State of the Union, Week 8 – politicalbetting.com

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

That's the amazing thing about Putin's madness. Even if he was to 'win' and gain all of Ukraine overnight, then Russia is probably weaker than it would have been without the war since 2014. They will have gained a devastated territory whose population is against them, and lost a heck of a lot of blood and treasure in this pointless war. More so, if the sanctions remain.

During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.

The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.

They will be the future, if Russia is allowed to win.

Precisely my view.

Take China and Taiwan. XI and his predecessors have built up China's military to a high point, with rapid expansion. The problem with doing this is that, in twenty or thirty years, or sooner, many of those resources will require renewing. Ships and planes do not last forever. Neither do tanks, at least without climate-controlled warehousing or rebuilding after long-term storage.

The Chinese military is also chomping at the bit: it has been marched up to the top of the hill, and is acting as though it wants a fight. Witness its behaviour in the seas around the Philippines and in the air in international airspace. Many in the military will want a fight.

Worse, China's growth appears to be slowing, and it faced significant economic problems (though we all do...), just as their population starts shrinking. They may not be able to as easily afford a war of conquest in a couple of decades.

Perhaps the only thing staying Xi's hand is seeing what has happened to Russia since 2022. Is his military as unbeatable as they make out?

But I do hope that Taiwan is just a metaphorical weapon for Xi. It's good to have a goal to get elements of the population energised, without actually going for it. A bit like the Falklands for Argentina. And hopefully Xi will note what happened there as well, when Galtieri did go for it.

Taiwan is a tough ask for many reasons: it is much better equipped than Ukraine, and it has the advantage of an ocean between China and the Taiwanese main island. On the other hand, one would expect China to be a much more serious adversary, with infinitely more resources.

The biggest thing in Taiwan's favour though, is that it is hard to build a landing force in secret. We'd likely have a lot of warning, because invasion requires landing hundreds of thousands of troops simultaneously, and that means a lot of ships.

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1848758963447157001

National General Election

🔴 Trump 47% (+2)
🔵 Harris 45%

Redfield & Wilton 10/21 LV

Why do you only post Trump-favourable polls on PB? Whose mind are you changing? As far as I am aware only Jim and Seashanty have the vote.

It's a good question. What is the purpose of William's Trumpy arse-licking? Nobody really knows.

Similar questions could be asked of your Starmer rimming

Well for starters everyone on here except Jim and Seashanty have a vote in the UK election. Anabob has convinced me.

The astonishing surprise of StarmTrooper solidarity

Are you drinking again?

Again? That implies that I stopped

Foxy said:

PoodleInASlipstream said:

another_richard said:

And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?

How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.

Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.

Of the things you mention, some require major lawmaking and significant enforcement infrastructure. Stopping aid to Ukraine is different though, as it requires inaction rather than action to stop it.

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.

You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.

How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?

Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.

Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.

The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.

There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.

Not entirely.
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.

Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.

That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.

The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.

algarkirk said:

TimS said:

If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:

1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins
2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties
3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me?
4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears
5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me)
6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh
7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?

6 But heavily qualified.
No shock - he's been going to win for months. Deep foreboding because this time his back room boys has been planning for the new regime and takeover of the state. This is tempered by the small but possible chance that our enemies will find him even more scary than we do, and the possibilities (but also risks) of his unwillingness to go to war.

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1848758963447157001

National General Election

🔴 Trump 47% (+2)
🔵 Harris 45%

Redfield & Wilton 10/21 LV

Why do you only post Trump-favourable polls on PB? Whose mind are you changing? As far as I am aware only Jim and Seashanty have the vote.

It's a good question. What is the purpose of William's Trumpy arse-licking? Nobody really knows.

Similar questions could be asked of your Starmer rimming

Well for starters everyone on here except Jim and Seashanty have a vote in the UK election. Anabob has convinced me.

The astonishing surprise of StarmTrooper solidarity

Are you drinking again?

Again? That implies that I stopped

I only ask because when the Sun falls below the yard arm you typically come on here throwing hay makers, asking weird off-topic questions about Hamas and anti-Zionism, and picking fights with your fellow PBers for no apparent reason.

But, you like cooking, and are clearly a good cook - so you can’t be all bad.

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.

You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.

How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?

Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.

Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.

The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.

There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.

Not entirely.
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.

Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.

That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.

The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.

Not by much, compared to what they have lost. Even when Power of SIberia 2 comes online in many years (Mongolia is not interested until at least 2028). And AIUI the price of the gas in that deal is suboptimal from Russia's point of view.

Power of Siberia is planned to carry 50 billion cubic metres of gas per year, which is *less* than NordStream 1 alone used to carry.

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Anabobazina said:

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1848758963447157001

National General Election

🔴 Trump 47% (+2)
🔵 Harris 45%

Redfield & Wilton 10/21 LV

Why do you only post Trump-favourable polls on PB? Whose mind are you changing? As far as I am aware only Jim and Seashanty have the vote.

It's a good question. What is the purpose of William's Trumpy arse-licking? Nobody really knows.

Similar questions could be asked of your Starmer rimming

Well for starters everyone on here except Jim and Seashanty have a vote in the UK election. Anabob has convinced me.

The astonishing surprise of StarmTrooper solidarity

Are you drinking again?

Again? That implies that I stopped

I only ask because when the Sun falls below the yard arm you typically come on here throwing hay makers, asking weird off-topic questions about Hamas and anti-Zionism, and picking fights with your fellow PBers for no apparent reason.

But, you like cooking, and are clearly a good cook - so you can’t be all bad.

I'm anti-islamist. I'm pro-zionist. Even when I'm stone cold sober

To be clear on those; I support Israel's right to exist, and I oppose those cultures that want Israel to be destroyed

As for picking fights, I guess you're a bit sore that I singled you out for being chief StarmTrooper

It surprises me that you can seriously support someone so startlingly unsuited
to the role

highwayparadise306 said:

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.

You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.

How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?

Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.

Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.

The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.

There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.

Not entirely.
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.

Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.

That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.

The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.

Not by much, compared to what they have lost. Even when Power of SIberia 2 comes online in many years (Mongolia is not interested until at least 2028). And AIUI the price of the gas in that deal is suboptimal from Russia's point of view.

Power of Siberia is planned to carry 50 billion cubic metres of gas per year, which is *less* than NordStream 1 alone used to carry.

And no ships are transporting it out of the Siberian ports officially or unofficially?

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.

You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.

How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?

Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.

Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.

The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.

There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.

Not entirely.
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.

Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.

That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.

The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.

Not by much, compared to what they have lost. Even when Power of SIberia 2 comes online in many years (Mongolia is not interested until at least 2028). And AIUI the price of the gas in that deal is suboptimal from Russia's point of view.

Power of Siberia is planned to carry 50 billion cubic metres of gas per year, which is *less* than NordStream 1 alone used to carry.

And no ships are transporting it out of the Siberian ports officially or unofficially?

I don't know how many LNG ships Russia has access to, either wholly owned or in a shadow fleet - I know they were limited in the LNG capacity of the ports they could use. @rcs1000 probably knows more.

MikeL said:

Appears to have been a very good polling day for Harris - 538 has reverted to 50:50 win percentage having been 53% Trump a couple of days ago.

Yet Betfair has moved further towards Tump today.

eek said:

algarkirk said:

TimS said:

If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:

1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins
2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties
3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me?
4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears
5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me)
6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh
7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?

6 But heavily qualified.
No shock - he's been going to win for months. Deep foreboding because this time his back room boys has been planning for the new regime and takeover of the state. This is tempered by the small but possible chance that our enemies will find him even more scary than we do, and the possibilities (but also risks) of his unwillingness to go to war.

However Trump isn't particularly well and will probably be sidelined in short order to be replaced by Vance who may not have the same unwillingness to go to war.

TimS said:

If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:

1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins
2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties
3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me?
4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears
5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me)
6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh
7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?

londonpubman said:

Looks like it could be a long night two weeks time...

Foxy said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

Ukraine would fight on if Trump cuts US Aid, but less effectively and with heavier casualties. They have no choice but fight or surrender, and surrender means millions of Ukranians heading our way as refugees again.

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eek said:

algarkirk said:

TimS said:

If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:

1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins
2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties
3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me?
4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears
5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me)
6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh
7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?

6 But heavily qualified.
No shock - he's been going to win for months. Deep foreboding because this time his back room boys has been planning for the new regime and takeover of the state. This is tempered by the small but possible chance that our enemies will find him even more scary than we do, and the possibilities (but also risks) of his unwillingness to go to war.

However Trump isn't particularly well and will probably be sidelined in short order to be replaced by Vance who may not have the same unwillingness to go to war.

In this - or that - context, somewhat ironic that Dick Cheney's daughter Liz Cheney is actively campaigning for - and with - Kamala Harris.

Frankly one reason methinks why Cheney the Younger is NOT an unmixed blessing for Harris, seeing as how good portion of support for Trump is based on DJT isolationist, no-more-forever-wars rhetoric.

Quite.

A lot of these people are against Trump because he doesn't like war very much. One of the few times he received warm coverage from the media when he was President was when he started lobbing missiles at Assad. Everything was forgiven when they thought he might be going neocon.

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.

You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.

How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?

Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.

Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.

The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.

There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.

Not entirely.
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.

Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.

That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.

The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.

Not by much, compared to what they have lost. Even when Power of SIberia 2 comes online in many years (Mongolia is not interested until at least 2028). And AIUI the price of the gas in that deal is suboptimal from Russia's point of view.

Power of Siberia is planned to carry 50 billion cubic metres of gas per year, which is *less* than NordStream 1 alone used to carry.

And no ships are transporting it out of the Siberian ports officially or unofficially?

I don't know how many LNG ships Russia has access to, either wholly owned or in a shadow fleet - I know they were limited in the LNG capacity of the ports they could use. @rcs1000 probably knows more.

ohnotnow said:

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

JosiasJessop said:

highwayparadise306 said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CatMan said:

If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"

Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.

It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine.
Etc.

Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?

So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.

What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?

Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.

This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.

I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.

Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.

Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.

While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.

The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.

That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.

Europe did both of those things.

Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.

So they didn't do the second.

And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.

Dude:

They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.

Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.

The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.

Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.

You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.

How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?

Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.

Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.

The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.

There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.

Not entirely.
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.

Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.

That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.

The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.

Not by much, compared to what they have lost. Even when Power of SIberia 2 comes online in many years (Mongolia is not interested until at least 2028). And AIUI the price of the gas in that deal is suboptimal from Russia's point of view.

Power of Siberia is planned to carry 50 billion cubic metres of gas per year, which is *less* than NordStream 1 alone used to carry.

And no ships are transporting it out of the Siberian ports officially or unofficially?

I don't know how many LNG ships Russia has access to, either wholly owned or in a shadow fleet - I know they were limited in the LNG capacity of the ports they could use. @rcs1000 probably knows more.

Somewhat related - The Economist podcasts had an episode just today about Iran's (kinda) secretive oil routes https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2024/10/22/how-iran-funds-its-wars

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Anabobazina said:

nico679 said:

MikeL said:

Appears to have been a very good polling day for Harris - 538 has reverted to 50:50 win percentage having been 53% Trump a couple of days ago.

Yet Betfair has moved further towards Tump today.

It’s been okay nationally but state polls have looked mediocre. There’s really been a lack of higher quality polling in this election compared to previous years and there’s been far too many GOP biased polls trying to flood the averages .

Has there been any notable state polling today?

3 national polls were okay Ipsos Harris ahead by 3 , Morning Consult by 4 and UMass by YouGov by 2 , the TIPP was a tie after Trump being ahead yesterday and the R and W was the only bad poll at this time with Trump ahead by 2 .

It is far from clear that we are comparing like with like but Clinton won by a wider margin than Harris is currently ahead and yet still lost the EC. The assumption was that a draw on the vote gives Trump the win. Not sure I have seen a compelling reason to change that but if anyone has got one I would be happy to hear it.

Kerry as I said earlier did better in the swing states than the popular vote.

Fox also had a recent poll with Trump winning the popular vote but Harris the battleground states
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-trump-ahead-harris-2-points-nationally

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

Scott_xP said:

@e_casalicchio

NEW: "The Trump-Vance Campaign has filed a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint against the Harris-Walz Campaign and the Labour Party of the United Kingdom for illegal foreign campaign contributions and interference in our elections."

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:

@e_casalicchio

NEW: "The Trump-Vance Campaign has filed a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint against the Harris-Walz Campaign and the Labour Party of the United Kingdom for illegal foreign campaign contributions and interference in our elections."

The Labour party subsidising their expenses could put them on dodgy ground legally.

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-staff-helping-on-kamala-harris-campaign-is-normal-says-minister-13235697

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

@MikeSington
The McDonald’s Trump “worked” at has been getting so many fake reviews on Yelp, Yelp has stopped new comments from being added. Here are a few:

“Customer service was a joke. Senile old man got bronzer on my fries, didn’t wear gloves. Repeated himself several times, something about Ronald McDonald in the showers at the golf club? IdThe person who was at the drive through vaguely resembled someone who I saw on the news for being a convicted felon.”

“Free lies with every shake. You just don’t want to see who’s shaking. I asked for an Arnold Palmer. Old man told me I couldn’t handle it.”

“The fries were too salty as if someone who lost a major election had been crying over them for an hour.”

https://x.com/MikeSington/status/1848730063325340004

That’s Trump fucked, then. Hostile fake reviews of McDonald’s on Yelp. He’s finished

Whilst the whole thing was obviously a gimmick I think it was a good one, some of the anti-Trump news sources I follow have been just a tad more strained in criticising it than they are on many other issues.

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

Why would Russia stop if US aid dries up? They have been humiliated and embarrassed by this war and the multiple failures of their forces. They need to gain face back and Ukraine could collapse when the ammo runs out. Putin is not one to throw in a winning hand.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

In that scenario, the Ukrainians would have the bomb inside of six weeks, and be prepared to use it. That's clearly what last week's low level posturing was about.

So in your scenario, I suspect at the very least a limited scale nuclear exchange if we're lucky. The Threads ending for us all if we're not.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

Why would Russia stop if US aid dries up? They have been humiliated and embarrassed by this war and the multiple failures of their forces. They need to gain face back and Ukraine could collapse when the ammo runs out. Putin is not one to throw in a winning hand.

I reckon Trump would genuinely menace Putin. Trump likes to see himself as a deal broker. The man who gets things done

He’d say “you can keep Crimea Donbas whatever and we will rein in Zelensky but go any further and the US will respond with much greater force than you’ve seen”

Trump would not want the terrible optics of Putin marching to Kyiv - that would make Trump look like a LOSER

Of course Putin might ignore Trump but I doubt he would. Trump is unpredictable

Casino_Royale said:

So voting is STEADY and it is also BRISK and the clerks have never seen this QUIET or this BUSY at this time of day before.

And it means FUCK ALL.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

. . . meanwhile out in the Little House on the Prairie, Great White North Edition . . .

CTV News Regina - Saskatchewan NDP gaining momentum among decided voters, new poll says

The NDP appears to have some momentum in Saskatchewan’s provincial election campaign with less than a week until votes are tallied.

In a new exclusive poll from CTV News in partnership with Insightrix Research, the NDP appears to have pulled ahead slightly among decided voters.

Surveyed between Oct. 18 and 20, 50 per cent of voters say they’ll cast their ballots for the NDP, compared to 45 per cent for the Saskatchewan Party, breaking a near tie shown in previous polling.

“They're still very, very close and they're still within that margin of error,” said Insightrix Research Director Lang McGilp. “But we are seeing a slight shift that's taken place since about a month ago right before the election was called to right now, where we've got 50 per cent of people saying that they would vote for the NDP and 45 for Sask. Party.”

https://regina.ctvnews.ca/saskatchewan-ndp-gaining-momentum-among-decided-voters-new-poll-says-1.7082110

TimS said:

Is there a scenario where the US cuts off military aid to Ukraine, Europe continues providing it and steps up a little (Germany starts sending Taurus for example), and Ukraine kicks out an overconfident Russia without American help?

No I didn’t think so. Nice idea though.

MikeL said:

Appears to have been a very good polling day for Harris - 538 has reverted to 50:50 win percentage having been 53% Trump a couple of days ago.

Yet Betfair has moved further towards Tump today.

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

Why would Russia stop if US aid dries up? They have been humiliated and embarrassed by this war and the multiple failures of their forces. They need to gain face back and Ukraine could collapse when the ammo runs out. Putin is not one to throw in a winning hand.

I reckon Trump would genuinely menace Putin. Trump likes to see himself as a deal broker. The man who gets things done

He’d say “you can keep Crimea Donbas whatever and we will rein in Zelensky but go any further and the US will respond with much greater force than you’ve seen”

Trump would not want the terrible optics of Putin marching to Kyiv - that would make Trump look like a LOSER

Of course Putin might ignore Trump but I doubt he would. Trump is unpredictable

You have a made-up image of who Trump is in your mind that doesn't match reality. Trump talks tough, but he's actually a big coward who has already talked about surrendering countries in Europe to Russia. He really does not care about Putin marching into Kyiv, because he admires Putin the strongman, and he thinks that talking about that admiration makes some of the strongman vibes rub off on him

He lost an election and managed to avoid looking like a loser, he can easily manage to blame Zelenskyy for not accepting his deal and cast him as the loser.

You are so self-deluded about Trump.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

nico679 said:

Most members here want a Harris win but just imagine the level of anxiety for the Ukrainian people and Zelensky who know a Trump win could signal catastrophic consequences for their country .

There’s nothing they can do but sit and watch .

As an aside I was nearly moved to tears the other week when I was chatting with a checkout lady at my normal supermarket who is Ukrainian , she was so thankful to Britain for its help and support . I told her we will always support Ukraine for however long it takes .

I’ll be honest I really have to suppress the anger I feel when I see people supporting Trump as it’s a death sentence for Ukraine.

I accept we all have different opinions but I just find I really have to muzzle my anger otherwise I’d likely be banned !

You're right. For Ukraine this is not just a betting opportunity or a concern that the US might disrupt world trade through tariffs. It is existential for their very existence. I am sure that Zelenskyy has been very aware of this and pointing out this to his European allies but there is very little evidence that Europe is willing to pick up the mantle of funding a major war. Another opportunity will come and go in our budget in just over a week. I am not holding my breath about Reeves getting us onto a war footing.

Well, the Ukrainians have been trying to kill Trump, so they’re not exactly passive actors either

FWIW I’m not sure Trump WOULD be a disaster for them, inasmuch as the war is ALREADY a terrible bloody disaster for them. Remember I’ve been to Ukraine twice, in this war

If Trump wins my guess is the war would end shortly after. He’d tell Putin to take his winnings but that’s it. He’d tell the Ukrainians “sorry, this ends now, no more aid”

The war would freeze roughly where it is. A Korean armistice. Both sides would regroup and rearm, low level bitching would continue

Is that a vastly worse outcome for Ukraine than what they’ve been given by Biden/Harris? - endless grinding attrition with no end in sight except possible defeat after another few blood-soaked years?

Why would Russia stop if US aid dries up? They have been humiliated and embarrassed by this war and the multiple failures of their forces. They need to gain face back and Ukraine could collapse when the ammo runs out. Putin is not one to throw in a winning hand.

I reckon Trump would genuinely menace Putin. Trump likes to see himself as a deal broker. The man who gets things done

He’d say “you can keep Crimea Donbas whatever and we will rein in Zelensky but go any further and the US will respond with much greater force than you’ve seen”

Trump would not want the terrible optics of Putin marching to Kyiv - that would make Trump look like a LOSER

Of course Putin might ignore Trump but I doubt he would. Trump is unpredictable

Barnesian said:

MikeL said:

Appears to have been a very good polling day for Harris - 538 has reverted to 50:50 win percentage having been 53% Trump a couple of days ago.

Yet Betfair has moved further towards Tump today.

Yes Kamala now on 2.7! I'm tempted to lump even more on her. Already the biggest exposure I've ever had.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Privately educated and Cambridge alumnus talks utter shite.