guy who fomented a coup. I wonder how that worked out in 1930s Germany.
We need to understand the root causes of why people are supporting him. The Democrats have spent 10 years refusing to do that.
Failure to see the problem led to Trump 2016; failure to understand and address it have resulted in Trump 2024.
An interesting comment from one talking head was that Trump won so many Hispanics because they identify as rural workers, not as Hispanics. The liberal elites really do not understand the rural country life and culture, and really look down their noses at it.
Personally, for me, Trump was reason enough to support Harris, even if with any normal Republican I’d never support her. But I get why that might not be enough for others who are struggling to make ends meet and blame the Democrats for that. She needed to provide a positive economic reason to vote for her, but every time she spoke about economic policy, she slipped in the polls.
I was convinced the assaults on women’s rights would be sufficient to push Harris over the line. I was obviously badly wrong.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Eyeballing the results, Trump's current margin (3.7%), the likely tipping point state (Pennsylvania), the likely margin in that state (2.1%) & what's left (West coast votes but with a lower margin than normal for the Democrats) I do believe the famed electoral college bias is going to be near enough zero.
She's gone to bed. Pathetic really. Poor candidate.
She conducted herself with great dignity throughout the campaign.
No, dignity would have been:
- insisting on some kind of competitive process rather than just being anointed by the party - not hiding away from interviewers for six weeks - admitting that the Biden administration made plenty of mistakes.
She did none of those. She was a poor candidate with no vision or charisma who was only there because Biden picked her because of her race and gender and she deserved to lose. Unfortunately for the world, Trump, rather than Mitt Romney or George HW Bush, is the beneficiary of her flaws.
Under the circumstances of Biden's meltdown she equipped herself every well.
When voters are buying utter mince from Fox News, Newsmax, state shock-jock radio, social media and mainstream media fact-checking her and not Trump it's hardly surprising she lost.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
I'm not 100% sure, but of course none of us know, whether the US will actually leave NATO. There is rhetoric but, especially with the current/soon to be POTUS, an awful lot of fawning from other members over Top Member. And we know that DJT likes to be Top Member.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Interesting, in that this is not the language of anyone who intends to be genuinely influential in the exercise of power.
As it's a fairly ominous morning, ift seems one of those moments to deive into the admiittedly erratic Nostradamus predictions for the next few years.
"A naval battle,. The Red Adversary will become pale with fear, Leaving the Great Ocean in dread."
Never mind Nostradamus, what about his cousin Leondamus? A few predictions from him so that we know what certainly won't be happening would be useful.
? Pretty much exactly what Leon has said would happen, has happened.
I thought he said Harris would probably take it? Or more likely he said lots of different things.
There were claims on the overnight thread that sensitive right-wing PBers were so intimidated by the woke herd that they felt unable to express their view that Trump would win.
They had no idea. They only felt "brave" enough to make those claims a few hours ago. They can't even decide if it's the economy, stupid or DEI/wokism wot won it.
Mr. Max, yeah, I've watched a few reviews of Veilguard. Disappointing lack of consequences to decisions (perhaps excepting the final few hours), dumbed down combat, unappealing art style, abandonment of dark fantasy (which was the main theme), and the inability to actually choose how to play does not look good.
In Origins, you could kill a (possessed) child and shag a demon, side with werewolves to wipe out orcs, betray your closest ally and become king, and shag a witch so she'd conceive a child with the soul of a dragon. In Veilguard, it sounds like you can't even disagree with companions.
The SkillUp comment along the lines that every conversation sounds like HR is in the room is a killer.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
I'm not 100% sure, but of course none of us know, whether the US will actually leave NATO. There is rhetoric but, especially with the current/soon to be POTUS, an awful lot of fawning from other members over Top Member. And we know that DJT likes to be Top Member.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
If the war in Ukraine ends, Putin isn’t in a position to mount any significant armed incursion elsewhere immediately, but he has his economy on a war footing so he can rebuild quickly. Which is why it is incumbent on our governments to now respond to the challenge by stepping up their own military preparedness.
That £22bn might not be able to all go to the NHS anymore…
If you listen to the swing voters on why Trump won, it was the economy stupid. Mostly inflation. The same fate as the vast majority of democratic govts facing reelection since Covid and the Ukraine war.
Harris ran a reasonable campaign in the circumstances, not brilliant but better than I expected and probably a tad better than average which is why it was in the margin of error and not a landslide.
I believe I was the first person to tip Trump on here for this cycle back in Jan 2021 at odds of 10, definitely amongst the first. I am better at long term political bets than short terms ones where I look heavily to the board for advice, more of a follower at that stage.
I think Trumps win gives Farage an excellent opportunity to be Conservative leader, and PM at the next general election. Depends quite how mad and bad Trump goes.
A new day has dawned, has it not? Congratulations to people who booked winnings, commiserations to the rest of us. I thought the Don's victory speech was a bit low-energy. He looks very old. I suspect things will be a bit of a shitshow until Vance takes over.
And then it will be a high-energy shit show.
The only hope is that he does ANOTHER 180 degree turn having got power. "Surprise!!!" But I'm not holding my breath.
To the extent there was a polling failure when the polling herded around a "too close to call" - which was fair from the prespective of the actual result - that failure was around the gender gap. Specifically the extent to which the male vote went to Trump. Certainly fooled me.
I wish America well. I feel it is going to need it. Americans will either discover Trump lied about his intentions on the economy - tariffs, forced migration of the people who do the shitty jobs that make America tick over - or worse, he will be true to his word. There has to be some hope that the House goes Democrat and imposes some brake on the craziest of the crazy. But the January 6th rioters will be pardoned, the law suits against Trump dropped and there will have ultimately been no sanction for the attempted overthrow of democracy. Ironically, democracy survived to give him another chance. Which democracy delivered him.
They are a hornery bunch, those American voters. Lord knows just how hornery they will be by 2028. If they get any sort of chance to exercise meaningful democracy again - in a world where artifical intelligence will be filtering artifical truth.
The rest of the world will have to do some heavy lifting for four years. Perhaps the rest of us will come out of this experience chastend - and strengthened. Glasses will being raised in Moscow, in Beijing, in Pyongyang. But maybe the European capitals will be the ultimate beneficiaries as the brightest and the best in America give up on the place. We should certainly be prepared to welcome them into our research departments, our Universities, our manufacturing, the City.
Maybe they will go back home in four years. Or by then, home will be here.
The small boats will become the least of our worries when fifty million Democrats rock up demanding asylum.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
A new day has dawned, has it not? Congratulations to people who booked winnings, commiserations to the rest of us. I thought the Don's victory speech was a bit low-energy. He looks very old. I suspect things will be a bit of a shitshow until Vance takes over.
And then it will be a high-energy shit show.
The only hope is that he does ANOTHER 180 degree turn having got power. "Surprise!!!" But I'm not holding my breath.
To the extent there was a polling failure when the polling herded around a "too close to call" - which was fair from the prespective of the actual result - that failure was around the gender gap. Specifically the extent to which the male vote went to Trump. Certainly fooled me.
I wish America well. I feel it is going to need it. Americans will either discover Trump lied about his intentions on the economy - tariffs, forced migration of the people who do the shitty jobs that make America tick over - or worse, he will be true to his word. There has to be some hope that the House goes Democrat and imposes some brake on the craziest of the crazy. But the January 6th rioters will be pardoned, the law suits against Trump dropped and there will have ultimately been no sanction for the attempted overthrow of democracy. Ironically, democracy survived to give him another chance. Which democracy delivered him.
They are a hornery bunch, those American voters. Lord knows just how hornery they will be by 2028. If they get any sort of chance to exercise meaningful democracy again - in a world where artifical intelligence will be filtering artifical truth.
The rest of the world will have to do some heavy lifting for four years. Perhaps the rest of us will come out of this experience chastend - and strengthened. Glasses will being raised in Moscow, in Beijing, in Pyongyang. But maybe the European capitals will be the ultimate beneficiaries as the brightest and the best in America give up on the place. We should certainly be prepared to welcome them into our research departments, our Universities, our manufacturing, the City.
Maybe they will go back home in four years. Or by then, home will be here.
The small boats will become the least of our worries when fifty million Democrats rock up demanding asylum.
Be a good time to set up an abortion clinic though...
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
Unless he ends up being held in a bunker under, er, a bunker on a Scottish golf course...
Good domestic YIMBY news. My European client has just purchased some land in the midlands for a new industrial development and says planning is being accelerated through at impressive pace.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Interesting, in that this is not the language of anyone who intends to be genuinely influential in the exercise of power.
Indeed. I expect he is sincere in his view but it does rather show he doesn’t have what it takes to move the yellows to the next step.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
I'm not 100% sure, but of course none of us know, whether the US will actually leave NATO. There is rhetoric but, especially with the current/soon to be POTUS, an awful lot of fawning from other members over Top Member. And we know that DJT likes to be Top Member.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
If the war in Ukraine ends, Putin isn’t in a position to mount any significant armed incursion elsewhere immediately, but he has his economy on a war footing so he can rebuild quickly. Which is why it is incumbent on our governments to now respond to the challenge by stepping up their own military preparedness.
That £22bn might not be able to all go to the NHS anymore…
I mean I hear this a lot but the case has not yet been made, nor indeed agreed to by the British Public that it wants to make this trade.
I have long (and boringly on PB) noted that the UK has not had, and desperately needs a national debate around our role in the world and what we want our armed forces for. We currently have an army of well under 100,000 and there is talk of reducing it further to boost the other arms.
What do we want to be - a power that can project force around the globe, or a defensive force guarding our borders (!), or....
Until we agree on that, or reach consensus then that £22bn will stay going to the NHS. Which is a shame, because they will waste 75% of it.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
Is hating Trump going to really drive people to vote for a political party in the UK ?
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
I'm not 100% sure, but of course none of us know, whether the US will actually leave NATO. There is rhetoric but, especially with the current/soon to be POTUS, an awful lot of fawning from other members over Top Member. And we know that DJT likes to be Top Member.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
If the war in Ukraine ends, Putin isn’t in a position to mount any significant armed incursion elsewhere immediately, but he has his economy on a war footing so he can rebuild quickly. Which is why it is incumbent on our governments to now respond to the challenge by stepping up their own military preparedness.
That £22bn might not be able to all go to the NHS anymore…
I mean I hear this a lot but the case has not yet been made, nor indeed agreed to by the British Public that it wants to make this trade.
I have long (and boringly on PB) noted that the UK has not had, and desperately needs a national debate around our role in the world and what we want our armed forces for. We currently have an army of well under 100,000 and there is talk of reducing it further to boost the other arms.
What do we want to be - a power that can project force around the globe, or a defensive force guarding our borders (!), or....
Until we agree on that, or reach consensus then that £22bn will stay going to the NHS. Which is a shame, because they will waste 75% of it.
For all of you bewildered as to why Trump won again and so comprehensively, perhaps I can crave your indulgence and repost the link to the article I wrote for PB on the Trump phenomena back in early 2021.
Nothing really has changed since Trump's first win in 2016. Indeed in no small part because of Trump and of course because of Biden as his successor, for millions of Amernican who see themselves as MIddle Class, things have only got worse.
And the sad fact is that, just as in 2016 and 2020, there is no real prospect of a Trump presidency making it any better.
As an aside, interstimg to see what has changed since then - Trump's relationship with Twitter being the most obvious.
As I say they have abandoned democracy because of the price of eggs.
That will always be the case. At the most extreme, starving, penniless people have little interest in democracy and this is just a milder version of that. It has ever been such since the birth iof the idea of democracy.
Pythagoras may have been willing to die for his rather strange philosophical ideas but most people are not.
Got any figures on who penniless people voted for? Last 2 times the poorest voted heavily against Trump.
CNN exit poll had Trump winning voters earning under $50 000 49% to 48% and Harris winning voters earning over $50 00050% to 47%.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
I'm not 100% sure, but of course none of us know, whether the US will actually leave NATO. There is rhetoric but, especially with the current/soon to be POTUS, an awful lot of fawning from other members over Top Member. And we know that DJT likes to be Top Member.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
If the war in Ukraine ends, Putin isn’t in a position to mount any significant armed incursion elsewhere immediately, but he has his economy on a war footing so he can rebuild quickly. Which is why it is incumbent on our governments to now respond to the challenge by stepping up their own military preparedness.
That £22bn might not be able to all go to the NHS anymore…
I mean I hear this a lot but the case has not yet been made, nor indeed agreed to by the British Public that it wants to make this trade.
I have long (and boringly on PB) noted that the UK has not had, and desperately needs a national debate around our role in the world and what we want our armed forces for. We currently have an army of well under 100,000 and there is talk of reducing it further to boost the other arms.
What do we want to be - a power that can project force around the globe, or a defensive force guarding our borders (!), or....
Until we agree on that, or reach consensus then that £22bn will stay going to the NHS. Which is a shame, because they will waste 75% of it.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz Kamala Harris lost this election when she pivoted to focus almost exclusively on attacking Donald Trump.
Voters already know everything there is about Trump – but they still wanted to know more about Harris’ plans for the first hour, first day, first month and first year of her administration.
It was a colossal failure for her campaign to shine the spotlight on Trump more than on Harris’ own ideas. #Election2024
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
As it's a fairly ominous morning, ift seems one of those moments to deive into the admiittedly erratic Nostradamus predictions for the next few years.
"A naval battle,. The Red Adversary will become pale with fear, Leaving the Great Ocean in dread."
Never mind Nostradamus, what about his cousin Leondamus? A few predictions from him so that we know what certainly won't be happening would be useful.
? Pretty much exactly what Leon has said would happen, has happened.
I thought he said Harris would probably take it? Or more likely he said lots of different things.
There were claims on the overnight thread that sensitive right-wing PBers were so intimidated by the woke herd that they felt unable to express their view that Trump would win.
They had no idea. They only felt "brave" enough to make those claims a few hours ago. They can't even decide if it's the economy, stupid or DEI/wokism wot won it.
I'm willing to say it: if the Dems had put up a man - a white male governor for example - Trump would have lost.
As it's a fairly ominous morning, ift seems one of those moments to deive into the admiittedly erratic Nostradamus predictions for the next few years.
"A naval battle,. The Red Adversary will become pale with fear, Leaving the Great Ocean in dread."
Never mind Nostradamus, what about his cousin Leondamus? A few predictions from him so that we know what certainly won't be happening would be useful.
? Pretty much exactly what Leon has said would happen, has happened.
I thought he said Harris would probably take it? Or more likely he said lots of different things.
There were claims on the overnight thread that sensitive right-wing PBers were so intimidated by the woke herd that they felt unable to express their view that Trump would win.
They had no idea. They only felt "brave" enough to make those claims a few hours ago. They can't even decide if it's the economy, stupid or DEI/wokism wot won it.
No one knew who would win, the polls were utterly unhelpful. Anyone who said they did is pants on fire, personally I thought Kamala would flip N Carolina. What is definitely true and has been for around a year or more, is that it’s been impossible to offer cogent critique of Biden’s economic or foreign policy (or mental capacity) here without getting hounded.
One nutcase here seems convinced I’m an anti semite, because perhaps a year ago I reposted a relatively innocuous tweet from Elon that was itself a retweet from someone else, who had in the past said anti semetic things. And he's still going on about it even this week, thread after thread after thread, even though he knows almost nothing about me. It’s like a mental illness. I expect this will tediously wake him up again. I’d much rather see insight on what might come next, how will world governments position themselves, how might Biden’s economic time bomb derail trumps train before he even has a chance to crash it etc.. Luckily that’s what most here offer.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
I'm not 100% sure, but of course none of us know, whether the US will actually leave NATO. There is rhetoric but, especially with the current/soon to be POTUS, an awful lot of fawning from other members over Top Member. And we know that DJT likes to be Top Member.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
If the war in Ukraine ends, Putin isn’t in a position to mount any significant armed incursion elsewhere immediately, but he has his economy on a war footing so he can rebuild quickly. Which is why it is incumbent on our governments to now respond to the challenge by stepping up their own military preparedness.
That £22bn might not be able to all go to the NHS anymore…
I mean I hear this a lot but the case has not yet been made, nor indeed agreed to by the British Public that it wants to make this trade.
I have long (and boringly on PB) noted that the UK has not had, and desperately needs a national debate around our role in the world and what we want our armed forces for. We currently have an army of well under 100,000 and there is talk of reducing it further to boost the other arms.
What do we want to be - a power that can project force around the globe, or a defensive force guarding our borders (!), or....
Until we agree on that, or reach consensus then that £22bn will stay going to the NHS. Which is a shame, because they will waste 75% of it.
Whereas the MOD will only waste 70% of it....
I agree we should be spending more on defence. But do the MOD have a good idea of what to spend it on? Are the leadership united on that and aligned with the politcians? Will other EU countries do similar or put heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away?
From Starmer's perspective moving slowly in sync with the big EU powers makes most sense to get a better feel for those questions. We aren't big enough, nor have the will to do it alone. Ukraine is probably in Trump's hands. What we can influence is the rest of Eastern Europe, but that doesn't need an immediate change of direction.
The delays in bringing those cases allowed Trump the chance to run the clock down .
Arguably it's on RGB. If she'd retired in time to be replaced then the Dems would ahve had one more SC seat and Trump's asburd immunity ruling wouldn't have happened.
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
Yes, Clinton's reputation as the worst ever presidential candidate was always bollocks. I always think it's a shame she didn't beat Obama and then Bush in 2008. She would at least have been a lot tougher with Putin than Obama was.
So America has decided to give power to a guy who fomented a coup. I wonder how that worked out in 1930s Germany.
We need to understand the root causes of why people are supporting him. The Democrats have spent 10 years refusing to do that.
Failure to see the problem led to Trump 2016; failure to understand and address it have resulted in Trump 2024.
An interesting comment from one talking head was that Trump won so many Hispanics because they identify as rural workers, not as Hispanics. The liberal elites really do not understand the rural country life and culture, and really look down their noses at it.
Personally, for me, Trump was reason enough to support Harris, even if with any normal Republican I’d never support her. But I get why that might not be enough for others who are struggling to make ends meet and blame the Democrats for that. She needed to provide a positive economic reason to vote for her, but every time she spoke about economic policy, she slipped in the polls.
I was convinced the assaults on women’s rights would be sufficient to push Harris over the line. I was obviously badly wrong.
To go back to @Andy_JS question, it seems clear to me what the disconnect is - the elite culture has been pushed to extremes by its radical wing . It alienates ordinary people to such a degree that they will vote for whatever the alternative is. The repeated obsession with racism, open borders trans rights etc has just led to Trump being elected - cause and effect. Like Starmer, Biden was able to defuse a lot of this stuff but the activist base are just obsessed with it . A lot of people think they are 'on the side of progress' by going along with it, posters who raise concerns about what is going on have been repeatedly dismissed as 'culture warriors' on a 'lunatic fringe' etc. It was always apparent to me that it would end decisively at some point and here we are.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
Is hating Trump going to really drive people to vote for a political party in the UK ?
I cannot see it personally.
Ed needs to stick to dicking around in the water.
Starmer's inevitable need to suck up to Trump (it's part of his job as PM, really) will repel some Labour voters. But it's far from clear that the Lib Dems will be the beneficiaries - Greens likely to have a similar line.
Many (potential) Lib Dem voters also mature enough to recognise the realities of diplomacy. I'm one and Ed Davey's message doesn't make me any more inclined to vote Lib Dem. Starmer smiling weakly on a podium with Trump will not make me less likely to vote Labour (if I believed Starmer was actually a Trump fan then it would!).
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
But the Putin appeaser/Chamberlain analogy is accurate - or at least there isn a good chance it is. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine then there is every likelhood he will look to other countries along his borders to do the same thing, expecially if NATO has lost its most important member. Just dismissing this as a smear is wrong. It is a genuine fear and one that many of us think is highly likely to happen.
True, but our best immediate hope is that Trump does not fold on Ukraine, and our best way of facilitating that hope, no matter how faint, is to tamp down that particular rhetoric for now.
The delays in bringing those cases allowed Trump the chance to run the clock down .
Morning everyone. Not really a 'Good Morning' day, is it!
What's going to happen about Trump's sentencing in New York on (IIRC) 18th November?
It would be hilarious if the judge ignored developments and sent him to jail. However given multiple contempts of court resulted in next to no consequences I suspect nothing will happen.
The delays in bringing those cases allowed Trump the chance to run the clock down .
The Dems thought that by dragging it out it would damage the GOP.
Perhaps they were correct but it allowed the possibility of Trump becoming president again.
If people on here are correct that Trump was charged with felonies that are technically misdemeanours, there could well be an element of having turned him into a martyr. Dragging that out would be counterproductive for them.
I admit to knowing little about American politics, but I thought both parties made big mistakes. The Dems by not ditching Biden when he was already away with the fairies. And the Republicans by not selecting Haley when they had the chance.
The GOP is now stuck with an overweight, near-octogenarian who's the besr friend of Titania. At least, they won't know when he loses the last thread of sanity he ever had.
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
Yes, Clinton's reputation as the worst ever presidential candidate was always bollocks. I always think it's a shame she didn't beat Obama and then Bush in 2008. She would at least have been a lot tougher with Putin than Obama was.
22% of Americans don't want a female President in their lifetimes. Any female Democrat is up against a decent hurdle. I'd back 1/2 the first female President is a Republican, a bit like here where Labour won't internally vote for a female leader for whatever reason.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
Is hating Trump going to really drive people to vote for a political party in the UK ?
I cannot see it personally.
Ed needs to stick to dicking around in the water.
Hatred of Trump is quite visceral. Several people telling me this morning they feel nauseous, despite being nowhere near the US. So it's a good marker for identity, which tribe you belong to. Starmer obviously can't attack Trump, and Badenoch probably doesn't want to, so there's a good gap here for LibDems.
It's shocking to me that JD Vance is one heart attack away from being POTUS in s few months. At least last time Pence was actually an experienced politician despite not agreeing with much of his policy he wouldn't have been completely terrible.
Vance is smart. I reckon he’d be a good president
I don't see a lot of evidence for that.
Hillbilly Elegy is a fine book
Was a good film as well
Difficult to see how the person who wrote Elegy is the same guy who is now VP, but maybe he will surprise us later down the road.
I've only got through an hour of it yet, but the Vance - Rogan podcast is worth a listen to get a feel for the man. I think he's more reasonable and likable than his portrayal in the UK media would suggest.
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
Yes, Clinton's reputation as the worst ever presidential candidate was always bollocks. I always think it's a shame she didn't beat Obama and then Bush in 2008. She would at least have been a lot tougher with Putin than Obama was.
22% of Americans don't want a female President in their lifetimes. Any female Democrat is up against a decent hurdle. I'd back 1/2 the first female President is a Republican, a bit like here where Labour won't internally vote for a female leader for whatever reason.
A new day has dawned, has it not? Congratulations to people who booked winnings, commiserations to the rest of us. I thought the Don's victory speech was a bit low-energy. He looks very old. I suspect things will be a bit of a shitshow until Vance takes over.
And then it will be a high-energy shit show.
The only hope is that he does ANOTHER 180 degree turn having got power. "Surprise!!!" But I'm not holding my breath.
To the extent there was a polling failure when the polling herded around a "too close to call" - which was fair from the prespective of the actual result - that failure was around the gender gap. Specifically the extent to which the male vote went to Trump. Certainly fooled me.
I wish America well. I feel it is going to need it. Americans will either discover Trump lied about his intentions on the economy - tariffs, forced migration of the people who do the shitty jobs that make America tick over - or worse, he will be true to his word. There has to be some hope that the House goes Democrat and imposes some brake on the craziest of the crazy. But the January 6th rioters will be pardoned, the law suits against Trump dropped and there will have ultimately been no sanction for the attempted overthrow of democracy. Ironically, democracy survived to give him another chance. Which democracy delivered him.
They are a hornery bunch, those American voters. Lord knows just how hornery they will be by 2028. If they get any sort of chance to exercise meaningful democracy again - in a world where artifical intelligence will be filtering artifical truth.
The rest of the world will have to do some heavy lifting for four years. Perhaps the rest of us will come out of this experience chastend - and strengthened. Glasses will being raised in Moscow, in Beijing, in Pyongyang. But maybe the European capitals will be the ultimate beneficiaries as the brightest and the best in America give up on the place. We should certainly be prepared to welcome them into our research departments, our Universities, our manufacturing, the City.
Maybe they will go back home in four years. Or by then, home will be here.
Given that you have spent the last six months confidently telling us exactly how and why Harris would easily win, seizing on all evidence that supported your thesis, and willfully ignoring anything contrary - even when people like me told you this was nuts - you could at least begin your rehabilitation with an apology
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
Yes, Clinton's reputation as the worst ever presidential candidate was always bollocks. I always think it's a shame she didn't beat Obama and then Bush in 2008. She would at least have been a lot tougher with Putin than Obama was.
22% of Americans don't want a female President in their lifetimes. Any female Democrat is up against a decent hurdle. I'd back 1/2 the first female President is a Republican, a bit like here where Labour won't internally vote for a female leader for whatever reason.
Gabbard '28
If I had to pick one prospect for that position now, Ivanka, but more like 2044..
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
Yes, Clinton's reputation as the worst ever presidential candidate was always bollocks. I always think it's a shame she didn't beat Obama and then Bush in 2008. She would at least have been a lot tougher with Putin than Obama was.
22% of Americans don't want a female President in their lifetimes. Any female Democrat is up against a decent hurdle. I'd back 1/2 the first female President is a Republican, a bit like here where Labour won't internally vote for a female leader for whatever reason.
Gabbard '28
If I had to pick one prospect for that position now, Ivanka, but more like 2044..
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
Thought it was the other way round! Putin has leverage over Trump.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
Let's suppose that Putin's forces take significant territory in Ukraine. Once the North Koreans are there, it doesn't necessarily follow that dislodging them would require armaments and firepower. From what I've heard about North Korea, a policy of offering food and warmth and some good things would conquer them very quickly.
A new day has dawned, has it not? Congratulations to people who booked winnings, commiserations to the rest of us. I thought the Don's victory speech was a bit low-energy. He looks very old. I suspect things will be a bit of a shitshow until Vance takes over.
And then it will be a high-energy shit show.
The only hope is that he does ANOTHER 180 degree turn having got power. "Surprise!!!" But I'm not holding my breath.
To the extent there was a polling failure when the polling herded around a "too close to call" - which was fair from the prespective of the actual result - that failure was around the gender gap. Specifically the extent to which the male vote went to Trump. Certainly fooled me.
I wish America well. I feel it is going to need it. Americans will either discover Trump lied about his intentions on the economy - tariffs, forced migration of the people who do the shitty jobs that make America tick over - or worse, he will be true to his word. There has to be some hope that the House goes Democrat and imposes some brake on the craziest of the crazy. But the January 6th rioters will be pardoned, the law suits against Trump dropped and there will have ultimately been no sanction for the attempted overthrow of democracy. Ironically, democracy survived to give him another chance. Which democracy delivered him.
They are a hornery bunch, those American voters. Lord knows just how hornery they will be by 2028. If they get any sort of chance to exercise meaningful democracy again - in a world where artifical intelligence will be filtering artifical truth.
The rest of the world will have to do some heavy lifting for four years. Perhaps the rest of us will come out of this experience chastend - and strengthened. Glasses will being raised in Moscow, in Beijing, in Pyongyang. But maybe the European capitals will be the ultimate beneficiaries as the brightest and the best in America give up on the place. We should certainly be prepared to welcome them into our research departments, our Universities, our manufacturing, the City.
Maybe they will go back home in four years. Or by then, home will be here.
Given that you have spent the last six months confidently telling us exactly how and why Harris would easily win, seizing on all evidence that supported your thesis, and willfully ignoring anything contrary - even when people like me told you this was nuts - you could at least begin your rehabilitation with an apology
When have you ever apologised for the many, many times you have been wrong?
The US election isn't going to drag out for months with another riot to 'stop the steel"?
Chin up. It won't be as bad as people think. The guy is knackered, over the hill, with no real aim other than being president again. Done that now so he can do what he did before - very little.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
Let's suppose that Putin's forces take significant territory in Ukraine. Once the North Koreans are there, it doesn't necessarily follow that dislodging them would require armaments and firepower. From what I've heard about North Korea, a policy of offering food and warmth and some good things would conquer them very quickly.
I suspect most wars could be won more cheaply and decisively with some $$$$ to incentive the opposition.
Remember Clinton didn't either. Poor behaviour from the "adults".
What on earth are you on about? Trump was the one who didn't concede, and Harris probably isn't going to concede until Trump reaches 270. It's also the middle of the night in the USA.
Clinton didn't give a concession speech in 2016 - she ran away. Look it up.
She did, on the day after the election in fact. Look it up.
Her run at the presidency is looking quite rosy in comparison to Harris' dismal failure.
Yes, Clinton's reputation as the worst ever presidential candidate was always bollocks. I always think it's a shame she didn't beat Obama and then Bush in 2008. She would at least have been a lot tougher with Putin than Obama was.
22% of Americans don't want a female President in their lifetimes. Any female Democrat is up against a decent hurdle. I'd back 1/2 the first female President is a Republican, a bit like here where Labour won't internally vote for a female leader for whatever reason.
I have a private wager with myself that the first 'female' leader of the Labour Party will be a transwoman.
Mr. Max, yeah, I've watched a few reviews of Veilguard. Disappointing lack of consequences to decisions (perhaps excepting the final few hours), dumbed down combat, unappealing art style, abandonment of dark fantasy (which was the main theme), and the inability to actually choose how to play does not look good.
In Origins, you could kill a (possessed) child and shag a demon, side with werewolves to wipe out orcs, betray your closest ally and become king, and shag a witch so she'd conceive a child with the soul of a dragon. In Veilguard, it sounds like you can't even disagree with companions.
The SkillUp comment along the lines that every conversation sounds like HR is in the room is a killer.
Edited extra bit: oh, and 'barves'.
I must say, Origins sounds fun, much like Joe Abercrombie’s upcoming novel, The Devils.
I was never sure of this result but glad Trump won . Farage did well again calling it weeks ago
Burned too many times to trust it but the polling relative to 2016 and 2020 was absolutely screaming this result. Then turnout yesterday wherever we had real data it showed Rep turning out way ahead of Dem.
This result only feels like a shock because so many people wanted the opposite to be true.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 39m This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
Smart politics from the Lib Dems. They're fishing in the pool of Trump-hating voters and he's never going to be PM and have to work with Trump.
Is hating Trump going to really drive people to vote for a political party in the UK ?
I cannot see it personally.
Ed needs to stick to dicking around in the water.
Hatred of Trump is quite visceral. Several people telling me this morning they feel nauseous, despite being nowhere near the US. So it's a good marker for identity, which tribe you belong to. Starmer obviously can't attack Trump, and Badenoch probably doesn't want to, so there's a good gap here for LibDems.
I loathe Trump but just feel less irritated than when he won the first time as that was in the same year as Brexit .
Comments
Spooky.
There is much to be grateful for and cheerful about.
In terms of US politics, I can't think of much. It's a major reverse. No sugar-coating that.
The big thing is a third term. When George W Bush won in 2004, the last time the Republicans won the popular vote in the Presidential election, he was very bullish about his mandate, but practical power drained away from him pretty quickly, it being his second term. Can Trump avoid becoming a lame duck?
The only hope is that he does ANOTHER 180 degree turn having got power. "Surprise!!!" But I'm not holding my breath.
To the extent there was a polling failure when the polling herded around a "too close to call" - which was fair from the prespective of the actual result - that failure was around the gender gap. Specifically the extent to which the male vote went to Trump. Certainly fooled me.
I wish America well. I feel it is going to need it. Americans will either discover Trump lied about his intentions on the economy - tariffs, forced migration of the people who do the shitty jobs that make America tick over - or worse, he will be true to his word. There has to be some hope that the House goes Democrat and imposes some brake on the craziest of the crazy. But the January 6th rioters will be pardoned, the law suits against Trump dropped and there will have ultimately been no sanction for the attempted overthrow of democracy. Ironically, democracy survived to give him another chance. Which democracy delivered him.
They are a hornery bunch, those American voters. Lord knows just how hornery they will be by 2028. If they get any sort of chance to exercise meaningful democracy again - in a world where artifical intelligence will be filtering artifical truth.
The rest of the world will have to do some heavy lifting for four years. Perhaps the rest of us will come out of this experience chastend - and strengthened. Glasses will being raised in Moscow, in Beijing, in Pyongyang. But maybe the European capitals will be the ultimate beneficiaries as the brightest and the best in America give up on the place. We should certainly be prepared to welcome them into our research departments, our Universities, our manufacturing, the City.
Maybe they will go back home in four years. Or by then, home will be here.
- insisting on some kind of competitive process rather than just being anointed by the party
- not hiding away from interviewers for six weeks
- admitting that the Biden administration made plenty of mistakes.
She did none of those. She was a poor candidate with no vision or charisma who was only there because Biden picked her because of her race and gender and she deserved to lose. Unfortunately for the world, Trump, rather than Mitt Romney or George HW Bush, is the beneficiary of her flaws.
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Receive what cheer you may: The night is long that never finds the day.
Those forces are still there. And in some ways, the pull is getting worse.
It is time for our leaders to wake up to the challenges in front of them, and stop focussing on luxury beliefs at the cost of fundamentals.
The market has trended away because "get woke, go broke" is legitimately a thing and o expect Trump and Musk to make it even more difficult for woke companies to do well in the US.
PS I was being tongue-in-cheek of course - with my track record of prediction, I don't seriously criticise anyone else's.
Joking aside, I have certainly made a tit of myself wish-casting subsamples on american elections before, so comiserations to the many people around here in that position this morning.
Ed Davey
@EdwardJDavey
·
39m
This is a dark, dark day for people around the globe. The world’s largest economy and most powerful military will be led by a dangerous, destructive demagogue.
An interesting comment from one talking head was that Trump won so many Hispanics because they identify as rural workers, not as Hispanics. The liberal elites really do not understand the rural country life and culture, and really look down their noses at it.
Personally, for me, Trump was reason enough to support Harris, even if with any normal Republican I’d never support her. But I get why that might not be enough for others who are struggling to make ends meet and blame the Democrats for that. She needed to provide a positive economic reason to vote for her, but every time she spoke about economic policy, she slipped in the polls.
I was convinced the assaults on women’s rights would be sufficient to push Harris over the line. I was obviously badly wrong.
I'm more pissed* with Andy_JS for giving us false hope!
*hopefully the
When voters are buying utter mince from Fox News, Newsmax, state shock-jock radio, social media and mainstream media fact-checking her and not Trump it's hardly surprising she lost.
So on the assumption that the US remains a member (90:10 in my mind) then that changes the dynamic of any negotiated settlement and instead of emboldening Russia, would make them worry about what NATO's Top (and Maddest) Member might do if a NATO-negotiated settlement was violated.
All assumptions, of course, just like yours of Russia further expanding its borders but not incoherent or, I believe, out of the question.
Incidentally, Putin recently explicitly mentioned what he believed was NATO's eastern expansion as a factor in his Ukraine invasion. Is he right, is he wrong? You can be the (a) judge, but it's important to understand what the Russian view of it is.
There were claims on the overnight thread that sensitive right-wing PBers were so intimidated by the woke herd that they felt unable to express their view that Trump would win.
They had no idea. They only felt "brave" enough to make those claims a few hours ago. They can't even decide if it's the economy, stupid or DEI/wokism wot won it.
In Origins, you could kill a (possessed) child and shag a demon, side with werewolves to wipe out orcs, betray your closest ally and become king, and shag a witch so she'd conceive a child with the soul of a dragon. In Veilguard, it sounds like you can't even disagree with companions.
The SkillUp comment along the lines that every conversation sounds like HR is in the room is a killer.
Edited extra bit: oh, and 'barves'.
That £22bn might not be able to all go to the NHS anymore…
Harris ran a reasonable campaign in the circumstances, not brilliant but better than I expected and probably a tad better than average which is why it was in the margin of error and not a landslide.
I believe I was the first person to tip Trump on here for this cycle back in Jan 2021 at odds of 10, definitely amongst the first. I am better at long term political bets than short terms ones where I look heavily to the board for advice, more of a follower at that stage.
I think Trumps win gives Farage an excellent opportunity to be Conservative leader, and PM at the next general election. Depends quite how mad and bad Trump goes.
I feel I must fess up to nodding off c. 2am.
[checks news]
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
I have long (and boringly on PB) noted that the UK has not had, and desperately needs a national debate around our role in the world and what we want our armed forces for. We currently have an army of well under 100,000 and there is talk of reducing it further to boost the other arms.
What do we want to be - a power that can project force around the globe, or a defensive force guarding our borders (!), or....
Until we agree on that, or reach consensus then that £22bn will stay going to the NHS. Which is a shame, because they will waste 75% of it.
I cannot see it personally.
Ed needs to stick to dicking around in the water.
The delays in bringing those cases allowed Trump the chance to run the clock down .
Though I agree that move wasn't good for Harris, there will have been a dozen different things that contributed to her defeat.
One nutcase here seems convinced I’m an anti semite, because perhaps a year ago I reposted a relatively innocuous tweet from Elon that was itself a retweet from someone else, who had in the past said anti semetic things. And he's still going on about it even this week, thread after thread after thread, even though he knows almost nothing about me. It’s like a mental illness. I expect this will tediously wake him up again. I’d much rather see insight on what might come next, how will world governments position themselves, how might Biden’s economic time bomb derail trumps train before he even has a chance to crash it etc.. Luckily that’s what most here offer.
What's going to happen about Trump's sentencing in New York on (IIRC) 18th November?
From Starmer's perspective moving slowly in sync with the big EU powers makes most sense to get a better feel for those questions. We aren't big enough, nor have the will to do it alone. Ukraine is probably in Trump's hands. What we can influence is the rest of Eastern Europe, but that doesn't need an immediate change of direction.
Perhaps they were correct but it allowed the possibility of Trump becoming president again.
Many (potential) Lib Dem voters also mature enough to recognise the realities of diplomacy. I'm one and Ed Davey's message doesn't make me any more inclined to vote Lib Dem. Starmer smiling weakly on a podium with Trump will not make me less likely to vote Labour (if I believed Starmer was actually a Trump fan then it would!).
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
The GOP is now stuck with an overweight, near-octogenarian who's the besr friend of Titania.
At least, they won't know when he loses the last thread of sanity he ever had.
Chin up. It won't be as bad as people think. The guy is knackered, over the hill, with no real aim other than being president again. Done that now so he can do what he did before - very little.
This result only feels like a shock because so many people wanted the opposite to be true.