Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

 

I did see the Fox News interview it was pretty cringe in a lot of places..........

Every time Donnie opens his mouth it is "cringe" from start to finish.

It is amazing how half of the US electorate still think he is the best candidate.

[Picard]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Every time Donnie opens his mouth it is "cringe" from start to finish.

It is amazing how half of the US electorate still think he is the best candidate.

This bloke can't stand Trump but he's voting for him.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

9 hours ago, whelk said:

All I have seen is a screenshot of yours and not seen it anywhere so I don’t even know if it is even true - You clearly thinking this is evidence of Harris hiding whereas she absolutely isn’t and you can’t have been looking very hard to be that uninformed. So really don’t know what your point is about her not ‘getting herself out there’? Clearly bs and you sound like been sold a line that suits your narrative.

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

Edited October 18 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

8 hours ago, whelk said:

This is something I’d expect from SOG not you

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. 

[hypochondriac]

7 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Every time Donnie opens his mouth it is "cringe" from start to finish.

It is amazing how half of the US electorate still think he is the best candidate.

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. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

Harris has run a tidy campaign since coming into it late. For me, it’s far more an indictment on the American public, their education system and a lack of self-respect that some categories of the population vote for him.

If the leader of any of the main parties stood on a podium and said ‘all middle aged white men originally from Southampton are rapists’, would you or I vote for them? Of course we wouldn’t yet millions of Latinos - we all know Mexico was a shorthand for a whole region with the ludicrous comments from him and Vance on Venezuelans taking over apartment blocks - are queuing up to support him in places like Florida. His economic record was dreadful and he’s a bankrupt several times over yet tens of millions of people seem to think he’s going to put more money into their pockets. Yeah right.

As for some African-American voters supporting him after some of the things he’s said (and meant) - words fail me. And women with the sexual assault comments.

And isolationism won’t keep them safe with Putin/Xi/Kim - another myth.

White male supremacist non-College educated voters - that’s his core demographic and I get why they vote for him. That’s logical. 

Edited October 18 by Gloucester Saint
Xi

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Harris has run a tidy campaign since coming into it late. For me, it’s far more an indictment on the American public, their education system and a lack of self-respect that some categories of the population vote for him.

If the leader of any of the main parties stood on a podium and said ‘all middle aged white men originally from Southampton are rapists’, would you or I vote for them? Of course we wouldn’t yet millions of Latinos - we all know Mexico was a shorthand for a whole region with the ludicrous comments from him and Vance on Venezuelans taking over apartment blocks - are queuing up to support him in places like Florida. His economic record was dreadful and he’s a bankrupt several times over yet tens of millions of people seem to think he’s going to put more money into their pockets. Yeah right.

As for some African-American voters supporting him after some of the things he’s said (and meant) - words fail me.

And isolationism won’t keep them safe with Putin/Xie/Kim - another myth.

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. 

Edited October 18 by hypochondriac

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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 agree with much of this. The smearing of Republican supporters as thick and racist simply increases the divide and the entrenched position of anyone who finds themselves disagreeing with a Democrat position. It's simply not true.

Everything is broad strokes. I know Democrat supporters who disagree with various things as I know Republican voters who do.  There's plenty of range on both sides away from the hysteria, just as there is here.

The Democratic party has not learned how to connect with a broader support based since Clinton's loss. They've broadly kept up the same approach, while polarising others.

Harris has brought energy and the ability to complete a sentence into the Democratic campaign. But she's managed to fall between a continuity and change position. Welded to Biden, trying to show a difference while conscious not to undermine anything at all. Not to mention her own changing positions, and

Stuck as a VP where that position has all the importance of a Christmas bauble. Having to be shoehorned into everything Biden was involved in, to give her some weight.

Like a lot of politicians, they are utterly let down by their teams, while not being strong enough to dictate otherwise. Trump's ego, for all the flaws, prevents that. His own team have a fight to keep him anywhere on the rails.

Considering Trump changes his view depending on who was last in the room with a compliment, and whose quotes and actions are often ridiculous, it's more than Harris that's the issue though.

From the Americans I speak to, there's a fair number who will simply vote the way they've always done.

For those more undecided ones, who have or might go with Trump, some points have been:-

As horrid as he might be, and unlikely as it is to teally change, his is the party who agrees that the system is broken. A lot of them know it's a bit of a trap, but think the current one is too.

That a focus on US industry, through tariffs or threat of same, is the way to give hope and jobs to a lot of people. They know that this also brings problems, but better than the alternative.

I remember Clinton trotting out a bespoke SME future for her economy, that's still going on. Trump has been the one is perceived by his support as wanting the US to really flex it's economic muscle.

For people looking for jobs, industry and hope, that's a big draw. That people are willing to go past Trump's racist, sexist, lunatic comments, shows just how big a draw that is.

Sure, immigration, culture issues, abortion etc are all issues getting lots of headlines. But there are others, and categorising either side as thick, is not the way forward. Either side would be miles ahead had they reached out more to capture their opponent's voters. Harris coming in, with a chance to set a new path was a missed opportunity.

Should Trump win, there's no shortage of dodgy people waiting in the wings to further their own agendas. The Democrats thought they were outraged at their last loss. This time, there's more structure waiting in those Republican wings.

Should Harris win, it's more of the same dodgy folk looking to further their own agendas. If they can't support a broader economic based, it's going to become more desperate for those left behind.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I agree with much of this. The smearing of Republican supporters as thick and racist simply increases the divide and the entrenched position of anyone who finds themselves disagreeing with a Democrat position. It's simply not true.

Everything is broad strokes. I know Democrat supporters who disagree with various things as I know Republican voters who do.  There's plenty of range on both sides away from the hysteria, just as there is here.

The Democratic party has not learned how to connect with a broader support based since Clinton's loss. They've broadly kept up the same approach, while polarising others.

Harris has brought energy and the ability to complete a sentence into the Democratic campaign. But she's managed to fall between a continuity and change position. Welded to Biden, trying to show a difference while conscious not to undermine anything at all. Not to mention her own changing positions, and

Stuck as a VP where that position has all the importance of a Christmas bauble. Having to be shoehorned into everything Biden was involved in, to give her some weight.

Like a lot of politicians, they are utterly let down by their teams, while not being strong enough to dictate otherwise. Trump's ego, for all the flaws, prevents that. His own team have a fight to keep him anywhere on the rails.

Considering Trump changes his view depending on who was last in the room with a compliment, and whose quotes and actions are often ridiculous, it's more than Harris that's the issue though.

From the Americans I speak to, there's a fair number who will simply vote the way they've always done.

For those more undecided ones, who have or might go with Trump, some points have been:-

As horrid as he might be, and unlikely as it is to teally change, his is the party who agrees that the system is broken. A lot of them know it's a bit of a trap, but think the current one is too.

That a focus on US industry, through tariffs or threat of same, is the way to give hope and jobs to a lot of people. They know that this also brings problems, but better than the alternative.

I remember Clinton trotting out a bespoke SME future for her economy, that's still going on. Trump has been the one is perceived by his support as wanting the US to really flex it's economic muscle.

For people looking for jobs, industry and hope, that's a big draw. That people are willing to go past Trump's racist, sexist, lunatic comments, shows just how big a draw that is.

Sure, immigration, culture issues, abortion etc are all issues getting lots of headlines. But there are others, and categorising either side as thick, is not the way forward. Either side would be miles ahead had they reached out more to capture their opponent's voters. Harris coming in, with a chance to set a new path was a missed opportunity.

Should Trump win, there's no shortage of dodgy people waiting in the wings to further their own agendas. The Democrats thought they were outraged at their last loss. This time, there's more structure waiting in those Republican wings.

Should Harris win, it's more of the same dodgy folk looking to further their own agendas. If they can't support a broader economic based, it's going to become more desperate for those left behind.

Great post I quite agree.

[Gloucester Saint]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

What the attached demonstrates is a need for more American African-American men to push on beyond poverty into good careers and enterprise in what is a more diverse country post-civil rights era. 

Regarding women, Trump can’t run away from the fact that his judges, whom he appointed, have taken away control over their bodies in many states by rolling back Roe Vs Wade, which is inexcusable. Vague boasts with no evidence ‘I’m the King of IVF’ don’t cut it when his judges have been rolling back the access to that as well. Which given how petrified the GOP and far right groups such as the Proud Boys are about White Displacement theory is insane.

Not only is Trump’s past economic record dreadful but his proposed new tariffs will screw manufacturing and automobile industry in many of those marginal Electoral College seats.

Harris isn’t the best candidate we’ve ever seen and yes, Biden should have stepped down well before. But voting for Trump is a very deliberate choice. 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I agree with much of this. The smearing of Republican supporters as thick and racist simply increases the divide and the entrenched position of anyone who finds themselves disagreeing with a Democrat position. It's simply not true.

Everything is broad strokes. I know Democrat supporters who disagree with various things as I know Republican voters who do.  There's plenty of range on both sides away from the hysteria, just as there is here.

The Democratic party has not learned how to connect with a broader support based since Clinton's loss. They've broadly kept up the same approach, while polarising others.

Harris has brought energy and the ability to complete a sentence into the Democratic campaign. But she's managed to fall between a continuity and change position. Welded to Biden, trying to show a difference while conscious not to undermine anything at all. Not to mention her own changing positions, and

Stuck as a VP where that position has all the importance of a Christmas bauble. Having to be shoehorned into everything Biden was involved in, to give her some weight.

Like a lot of politicians, they are utterly let down by their teams, while not being strong enough to dictate otherwise. Trump's ego, for all the flaws, prevents that. His own team have a fight to keep him anywhere on the rails.

Considering Trump changes his view depending on who was last in the room with a compliment, and whose quotes and actions are often ridiculous, it's more than Harris that's the issue though.

From the Americans I speak to, there's a fair number who will simply vote the way they've always done.

For those more undecided ones, who have or might go with Trump, some points have been:-

As horrid as he might be, and unlikely as it is to teally change, his is the party who agrees that the system is broken. A lot of them know it's a bit of a trap, but think the current one is too.

That a focus on US industry, through tariffs or threat of same, is the way to give hope and jobs to a lot of people. They know that this also brings problems, but better than the alternative.

I remember Clinton trotting out a bespoke SME future for her economy, that's still going on. Trump has been the one is perceived by his support as wanting the US to really flex it's economic muscle.

For people looking for jobs, industry and hope, that's a big draw. That people are willing to go past Trump's racist, sexist, lunatic comments, shows just how big a draw that is.

Sure, immigration, culture issues, abortion etc are all issues getting lots of headlines. But there are others, and categorising either side as thick, is not the way forward. Either side would be miles ahead had they reached out more to capture their opponent's voters. Harris coming in, with a chance to set a new path was a missed opportunity.

Should Trump win, there's no shortage of dodgy people waiting in the wings to further their own agendas. The Democrats thought they were outraged at their last loss. This time, there's more structure waiting in those Republican wings.

Should Harris win, it's more of the same dodgy folk looking to further their own agendas. If they can't support a broader economic based, it's going to become more desperate for those left behind.

There’s some good points here. I nearly agree with the last paragraph except I see the same continuation for the GOP as well as the Democrats. 

Tariffs aren’t going to revive the economy in blue collar states though. The populist and nationalistic sentiment I understand, but it’s like Gordon Brown’s comments about British jobs for British people at Ravenscraig. And then the lack of delivery leaves the communities feeling even more left behind. Reminds me of the ex-miners voting Reform because regeneration and levelling up projects they don’t see as relevant to them so they’re frozen in time. Economies evolve and it’s about retooling communities to be able to tap into it - look at the healthcare technologies and digital literacy hubs in Detroit opening up https://michigancentral.com/michigan-central-and-henry-ford-health-announce-partnership/

Wonderful to see those grand buildings dormant for decades back to productive and new use.

The gaps in economic and cultural issues are getting so polarised though that I’m not sure either party can stitch together a broader Cameronite or Starmer voting coalition like you see here. 

Edited October 18 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

10 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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

It’s one magazine that is quite up its own arse at times. Itfeel it’s revered like Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated - maybe in the US this is widely thought but not doing one magazine is not seen as hiding. ok it is true but the owner bleating doesn’t back up any evidence that Harris is hiding as I have already pointed out doing Fox News isn’t a sign of not getting out there.

Trump is vile but agree Harris isn’t adept at expressing her policies - asking Fox viewers to go to her website to see 80 of them  was dreadful response and should have had a much better answer prepared. Needs to get much clearer in the last few weeks. 
Trump is a coward though but the suckers seem to think he is tough. Not tough enough to square up in another debate? Imagine if it was other way round and the clamour rather than acknowledging Trump is ultimately a very weak man. 

 

 

 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

It’s one magazine that is quite up its own arse at times. Itfeel it’s revered like Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated - maybe in the US this is widely thought but not doing one magazine is not seen as hiding. ok it is true but the owner bleating doesn’t back up any evidence that Harris is hiding as I have already pointed out doing Fox News isn’t a sign of not getting out there.

Trump is vile but agree Harris isn’t adept at expressing her policies - asking Fox viewers to go to her website to see 80 of them  was dreadful response and should have had a much better answer prepared. Needs to get much clearer in the last few weeks. 
Trump is a coward though but the suckers seem to think he is tough. Not tough enough to square up in another debate? Imagine if it was other way round and the clamour rather than acknowledging Trump is ultimately a very weak man. 

 

 

 

Glad you are accepting it was actually someone from the magazine and that I wasn't duped. I'm not saying she was hiding, I said I my opinion it was a bad decision not to do the long form interview as Biden and Trump did and I also think it was a mistake to miss the dinner yesterday to become the first candidate to miss it in over 40 years. The impression that gives in my view is not a positive one. 

Your second paragraph I largely agree. A competent and semi-inspiring candidate should by rights be wiping the floor with Trump. Kamala's word vomit, lack of poise and identity politics spiel is putting her in danger of losing an election that she really should be winning handily. 

[buctootim]

On 17/10/2024 at 21:41, hypochondriac said:

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. 

So you're preferring to believe the findings of one poll on one day over the far far far more accurate poll of polls aggregating literally hundreds of polls. That figures.  

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, buctootim said:

So you're preferring to believe the findings of one poll on one day over the far far far more accurate poll of polls aggregating literally hundreds of polls. That figures.  

"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." 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

18 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

There’s some good points here. I nearly agree with the last paragraph except I see the same continuation for the GOP as well as the Democrats. 

Tariffs aren’t going to revive the economy in blue collar states though. The populist and nationalistic sentiment I understand, but it’s like Gordon Brown’s comments about British jobs for British people at Ravenscraig. And then the lack of delivery leaves the communities feeling even more left behind. Reminds me of the ex-miners voting Reform because regeneration and levelling up projects they don’t see as relevant to them so they’re frozen in time. Economies evolve and it’s about retooling communities to be able to tap into it - look at the healthcare technologies and digital literacy hubs in Detroit opening up https://michigancentral.com/michigan-central-and-henry-ford-health-announce-partnership/

Wonderful to see those grand buildings dormant for decades back to productive and new use.

The gaps in economic and cultural issues are getting so polarised though that I’m not sure either party can stitch together a broader Cameronite or Starmer voting coalition like you see here. 

Like any political party, they are rats fighting in a sack. As Biden had to get dragged away, the GOP went through changes, and lots of internal strife, when Trump got in last time. Those battles will have continued. But I think a lot of the think tanks, and string pullers, on the right see Trump as a great opportunity to increase their control. From Steve Bannon when he first got in, to Project 2025 this time out. Trump will be more concerned about ensuring his immunity and feathering his nest, only too happy to bring in people who perpetuate that.

Neither party are great for swathes of people. I agree on tariffs, in that a trade war is horrible for everyone. That was one of the points that's come up talking to others. Along with it was getting business to be based in the US. A lot of people look back at years of seeing their livelihoods leaving the country. Despite the pain, they just want that to stop.

The world, the technology may have moved on. The system their country operates under might have led to those problems. But hearing and seeing someone agree with them has been really popular.

[sadoldgit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqlvwdk04gwo.amp
 

Democrats taking the fight into Trump territory.

[whelk]

Not reflected in bookies odds but https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-latest-donald-trump-kamala-harris-skynews-live-13209921

 

[Picard]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Not reflected in bookies odds but https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-latest-donald-trump-kamala-harris-skynews-live-13209921

 

How reliable is Kalshi for predicting results?

[hypochondriac]

46 minutes ago, whelk said:

Not reflected in bookies odds but https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-latest-donald-trump-kamala-harris-skynews-live-13209921

 

I assume the betting is assuming that the polls are underestimating the Trump vote again. A lot will depend on if they have corrected their methods this time or not. It's a lot closer than I expected, I thought Kamala would be smashing it. 

[whelk]

No idea but polls had Clinton way ahead of Trump in 2016 and look how that turned out. Also see Brexit

[badgerx16]

37 minutes ago, whelk said:

No idea but polls had Clinton way ahead of Trump in 2016 and look how that turned out.

Clinton got three million more votes.

[hypochondriac]

43 minutes ago, whelk said:

No idea but polls had Clinton way ahead of Trump in 2016 and look how that turned out. Also see Brexit

Yes that was my point. The new York Times had Clinton at something like 96% chance of victory. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Clinton got three million more votes.

Only bush jr has ever won the popular vote for republicans in modern times. It's an  irrelevance. 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Only bush jr has ever won the popular vote for republicans in modern times. It's an  irrelevance. 

Oh I know, the election will be won in the same 4 or 5 swing states that have determined every other Presidential election this century, and the Electorsl College vote distribution bears little resemblance to relative state population sizes.

Just a slightly more extreme example than FPTP in the UK of how in a supposed democracy majority voting and opinion is failed.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

No idea but polls had Clinton way ahead of Trump in 2016 and look how that turned out. Also see Brexit

‘Shy Trump voters’. Interesting thought. That said, there’s a famous American Historian who has predicted correctly for the last 40 years the Presidential race outcome and he says Harris https://www.american.edu/cas/news/harris-trump-lichtman.cfm

 🤞 Allan Lichtman is correct again.

[sadoldgit]

Trump, again, demonstrates why he should be nowhere near the White House.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/10/20/donald-trump-makes-crude-joke-about-arnold-palmer-at-pennsylvania-rally/

I know that we have at least one person on here (hi nic) who believes the candidates are all the same, but you don’t see any other candidates standing up on stage and talking about the genetalia of a famous sportsman.
 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Trump, again, demonstrates why he should be nowhere near the White House.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/10/20/donald-trump-makes-crude-joke-about-arnold-palmer-at-pennsylvania-rally/

I know that we have at least one person on here (hi nic) who believes the candidates are all the same, but you don’t see any other candidates standing up on stage and talking about the genetalia of a famous sportsman.
 

 

Fucking hell, I bet you’re a barrel of laughs down the Ale house. 
 

 

Edited October 22 by Lord Duckhunter

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fucking hell, I bet you’re a barrel of laughs down the Ale house. 
 

 

Remind me of the time when your heroine Thatcher stood on stage and told an anecdote about George Best’s dick.

Engage your brain for a change. We are not talking about a bunch of pissed up blokes talking crap in a pub. We are talking about a previous and maybe soon to be President again of the most powerful nation in earth. Clearly you have very low expectations of the type of people you would give your vote to but given your devotion to Farage that is no great surprise. Tell me, do your wear your MAGA baseball cap down at the local ale house? Or perhaps you wear the MFRS version (Make Farage Richer Still)?

Here’s one that will make ‘em laugh down at your ale house - Donald Trump, a big cock talking about a big cock.

Edited October 22 by sadoldgit
Added text

[buctootim]

Harris has averaged a c2.5 - 3% lead over Trump for the past months but that has gradually narrowed over the past couple of weeks to 1.8% with most of the swing states polling as even. Its super tight. Interesting though in the Senate race the Democrats have started to pull away in nearly all of the swing states. It could be Trump gets elected but both the Senate and and the House are Democrat controlled and completely tie his hands.  

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fucking hell, I bet you’re a barrel of laughs down the Ale house. 
 

 

Don't want to go to Duckie's ale house if they sit around talking about dead sportsmen`s dicks. 😁😁

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Don't want to go to Duckie's ale house if they sit around talking about dead sportsmen`s dicks. 😁😁

There are many things that I can get wound up by Trump but this isn’t one of them. 

[Gloucester Saint]

On 18/10/2024 at 01:23, Picard said:

This bloke can't stand Trump but he's voting for him.

 

 

Fuck me, Elon Musk into his cabinet the best reason to vote for him. Can’t stand Trump (fascist) but lives Musk (fascist).

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Fuck me, Elon Musk into his cabinet the best reason to vote for him. Can’t stand Trump (fascist) but lives Musk (fascist).

Can we not throw around silly words like fascist? It demeans you when ordinarily you're relatively even handed. 

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Can we not throw around silly words like fascist? It demeans you when ordinarily you're relatively even handed. 

Ok, fine, but there are some very seasoned people using the word such as the former Joint Chiefs of Staff. Still, if given a choice between Trump and Musk, I’d have to choose Trump. And that’s saying something. 

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Fuck me, Elon Musk into his cabinet the best reason to vote for him. Can’t stand Trump (fascist) but lives Musk (fascist).

Musk's trans daughter, who has legally removed 'Musk' from her name, posted on Twitter;

“It seems to me like you’re trying to rebuild your brand image as the ‘caring paternal father’ which I will not let go unchallenged, If I’m going to be honest, this is absolutely pathetic. You just won’t stop lying about me in interviews, books, social media, etc. Thank god you’re absolutely terrible at it because otherwise this would be significantly more difficult.

 I understand your new angle is this ‘western values/christian family man’ thing but it’s such a weird choice, You are not a family man, you are a serial adulterer who won’t stop f****** lying about your own children. You are not a christian, as far as I’m aware you’ve never stepped foot in a church.”

[Gloucester Saint]

Bit dopey from Labour activists even if in a personal capacity https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cpdqw2yd00dt

Hypocrisy from Trump and Vance though, they were happy for Truss and others to be front and centre at CPAC endorsing them.

I’d rather our politicians and citizens stayed away from that toxic environment frankly until it’s over.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Bit dopey from Labour activists even if in a personal capacity https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cpdqw2yd00dt

Hypocrisy from Trump and Vance though, they were happy for Truss and others to be front and centre at CPAC endorsing them.

I’d rather our politicians and citizens stayed away from that toxic environment frankly until it’s over.

Not sure that's hypocrisy. Making a speech at a conference isn't really the same as actively campaigning in a swing state for a political candidate of a foreign nation. 

[egg]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

Bit dopey from Labour activists even if in a personal capacity https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cpdqw2yd00dt

Hypocrisy from Trump and Vance though, they were happy for Truss and others to be front and centre at CPAC endorsing them.

I’d rather our politicians and citizens stayed away from that toxic environment frankly until it’s over.

That was stupid from Labour, and pretty staggering they can't see the potential damage. Leave the Americans to it, keep our powder dry, and celebrate the winner whoever it may be, shouldn't be hard to comprehend. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

That was stupid from Labour, and pretty staggering they can't see the potential damage. Leave the Americans to it, keep our powder dry, and celebrate the winner whoever it may be, shouldn't be hard to comprehend. 

Agreed. It's why it was monumentally stupid for Lammy to say what he did about Trump last time round. Hopefully he apologises if Trump does manage to get in. 

[Gloucester Saint]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure that's hypocrisy. Making a speech at a conference isn't really the same as actively campaigning in a swing state for a political candidate of a foreign nation. 

Truss endorsed him as well, and not just at CPAC either. Not appropriate either from a Prime Minister. Although it is a bit like Russell Martin being praised by Ian Branfoot.

IMHO, Brits getting caught up in that election for campaigning need certifying in a highly toxic, divided and emotive country with guns everywhere. Labour should have told them not to do it, personal capacity or not. If it’s a contested result, it’ll be seriously nasty there and I’m not sure it’ll much better with a clear result. It’ll make the afters of any Saints-Pompey contest look like a tea party with Earl Gray, bone China and Fondant Fancies.

Edited October 22 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Truss endorsed him as well, and not just at CPAC either. Not appropriate either from a Prime Minister. Although it is a bit like Russell Martin being praised by Ian Branfoot.

IMHO, Brits getting caught up in that election for campaigning need certifying in a highly toxic, divided and emotive country with guns everywhere. Labour should have told them not to do it, personal capacity or not. If it’s a contested result, it’ll be seriously nasty there and I’m not sure it’ll much better with a clear result. 

Yes but Truss wasn't prime minister at the time whereas Labour are currently the party in power. Making an enemy of Trump is a really stupid thing to do, particularly because he clearly holds grudges and would probably do something petty to disadvantage us. 

Agree with your point in general though. Obama was rightly criticised for his back of the queue comment during the brexit debate because it wasn't his place to get involved. 

[egg]

43 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes but Truss wasn't prime minister at the time whereas Labour are currently the party in power. Making an enemy of Trump is a really stupid thing to do, particularly because he clearly holds grudges and would probably do something petty to disadvantage us. 

Agree with your point in general though. Obama was rightly criticised for his back of the queue comment during the brexit debate because it wasn't his place to get involved. 

Absolutely. He's potentially going to be the most powerful man on the planet again in under 3 months, and I doubt that acting in a "personal capacity" will serve as mitigation. 

[AlexLaw76]

https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1848826807581028409?s=46

[Gloucester Saint]

If Starmer was pissed off about the DP World comments and Haigh, he’ll be seriously spewing at this.

They had better hope Harris wins now hadn’t they?

Stupidity and some of the political judgement at the moment in the Labour Party is little or no better than the shambles that preceded it. Quite frankly, I preferred Cameron, Clegg and Osborne to this lot so far. There, I said it. Not May, Boris, Truss or Sunak though. My fellow Lib Dem voters will probably hammer me for that, but there is the excuse of the coalition which we were a major part of! 

Edited October 23 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

If Starmer was pissed off about the DP World comments and Haigh, he’ll be seriously spewing at this.

They had better hope Harris wins now hadn’t they?

Stupidity and some of the political judgement at the moment in the Labour Party is little or no better than the shambles that preceded it. Quite frankly, I preferred Cameron, Clegg and Osborne to this lot so far. There, I said it. Not May, Boris, Truss or Sunak though. My fellow Lib Dem voters will probably hammer me for that, but there is the excuse of the coalition which we were a major part of! 

Having hardened criminals standing outside prisons saying big up Kier is a PR disaster however you look at it. 

[whelk]

25 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Having hardened criminals standing outside prisons saying big up Kier is a PR disaster however you look at it. 

If you are a moron who thinks he is responsible for the crisis in prisons. You got Gloucester’s mates Osborne and Cameron to thank for that

[whelk]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1848826807581028409?s=46

Don’t know why I clicked as your timeline has always been fucked. And there you go, within two tweets he is posting up Alex Jones vaccine conspiracies. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

If you are a moron who thinks he is responsible for the crisis in prisons. You got Gloucester’s mates Osborne and Cameron to thank for that

Broadly agree and Starmer did his job at CPS, arguably too well. But prisons weren’t his remit. This is a succession of governments, New Labour as well with their ‘tough on crime and tough on causes of crime’. And the short prison sentences gained pace under Major going that far back.

We’ve got to find different deterrents for lower-medium risk offences and focus on who is the biggest risk to the public. 

Edited October 23 by Gloucester Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

Labour say they’ve done nothing wrong, and legally they are 100% correct on the detail. And both Labour and Tories have had effectively work experiences for years as an accepted norm. But this isn’t the GOP of Reagan or Bush families eras, it’s the optics and context. The Trump campaign are desperate, I don’t think this will cut through much in the actual result but it may afterward if Trump does win (God forbid). And that has knockons for NATO, Ukraine etc.

Just wasn’t worth it. They need to wise up politically and fast as an organisation. Starmer is up to it IMHO but Labour overall are quite green as an organisation and this is another example which causes me concern. This wouldn’t have happened in the Alastair Campbell/Blair era.

Edited October 23 by Gloucester Saint
Wise up