hypochondriac

Great post I quite agree.

Nah I'm not convinced by that. People always blame the electorate. Biden was never that impressive and he managed to beat Trump rather handily so if that isn't the case this time then her and the wider Democrat party aren't going to escape blame by saying people voting for Trump are thick and racist. Democrats should be looking at how they could broaden their appeal and speak to some of those people in the flyover states who feel left behind or who need some hope. My suspicion is a lot of people will hold their nose and vote for Trump and like I said that's an indictment on the Democrats who have had years to get ready for this and have messed a lot up by failing to boot Biden out earlier and having a proper election process. There should also definitely be less of this garbage which is the sort of thing that would be laughed at in the UK.

I think what she did was wrong but I still think a prison sentence of that length for very unpleasant words posted on the Internet is not something I can agree with even if you think it amounted to incitement which I'm not particularly convinced by. I'd genuinely say the same thing if it were just stop oil activists writing that about their ideological opponents.

Actually, given the incredibly low civilian to militant casualty rate compared to the average in urban warfare, Israel's success is unprecedented.

"ladies and gentlemen." We got him."

Absolutely. Israel's success has been remarkable.

I think the mitigation for being so poor now from some would be that the players are not good enough. That same logic would apply to last year where our players were more than good enough and then arguably underperformed by scraping through the lottery of the playoffs.

What an indictment of the Democrats and the way they have run the country that the candidate they put up has them so close in the polls to someone like Trump.

Just admit you thought I'd been duped and you didn't believe that someone from Time would post that when in reality it is from the owner and he's clearly not politically biased. We've all made errors-I certainly have.

It is evidence of what I said it was-her not doing the Time interview which I thought was a mistake. Here, have the link to the twitter post. You still think he's politically biased? In other news she was the first candidate in 40 years to miss the Al Smith dinner. A common complaint from Americans I know is that they don't know what she stands for and that her positions are not clear. Say what you like about Trump but that mostly is not the case for him. She has confused messaging where she wants to be the change candidate whilst endorsing everything that Biden has done. Any half decent political strategist would have her in every interview that would have her, on message and making it clear what her position is. If she does lose then imo aclvoiding doing this along with the confused messaging will be a big reason why. https://x.com/Benioff/status/1846559935401746434?t=XBLd1iBnKyUXiwl12eq88Q&s=19

Hold on I thought yesterday you were suggesting I had been duped by even bringing up the Time story. Do you still think the owner is political biased? If it's a complete irrelevance then why even reply? I did see the Fox News interview it was pretty cringe in a lot of places and probably explains why she's been avoiding a lot of interviews.

So winning the popular vote but narrowly behind in the swing states she needs to win the presidency? My point anyway was that she is clearly not doing as well as she was previously so you would imagine she would take any opportunity to get herself out there in order to persuade voters to come out for her.

Not did I ever claim it was.

Apologies it was the owner of Time magazine. Fairly sure he isn't politically biased. He seems about as liberal as you can get.

From USA today a couple of hours ago: Harris has narrowly trailed in battleground-state polling throughout October.

I'm posting something that, was posted by the CEO of Time magazine...

Duped in what way? I think she should do a long form interview with time. I don't think it's a good look to avoid it and she's losing in the polls so you'd think she'd be up for it.

Not a good look for Kamala. She's had a bit of a mare so far with what should be a pretty easy job to look competent and normal in order to defeat Trump.

Again though they really shouldn't have gone hard on weeding out corruption and Starmer wanging on about how this new broom is going to sweep away cronyism and then do things like give Taylor Swift unprecedented levels of security after meeting her and after half the cabinet have accepted free tickets to her concert. It's almost certainly innocent but it looks terrible. Why put yourself in that position? Just seems naive to me.

I genuinely don't care about Taylor Swift but haven't the main people pushing the Swift story been sky news? Regardless, you're right that if Labour can sort out the economy then no one is going to care about anything else. I reckon that's the calculation they have made.

Oh dear

A publication I haven't read in about 20 years. So no.

By all accounts the vast majority agreed before the election...

As much as I detest him, it would have been rather interesting to see where we would have ended up had we appointed Nathan Jones after relegation. Maybe his aggression would have got us promoted and in an alternative scenario it would have been kind of fascinating to see how we would have fared in the prem in that case. If we'd employed Martin instead of Jones maybe he would be the hated one.

Womp Womp