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.
In any event the judge is going to have to, as the saying goes, furiously to think!
Since 1941 the interests and the values of the US and the UK have been aligned based on the agreed principles of the Atlantic Charter. Those values included, but were not limited to, the value of a peaceful democratic order and a just, rules-based system of security and trade.
Trump, like his backers seems to believe that these principles are not universal and have outlived their usefulness. Instead of multilateral agreements, they argue for a more direct, unilateral approach with the immediate interests of the United States a priority at all times. It is no good arguing that the altruism of post war America allowed the recovery of (western) Europe and the emergence of a mutually enriching trade. This point of view believes that the goodwill of the US has been exploited by enemies (China) and allies (the EU) alike.
The mealy-mouthed compromises which have been the foundation of globalisation are themselves seen as morally weak and in any event led to the wholesale off-shoring of jobs and large parts of the Western economy to Asia. Again, there is no point in arguing for Ricardo´s comparative advantage when you see once prosperous factories closed and the urban blight of drugs and vice replacing it.
As for the special pleading for minorities, racial and sexual, this infuriates large numbers of straight white voters who feel that affirmative action has replaced one injustice with another, and who remain, at best, uncomfortable with the reality of gay rights activists who seem to be pushing for acceptance of ever less acceptable, even "degenerate" groups at a time when birthrates have collapsed and the demographic survival of some places seems doubtful. Abortion rights are also involved in this world view too and are not positive.
Trump and the radical right offers clear and simple solutions. That these solutions in many cases seem at best questionable, at worse dangerous and potentially authoritarian does not bother the MAGA world view at all.
The rise of general authoritarianism is a clear global trend. Today Trump, in two years time, perhaps, Le Pen. As for the UK, it doesn´t matter, our withdrawal from the EU commits us to the United States, no matter that the values of the US and the UK have always differed and may now be misaligned. The decisive power of the United States is now over, it is one amongst many. If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative. Europe can only be a force if Russia is defeated and then brought into the EU state system, which is now very much not the wish of the USA.
Farage offers us the Trumpian future. Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat. Can Britain overcome our own crisis? Can we realign? This is now a fundamental state challenge for the UK, and not just from the centre and left of our political system.
Project 2025 is coming. What is our response? What choices, if any, do we have?
"If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative."
You can't really believe this.
"Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat."
What do you mean by "a fundamental justice" as opposed to just "fundamental justice"?
It's a very long example of Trump derangement syndrome.
Is it ?
I think it might be more a reflection of just how unattractive the US might seem to Europe - and China's economic appeal, if the US imposes particularly damaging tariffs, might outweigh its obvious authoritarianism.
Germany was certainly prepared to overlook the nature of Putin's regime when doing business with it. Its trade with China is massive (though the balance of advantage has changed). And EU countries are already accepting Chinese factories.
That doesn't make adapting to China as some kind of trading alternative to the US a good thing; it isn't - but in a world where the US turns its back on Europe, it might well happen.
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?
I have only been wrong once, vis a vis Liz Truss surprising on the upside, and for this sole error, in the long stretches of PB time, I am indeed prepared to say: my bad
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.
But how many of that 22% would ever consider voting Democrat anyway? If they are already hard core GOP supporters then the stat is politically meaningless.
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?
MM has a decent track record. There is no harm in getting things wrong, no-one calls 50-50 races right even 70% of the time.
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?
I have only been wrong once, vis a vis Liz Truss surprising on the upside, and for this sole error, in the long stretches of PB time, I am indeed prepared to say: my bad
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?
I have only been wrong once, vis a vis Liz Truss surprising on the upside, and for this sole error, in the long stretches of PB time, I am indeed prepared to say: my bad
A Trump victory leads to a stronger dollar, in many traders’ view, because some of his key policies are inflationary. Tax cuts are stimulatory, while new tariffs on US imports would push up consumer prices, and curbs on immigration would lead to fewer workers and thus higher wages.
That environment, the theory goes, leads to higher inflation and thus higher interest rates.
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
You're a decent writer too; you'd be an awful President.
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.
I think “woke” is a second tier issue, but it constantly grates.
Things like the C of E beating itself up over “institutional racism”, of people trying to make a martyr of Chris Kaba endlessly put peoples’ backs up.
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.
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?
Actually, to be more serious, @MarqueeMark’s sin is not “being wrong” we are all of us wrong all the time (me certainly included) it comes with being on a site dedicated to predictions, if we were never wrong we would all be trillionaires; we are not
No what @MarqueeMark did was be wrong in a specific way, by obviously and deliberately refusing to admit any data that conflicted with his desired outcome: a Trump defeat. i called him out on this a week ago, specifically - I can find the exchange if you insist
THAT is not “being wrong” that is “being a wishcasting idiot”. And I generally agree with @MarqueeMark but in this instance he was foolish
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 agree. I was going to post the same as @OnlyLivingBoy. It makes perfect sense politically and isn't hypocritical. The LDs are the exact opposite to Trump. I'm sure Starmer wants to say the same thing as I am sure many Tories do, but they can't.
The LDs can. They are never going to have to deal with Trump and it will resonate with all LD, Labour, Green. SNP and Plaid supporters and a very large number of Tory supporters particularly in the South. The only voters it won't resonate with are Reform voters and they aren't after them.
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.
It's brilliant, I've fired it up again now that I'm on gardening leave.
Mr. F, Dragon Age Origins is one of the best RPGs ever made. Just about every party member is interesting and they gel well (or badly, in a good way) together. You can murder the shit out of loads of people, be a total dick, annoy your companions so much they leave or even attempt to kill you, or be a classic goody two shoes.
The setting's very dark fantasy, which is one reason I think Veilguard put a lot of people off by its shift to Marvel 'humour' and cheerful, vaguely cartoony graphics.
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.
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 .
I feel less irritated because we’ve all known, deep-down; that it was a possibility. I’ve had time to mentally prepare for it. 2016 was the equivalent of being punched in the stomach with no warning: most of us just all comfortably assumed there was no chance that he would make it.
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?
And why are you so obsessed with randoms on the internet being made to apologise to you, another random on the internet? Is there some sort of score card somewhere where you get a point for each random who say sorry, Grand Master Leon, you were right and I was wrong?
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?
I have only been wrong once, vis a vis Liz Truss surprising on the upside, and for this sole error, in the long stretches of PB time, I am indeed prepared to say: my bad
I was never sure of this result but glad Trump won . Farage did well again calling it weeks ago
I'm curious - is this because you are for Trump or because you were put off by the Dems?
I like to be for somebody not against somebody (not always works) but yes I think Trump is a good candidate for the US and the world at this moment- The stock markets seem to agree
Mr. Max, ages ago when my PS4 died but before I got my PS5 I had another playthrough of Origins. The load times are a little longer and graphically it's obviously dated but the story and voice-acting remain top notch.
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.
+1 Very good post
Let's look at the opposite then, shall we?
Would you be in favour of policies that: *) Allowed racism. *) Closed all our borders to the 'wrong' people. *) Removed all rights for trans people?
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?
I have only been wrong once, vis a vis Liz Truss surprising on the upside, and for this sole error, in the long stretches of PB time, I am indeed prepared to say: my bad
What? Three words!!!
Emma Raducanu becoming the supreme global sporting phenomenon of the 21st Century?
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?
Actually, to be more serious, @MarqueeMark’s sin is not “being wrong” we are all of us wrong all the time (me certainly included) it comes with being on a site dedicated to predictions, if we were never wrong we would all be trillionaires; we are not
No what @MarqueeMark did was be wrong in a specific way, by obviously and deliberately refusing to admit any data that conflicted with his desired outcome: a Trump defeat. i called him out on this a week ago, specifically - I can find the exchange if you insist
THAT is not “being wrong” that is “being a wishcasting idiot”. And I generally agree with @MarqueeMark but in this instance he was foolish
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.
But how many of that 22% would ever consider voting Democrat anyway? If they are already hard core GOP supporters then the stat is politically meaningless.
By party splits (subsamples!)
Dem 90 Yes 4 Against 6 Not sure Ind 51/17/32 Rep 23/48/29
Its a significant amount of independents and ideally you want to switch some from the opposite party too. Its a hurdle.
Mr. Max, ages ago when my PS4 died but before I got my PS5 I had another playthrough of Origins. The load times are a little longer and graphically it's obviously dated but the story and voice-acting remain top notch.
Which Origin did you go for?
Elf mage, never played as mage. Got the ultimate edition on Steam for like £3 a few years ago knowing I would one day play it again.
So the pattern of movement to the right persists. Has there been any election in the past year or so that contradicts it, apart from the UK?
Poland?
Moldova, and they probably had more Putin meddling than anyone.
I suppose that fits if you interpret EU-hopeful Sandu as left versus Putinist Stoianoglo as right.
Depending where your Overton Window currently resides, I’d say Sandu is at as least left of centre as Poland’s government (though I read on here that Harris is a far left commie so who knows).
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.
I'm genuinely not shocked. I've been worried about this possibility for a long time that is hardly surprising.
But I did let a few things - the Selzer poll, the analysis of the gender split in the GA early vote - make hope that it would be different. So I am very disappointed and a bit glum.
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.
+1 Very good post
Let's look at the opposite then, shall we?
Would you be in favour of policies that: *) Allowed racism. *) Closed all our borders to the 'wrong' people. *) Removed all rights for trans people?
No of course not. I'm a liberal and those polies are illiberal. I don't think you understand the difference between liberalism and that gruesome term 'woke', which is deeply illiberal.
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?
Actually, to be more serious, @MarqueeMark’s sin is not “being wrong” we are all of us wrong all the time (me certainly included) it comes with being on a site dedicated to predictions, if we were never wrong we would all be trillionaires; we are not
No what @MarqueeMark did was be wrong in a specific way, by obviously and deliberately refusing to admit any data that conflicted with his desired outcome: a Trump defeat. i called him out on this a week ago, specifically - I can find the exchange if you insist
THAT is not “being wrong” that is “being a wishcasting idiot”. And I generally agree with @MarqueeMark but in this instance he was foolish
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.
I'm genuinely not shocked. I've been worried about this possibility for a long time that is hardly surprising.
But I did let a few things - the Selzer poll, the analysis of the gender split in the GA early vote - make hope that it would be different. So I am very disappointed and a bit glum.
I was resigned to a Trump win even as I hoped somehow it wouldn't happen (and bet that way as she seemed to have the value).
I was briefly more hopeful after Trump's dire debate performance but that was soon forgotten by everyone it seems.
Just watched a Sky News YouTube clip. Lewis Goodall is wearing white socks with a suit. I dress like a teenage skateboarder, but even I'd draw the line at that.
I do feel for Harris having to go through the process of having to certify the vote in the Senate in January. Although at least unlike Gore in 2000, at least she knows she legitimately lost.
Since 1941 the interests and the values of the US and the UK have been aligned based on the agreed principles of the Atlantic Charter. Those values included, but were not limited to, the value of a peaceful democratic order and a just, rules-based system of security and trade.
Trump, like his backers seems to believe that these principles are not universal and have outlived their usefulness. Instead of multilateral agreements, they argue for a more direct, unilateral approach with the immediate interests of the United States a priority at all times. It is no good arguing that the altruism of post war America allowed the recovery of (western) Europe and the emergence of a mutually enriching trade. This point of view believes that the goodwill of the US has been exploited by enemies (China) and allies (the EU) alike.
The mealy-mouthed compromises which have been the foundation of globalisation are themselves seen as morally weak and in any event led to the wholesale off-shoring of jobs and large parts of the Western economy to Asia. Again, there is no point in arguing for Ricardo´s comparative advantage when you see once prosperous factories closed and the urban blight of drugs and vice replacing it.
As for the special pleading for minorities, racial and sexual, this infuriates large numbers of straight white voters who feel that affirmative action has replaced one injustice with another, and who remain, at best, uncomfortable with the reality of gay rights activists who seem to be pushing for acceptance of ever less acceptable, even "degenerate" groups at a time when birthrates have collapsed and the demographic survival of some places seems doubtful. Abortion rights are also involved in this world view too and are not positive.
Trump and the radical right offers clear and simple solutions. That these solutions in many cases seem at best questionable, at worse dangerous and potentially authoritarian does not bother the MAGA world view at all.
The rise of general authoritarianism is a clear global trend. Today Trump, in two years time, perhaps, Le Pen. As for the UK, it doesn´t matter, our withdrawal from the EU commits us to the United States, no matter that the values of the US and the UK have always differed and may now be misaligned. The decisive power of the United States is now over, it is one amongst many. If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative. Europe can only be a force if Russia is defeated and then brought into the EU state system, which is now very much not the wish of the USA.
Farage offers us the Trumpian future. Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat. Can Britain overcome our own crisis? Can we realign? This is now a fundamental state challenge for the UK, and not just from the centre and left of our political system.
Project 2025 is coming. What is our response? What choices, if any, do we have?
"If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative."
You can't really believe this.
"Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat."
What do you mean by "a fundamental justice" as opposed to just "fundamental justice"?
It's a very long example of Trump derangement syndrome.
Is it ?
I think it might be more a reflection of just how unattractive the US might seem to Europe - and China's economic appeal, if the US imposes particularly damaging tariffs, might outweigh its obvious authoritarianism.
Germany was certainly prepared to overlook the nature of Putin's regime when doing business with it. Its trade with China is massive (though the balance of advantage has changed). And EU countries are already accepting Chinese factories.
That doesn't make adapting to China as some kind of trading alternative to the US a good thing; it isn't - but in a world where the US turns its back on Europe, it might well happen.
And what it isn't is "deranged".
I think it is deranged for Europe to make itself economically dependent on China, when China will use that power to destroy any challenge to it's attempt to achieve a global hegemony.
A Trump-led Antics is no longer a reliable ally for democracies, but It's not an active enemy to democracy in the way that China is.
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.
+1 Very good post
Let's look at the opposite then, shall we?
Would you be in favour of policies that: *) Allowed racism. *) Closed all our borders to the 'wrong' people. *) Removed all rights for trans people?
No of course not. I'm a liberal and those polies are illiberal. I don't think you understand the difference between liberalism and that gruesome term 'woke', which is deeply illiberal.
'Woke' means whatever people mean it to be. For many, being anti-woke means being deeply illiberal. Which might be why they're so shy to define what they mean.
Since 1941 the interests and the values of the US and the UK have been aligned based on the agreed principles of the Atlantic Charter. Those values included, but were not limited to, the value of a peaceful democratic order and a just, rules-based system of security and trade.
Trump, like his backers seems to believe that these principles are not universal and have outlived their usefulness. Instead of multilateral agreements, they argue for a more direct, unilateral approach with the immediate interests of the United States a priority at all times. It is no good arguing that the altruism of post war America allowed the recovery of (western) Europe and the emergence of a mutually enriching trade. This point of view believes that the goodwill of the US has been exploited by enemies (China) and allies (the EU) alike.
The mealy-mouthed compromises which have been the foundation of globalisation are themselves seen as morally weak and in any event led to the wholesale off-shoring of jobs and large parts of the Western economy to Asia. Again, there is no point in arguing for Ricardo´s comparative advantage when you see once prosperous factories closed and the urban blight of drugs and vice replacing it.
As for the special pleading for minorities, racial and sexual, this infuriates large numbers of straight white voters who feel that affirmative action has replaced one injustice with another, and who remain, at best, uncomfortable with the reality of gay rights activists who seem to be pushing for acceptance of ever less acceptable, even "degenerate" groups at a time when birthrates have collapsed and the demographic survival of some places seems doubtful. Abortion rights are also involved in this world view too and are not positive.
Trump and the radical right offers clear and simple solutions. That these solutions in many cases seem at best questionable, at worse dangerous and potentially authoritarian does not bother the MAGA world view at all.
The rise of general authoritarianism is a clear global trend. Today Trump, in two years time, perhaps, Le Pen. As for the UK, it doesn´t matter, our withdrawal from the EU commits us to the United States, no matter that the values of the US and the UK have always differed and may now be misaligned. The decisive power of the United States is now over, it is one amongst many. If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative. Europe can only be a force if Russia is defeated and then brought into the EU state system, which is now very much not the wish of the USA.
Farage offers us the Trumpian future. Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat. Can Britain overcome our own crisis? Can we realign? This is now a fundamental state challenge for the UK, and not just from the centre and left of our political system.
Project 2025 is coming. What is our response? What choices, if any, do we have?
"If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative."
You can't really believe this.
"Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat."
What do you mean by "a fundamental justice" as opposed to just "fundamental justice"?
It's a very long example of Trump derangement syndrome.
Is it ?
I think it might be more a reflection of just how unattractive the US might seem to Europe - and China's economic appeal, if the US imposes particularly damaging tariffs, might outweigh its obvious authoritarianism.
Germany was certainly prepared to overlook the nature of Putin's regime when doing business with it. Its trade with China is massive (though the balance of advantage has changed). And EU countries are already accepting Chinese factories.
That doesn't make adapting to China as some kind of trading alternative to the US a good thing; it isn't - but in a world where the US turns its back on Europe, it might well happen.
And what it isn't is "deranged".
I think it is deranged for Europe to make itself economically dependent on China, when China will use that power to destroy any challenge to it's attempt to achieve a global hegemony.
A Trump-led Antics is no longer a reliable ally for democracies, but It's not an active enemy to democracy in the way that China is.
What do you think happens if the US start a trade war ?
It's not an outcome I'm arguing for - I'm just saying it's at least fairly likely to happen in that case.
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.
Surely there is no way Putin will give up Russian territory? It will make him look weak, which is anathema to authoritarians. Which is precisely why Ukraine invaded in the first place - they presumably intend to swap occupied territory in Kursk for Russian occupied Ukrainian territory elsewhere in any putative “peace” (unfortunately more likely a temporary ceasefire) deal.
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.
Surely there is no way Putin will give up Russian territory? It will make him look weak, which is anathema to authoritarians. Which is precisely why Ukraine invaded in the first place - they presumably intend to swap occupied territory in Kursk for Russian occupied Ukrainian territory elsewhere in any putative “peace” (unfortunately more likely a temporary ceasefire) deal.
No, I mean he'd take Ukraine moving their troops and tanks out of Kursk; and holding onto current Ukraine territory as a deal in totality. Not sure Zelensky would offer it though.
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.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
How close is the House election if anyone is following?
Decision Desk is calling it 218 Republican, 217 Democrat at the moment, with a 58% of Rep majority. So it’s still pretty close, but most likely a Republican clean sweep of all three US branches of government.
Looks like the GOP may pick up 3-4 seats in the Senate. Probably enough for them to keep control for the whole of Trump's term, even if there is a backlash against Trump in 2026
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.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
So can we safely say that all that talk about the Dems funding advantage and superior GOTV was actually worthless ?
I think it's the sort of thing that might make the difference of a few thousand votes, maybe 10,000. Without it the Democrats might not have won Georgia in 2020, for example.
But it's very much a third order effect.
It doesn't matter how much money you spend on ads if the message in those ads isn't effective.
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.
Surely there is no way Putin will give up Russian territory? It will make him look weak, which is anathema to authoritarians. Which is precisely why Ukraine invaded in the first place - they presumably intend to swap occupied territory in Kursk for Russian occupied Ukrainian territory elsewhere in any putative “peace” (unfortunately more likely a temporary ceasefire) deal.
I suspect they also wanted to expose the fallacy of the west's fears of escalation.
Biden needs to let Ukraine take the gloves off now the election is out of the way.
He's needed to do that for two years. He won't because he doesn't want to. His entire strategy towards Ukraine has been ensuring that Ukraine doesn't lose while simultaneously ensuring that Russia doesn't lose. He doesn't want either outcome.
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.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
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
You're a decent writer too; you'd be an awful President.
There's an idea for a discussion Writers. Good / bad politicians To start the column, think the good column might be quite short
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.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Yes, Putin will rebuild his forces for 3-4 years then go back in and finish the job
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.
I'm genuinely not shocked. I've been worried about this possibility for a long time that is hardly surprising.
But I did let a few things - the Selzer poll, the analysis of the gender split in the GA early vote - make hope that it would be different. So I am very disappointed and a bit glum.
I was resigned to a Trump win even as I hoped somehow it wouldn't happen (and bet that way as she seemed to have the value).
I was briefly more hopeful after Trump's dire debate performance but that was soon forgotten by everyone it seems.
I was hopeful in the run up, but I suppose I used up my luck with Ed's 72 seats in July.
I think it dawned on me after seeing the first exit poll data on CNN which was asking the voters about satisfaction. 72% dissatisfied was the writing on the wall I think.
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.
I'm genuinely not shocked. I've been worried about this possibility for a long time that is hardly surprising.
But I did let a few things - the Selzer poll, the analysis of the gender split in the GA early vote - make hope that it would be different. So I am very disappointed and a bit glum.
I was resigned to a Trump win even as I hoped somehow it wouldn't happen (and bet that way as she seemed to have the value).
I was briefly more hopeful after Trump's dire debate performance but that was soon forgotten by everyone it seems.
I was hopeful in the run up, but I suppose I used up my luck with Ed's 72 seats in July.
I think it dawned on me after seeing the first exit poll data on CNN which was asking the voters about satisfaction. 72% dissatisfied was the writing on the wall I think.
Just not a good time to be an incumbant and a great time to be an opposition.
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.
" looming disaster of climate change"
What exactly do you think is coming?
Parts of the tropics that currently have large populations becoming uninhabitable; food production no longer sustainable at levels sufficient to feed the world population; extreme weather events becoming so disruptive and common that additional areas become no longer economically viable; resulting population movements creating massive political and economic volatility and war. All of this in the next 100-150 years as efforts to curtail climate change are insufficient and some of the natural world's self-stabilising mechanisms break down. Essentially, the carrying capacity of the Earth will be rapidly reduced as climate conditions become far less supportive of humans and we are no longer able to support economic activity through unsustainable activities. The resulting involuntary contraction of the human population and associated population movements lead to a century of violence. This is what I suspect is coming. Of course I hope I'm wrong.
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
I don’t think it was confected. I think Harris surprised on the upside as a candidate and I will stand by that view. Considering the public perception and her polling before she became the nominee, she did really well on improving her image. She also for the main part avoided her word salads and came across as warm, kind and confident.
What did for her was not her qualities as a candidate, IMHO, but the fact that she did not have enough clear answers on the economy and immigration. She got the tone broadly right, but she couldn’t seal the deal on actual policy. She was too wooly, inexact.
I said upthread, she got the feels right, but she couldn’t convert.
Since 1941 the interests and the values of the US and the UK have been aligned based on the agreed principles of the Atlantic Charter. Those values included, but were not limited to, the value of a peaceful democratic order and a just, rules-based system of security and trade.
Trump, like his backers seems to believe that these principles are not universal and have outlived their usefulness. Instead of multilateral agreements, they argue for a more direct, unilateral approach with the immediate interests of the United States a priority at all times. It is no good arguing that the altruism of post war America allowed the recovery of (western) Europe and the emergence of a mutually enriching trade. This point of view believes that the goodwill of the US has been exploited by enemies (China) and allies (the EU) alike.
The mealy-mouthed compromises which have been the foundation of globalisation are themselves seen as morally weak and in any event led to the wholesale off-shoring of jobs and large parts of the Western economy to Asia. Again, there is no point in arguing for Ricardo´s comparative advantage when you see once prosperous factories closed and the urban blight of drugs and vice replacing it.
As for the special pleading for minorities, racial and sexual, this infuriates large numbers of straight white voters who feel that affirmative action has replaced one injustice with another, and who remain, at best, uncomfortable with the reality of gay rights activists who seem to be pushing for acceptance of ever less acceptable, even "degenerate" groups at a time when birthrates have collapsed and the demographic survival of some places seems doubtful. Abortion rights are also involved in this world view too and are not positive.
Trump and the radical right offers clear and simple solutions. That these solutions in many cases seem at best questionable, at worse dangerous and potentially authoritarian does not bother the MAGA world view at all.
The rise of general authoritarianism is a clear global trend. Today Trump, in two years time, perhaps, Le Pen. As for the UK, it doesn´t matter, our withdrawal from the EU commits us to the United States, no matter that the values of the US and the UK have always differed and may now be misaligned. The decisive power of the United States is now over, it is one amongst many. If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative. Europe can only be a force if Russia is defeated and then brought into the EU state system, which is now very much not the wish of the USA.
Farage offers us the Trumpian future. Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat. Can Britain overcome our own crisis? Can we realign? This is now a fundamental state challenge for the UK, and not just from the centre and left of our political system.
Project 2025 is coming. What is our response? What choices, if any, do we have?
"If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative."
You can't really believe this.
"Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat."
What do you mean by "a fundamental justice" as opposed to just "fundamental justice"?
It's a very long example of Trump derangement syndrome.
Is it ?
I think it might be more a reflection of just how unattractive the US might seem to Europe - and China's economic appeal, if the US imposes particularly damaging tariffs, might outweigh its obvious authoritarianism.
Germany was certainly prepared to overlook the nature of Putin's regime when doing business with it. Its trade with China is massive (though the balance of advantage has changed). And EU countries are already accepting Chinese factories.
That doesn't make adapting to China as some kind of trading alternative to the US a good thing; it isn't - but in a world where the US turns its back on Europe, it might well happen.
And what it isn't is "deranged".
I think it is deranged for Europe to make itself economically dependent on China, when China will use that power to destroy any challenge to it's attempt to achieve a global hegemony.
A Trump-led Antics is no longer a reliable ally for democracies, but It's not an active enemy to democracy in the way that China is.
What do you think happens if the US start a trade war ?
It's not an outcome I'm arguing for - I'm just saying it's at least fairly likely to happen in that case.
I think there's a chance that Europe will choose to accommodate to China as the short-term easiest option, yes.
But I would characterise it as deranged. We've seen with Russia the danger of taking the short-term easier choice and becoming economically reliant on a militarily expansionist dictatorship. Making the exact same mistake, but more so, with China is deranged.
Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.
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
You're a decent writer too; you'd be an awful President.
There's an idea for a discussion Writers. Good / bad politicians To start the column, think the good column might be quite short
Since 1941 the interests and the values of the US and the UK have been aligned based on the agreed principles of the Atlantic Charter. Those values included, but were not limited to, the value of a peaceful democratic order and a just, rules-based system of security and trade.
Trump, like his backers seems to believe that these principles are not universal and have outlived their usefulness. Instead of multilateral agreements, they argue for a more direct, unilateral approach with the immediate interests of the United States a priority at all times. It is no good arguing that the altruism of post war America allowed the recovery of (western) Europe and the emergence of a mutually enriching trade. This point of view believes that the goodwill of the US has been exploited by enemies (China) and allies (the EU) alike.
The mealy-mouthed compromises which have been the foundation of globalisation are themselves seen as morally weak and in any event led to the wholesale off-shoring of jobs and large parts of the Western economy to Asia. Again, there is no point in arguing for Ricardo´s comparative advantage when you see once prosperous factories closed and the urban blight of drugs and vice replacing it.
As for the special pleading for minorities, racial and sexual, this infuriates large numbers of straight white voters who feel that affirmative action has replaced one injustice with another, and who remain, at best, uncomfortable with the reality of gay rights activists who seem to be pushing for acceptance of ever less acceptable, even "degenerate" groups at a time when birthrates have collapsed and the demographic survival of some places seems doubtful. Abortion rights are also involved in this world view too and are not positive.
Trump and the radical right offers clear and simple solutions. That these solutions in many cases seem at best questionable, at worse dangerous and potentially authoritarian does not bother the MAGA world view at all.
The rise of general authoritarianism is a clear global trend. Today Trump, in two years time, perhaps, Le Pen. As for the UK, it doesn´t matter, our withdrawal from the EU commits us to the United States, no matter that the values of the US and the UK have always differed and may now be misaligned. The decisive power of the United States is now over, it is one amongst many. If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative. Europe can only be a force if Russia is defeated and then brought into the EU state system, which is now very much not the wish of the USA.
Farage offers us the Trumpian future. Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat. Can Britain overcome our own crisis? Can we realign? This is now a fundamental state challenge for the UK, and not just from the centre and left of our political system.
Project 2025 is coming. What is our response? What choices, if any, do we have?
"If you no longer trust the fairness of the US, China doesn´t look so bad an alternative."
You can't really believe this.
"Those of us who still believe in a fundamental justice will need to answer this defeat."
What do you mean by "a fundamental justice" as opposed to just "fundamental justice"?
It's a very long example of Trump derangement syndrome.
Is it ?
I think it might be more a reflection of just how unattractive the US might seem to Europe - and China's economic appeal, if the US imposes particularly damaging tariffs, might outweigh its obvious authoritarianism.
Germany was certainly prepared to overlook the nature of Putin's regime when doing business with it. Its trade with China is massive (though the balance of advantage has changed). And EU countries are already accepting Chinese factories.
That doesn't make adapting to China as some kind of trading alternative to the US a good thing; it isn't - but in a world where the US turns its back on Europe, it might well happen.
And what it isn't is "deranged".
I think it is deranged for Europe to make itself economically dependent on China, when China will use that power to destroy any challenge to it's attempt to achieve a global hegemony.
A Trump-led Antics is no longer a reliable ally for democracies, but It's not an active enemy to democracy in the way that China is.
What do you think happens if the US start a trade war ?
It's not an outcome I'm arguing for - I'm just saying it's at least fairly likely to happen in that case.
I think there's a chance that Europe will choose to accommodate to China as the short-term easiest option, yes.
But I would characterise it as deranged. We've seen with Russia the danger of taking the short-term easier choice and becoming economically reliant on a militarily expansionist dictatorship. Making the exact same mistake, but more so, with China is deranged.
Your enemies, enemy isn't so much a friend as someone willing to purchase your goods.
The interesting bit will be what happens to ASML - the chip manufacturer supplier given that they can't sell things to China but are a European rather than US Company..
Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.
As I said earlier Trump is surprisingly liberal on a lot of social stuff like homosexuality. A traditional religious conservative like Pence would be much more worrying in that regard.
It was obvious for a while that Kamala was an inadequate candidate for the biggest job in the world. She could not speak `off the cuff` and sometimes didn`t make sense at all.
Though she has done better than expected with the campaign within a short time.
But couldn`t prevent every state in the US moving towards the Republicans.
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.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Yes, Putin will rebuild his forces for 3-4 years then go back in and finish the job
Its easy to negotiate peace if you surrender. Question is: what does Trump trade?
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
I don’t think it was confected. I think Harris surprised on the upside as a candidate and I will stand by that view. Considering the public perception and her polling before she became the nominee, she did really well on improving her image. She also for the main part avoided her word salads and came across as warm, kind and confident.
What did for her was not her qualities as a candidate, IMHO, but the fact that she did not have enough clear answers on the economy and immigration. She got the tone broadly right, but she couldn’t seal the deal on actual policy. She was too wooly, inexact.
I said upthread, she got the feels right, but she couldn’t convert.
I think the fact that the Dems appear to have gone backwards in every House confirms this view.
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
Looking back, it was sheer relief that Biden had gone - the Kamalagasm
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
I don’t think it was confected. I think Harris surprised on the upside as a candidate and I will stand by that view. Considering the public perception and her polling before she became the nominee, she did really well on improving her image. She also for the main part avoided her word salads and came across as warm, kind and confident.
What did for her was not her qualities as a candidate, IMHO, but the fact that she did not have enough clear answers on the economy and immigration. She got the tone broadly right, but she couldn’t seal the deal on actual policy. She was too wooly, inexact.
I said upthread, she got the feels right, but she couldn’t convert.
Yes, although I don't think that.eaz necessarily her fault, though.
As I mentioned last month, she came in late, surprised on the upside as a warm and confident candidate, but was still lumbered with.a Democratic platform with less obvious emotional appeals than Trump's.
Interesting how 'badly beaten' and 'well beaten' are more or less synonymous.
There's a certain logic to saying Trump (Donald) got very badly beaten by Harris - i.e. not beaten at all - rather than desired outcome of him being well beaten.
Comments
I think it might be more a reflection of just how unattractive the US might seem to Europe - and China's economic appeal, if the US imposes particularly damaging tariffs, might outweigh its obvious authoritarianism.
Germany was certainly prepared to overlook the nature of Putin's regime when doing business with it. Its trade with China is massive (though the balance of advantage has changed).
And EU countries are already accepting Chinese factories.
That doesn't make adapting to China as some kind of trading alternative to the US a good thing; it isn't - but in a world where the US turns its back on Europe, it might well happen.
And what it isn't is "deranged".
That environment, the theory goes, leads to higher inflation and thus higher interest rates.
Guardian business blog
Things like the C of E beating itself up over “institutional racism”, of people trying to make a martyr of Chris Kaba endlessly put peoples’ backs up.
What exactly do you think is coming?
No what @MarqueeMark did was be wrong in a specific way, by obviously and deliberately refusing to admit any data that conflicted with his desired outcome: a Trump defeat. i called him out on this a week ago, specifically - I can find the exchange if you insist
THAT is not “being wrong” that is “being a wishcasting idiot”. And I generally agree with @MarqueeMark but in this instance he was foolish
The LDs can. They are never going to have to deal with Trump and it will resonate with all LD, Labour, Green. SNP and Plaid supporters and a very large number of Tory supporters particularly in the South. The only voters it won't resonate with are Reform voters and they aren't after them.
Good politics.
The setting's very dark fantasy, which is one reason I think Veilguard put a lot of people off by its shift to Marvel 'humour' and cheerful, vaguely cartoony graphics.
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
Which Origin did you go for?
And if so when do they start again ?
On the other hand, there are very wide possible ramifications for European security and democracy.
Would you be in favour of policies that:
*) Allowed racism.
*) Closed all our borders to the 'wrong' people.
*) Removed all rights for trans people?
Dem 90 Yes 4 Against 6 Not sure
Ind 51/17/32
Rep 23/48/29
Its a significant amount of independents and ideally you want to switch some from the opposite party too. Its a hurdle.
But I did let a few things - the Selzer poll, the analysis of the gender split in the GA early vote - make hope that it would be different. So I am very disappointed and a bit glum.
*no offence meant, you're probably extraordinary
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1854080507409035764
I was briefly more hopeful after Trump's dire debate performance but that was soon forgotten by everyone it seems.
A Trump-led Antics is no longer a reliable ally for democracies, but It's not an active enemy to democracy in the way that China is.
What is your definition?
It's not an outcome I'm arguing for - I'm just saying it's at least fairly likely to happen in that case.
"Iowa and Selzer has given me hope this morning. And that is a damn dangerous thing."
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
Looks like the GOP will have a majority in single figures, probably of 1 or 3 or 5.
But the Dems might still get a majority of 5 or lower.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
But it's very much a third order effect.
It doesn't matter how much money you spend on ads if the message in those ads isn't effective.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Writers. Good / bad politicians
To start the column, think the good column might be quite short
Dickens. Will Self
I think it dawned on me after seeing the first exit poll data on CNN which was asking the voters about satisfaction. 72% dissatisfied was the writing on the wall I think.
Essentially, the carrying capacity of the Earth will be rapidly reduced as climate conditions become far less supportive of humans and we are no longer able to support economic activity through unsustainable activities. The resulting involuntary contraction of the human population and associated population movements lead to a century of violence.
This is what I suspect is coming. Of course I hope I'm wrong.
What did for her was not her qualities as a candidate, IMHO, but the fact that she did not have enough clear answers on the economy and immigration. She got the tone broadly right, but she couldn’t seal the deal on actual policy. She was too wooly, inexact.
I said upthread, she got the feels right, but she couldn’t convert.
But I would characterise it as deranged. We've seen with Russia the danger of taking the short-term easier choice and becoming economically reliant on a militarily expansionist dictatorship. Making the exact same mistake, but more so, with China is deranged.
The interesting bit will be what happens to ASML - the chip manufacturer supplier given that they can't sell things to China but are a European rather than US Company..
Though she has done better than expected with the campaign within a short time.
But couldn`t prevent every state in the US moving towards the Republicans.
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
As I mentioned last month, she came in late, surprised on the upside as a warm and confident candidate, but was still lumbered with.a Democratic platform with less obvious emotional appeals than Trump's.
There's a certain logic to saying Trump (Donald) got very badly beaten by Harris - i.e. not beaten at all - rather than desired outcome of him being well beaten.