Spike Posted November 6 Posted November 6 2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: She lost across the board though, with all demographics, men, women, Muslims, whites, Latinos, blacks. You might be right about Michigan but that's one state. There were other issues in Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc. I just can't see anything remotely socially democratic succeeding in the USA. It would be interesting to see it tried though. Of course, she is a woman, black, foreign, and she sucks, sucks less Donnie Dumper but the other factors are a huge hurdle to jump over and have people see past. Harris had nothing going for her, all Trump had to do was turn on the used-car salesman dementia routine and say a few sound bites. If Biden pulled out two weeks ago Harris would have crushed Trump because she had zero time to campaign, so zero time to fuck it up. The last fifty years the Republicans have done a far better job propagandising their constituents (think Lee Atwater and the southern strategy) and Democrats just alienate them by being incompetent Republican-lite. Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 6 Posted November 6 1 hour ago, Spike said: I wonder how many abstained or voted for Jill Stein. Dems lost by 100,000 and Stein did get a decent turnout… In Deerborn Trump won overwhelmingly, then Stein then Harris. I sincerely hope they end up happy with the US’s Middle East policy under Trump. Maybe they’ll get to visit that beachfront property in Gaza once the Israelis are done with it. Quote
Subscriber Coma+ Posted November 6 Subscriber Posted November 6 5 hours ago, RandoEFC said: The problem with this analysis is that people who come out with it are invariably people who lean further to the left than the nominal "left" option. The Labour Party tried an offer to people who needed it most under Jeremy Corbyn and suffered their worst defeat in decades. There has to be some realism here. People haven't voted for Trump over Harris because Harris and the Democrats weren't socialist enough. Personally, I'd love the UK to have a genuine socially democratic left-leaning offer to vote for but the evidence says that the electorate at large, in the UK and in the US, just don't have the appetite for it. Sometimes we have to step back and just admit that there's a large number of people in the US who actually like the inflammatory, faux strong-man character with undertones of white male supremacy and despotic fascism that Donald Trump plays, and that there's a bunch of low-information swing voters who see nothing beyond "my groceries are more expensive than they were 4 years ago and I'm mad about it so I'm voting for the other guy again" and a "not nice" way of describing this is calling them stupid or idiots when uninformed would be more accurate. It seems unthinkable to us very online people who find Trump's antics shocking that these people exist but go and look on Twitter to see how many Americans searched "who is Donald Trump" and "did Joe Biden drop out" and "who is Kamala Harris" on search engines over the last 48 hours to see that they exist. The Democrats have clearly made a litany of errors. Joe Biden should have dropped out much earlier and they should have had a genuine contest to determine who should have run instead, but there's no way that someone like Bernie Sanders or AOC running on a socialist agenda and promising to be the saviour of the Palestinians would have ended any better for them. Any time Labour in the UK or Democrats in the US dare to go any further to the left than they currently are, they get labelled as communist traitors by 90% of the media and the fight is over before they've begun. Top post Rando. Sadly, you're spot on. Quote
Subscriber Coma+ Posted November 6 Subscriber Posted November 6 1 hour ago, Spike said: If Biden pulled out two weeks ago Harris would have crushed Trump because she had zero time to campaign, so zero time to fuck it up. Do you think so? I don't. There were a lot of Democrats that were upset that they didn't have a say in who their nominee was. I think Biden should've pulled out sooner so they could've done a proper primary. 2 Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted November 6 Subscriber Posted November 6 There was a steady improvement in the polls for Harris for about a month following Biden's dropping out, possibly more. She was a narrow favourite for a while and then she stalled and over the past 4-6 weeks the polls and betting markets started moving back in Trump's favour, and then it went slightly back to Harris in the final week but Trump was still a narrow favourite. Whether the polling would have followed the same pattern if he'd dropped out closer to the election, and whether that would have translated into actual votes, I'm not sure. You can make the case but I don't think changing candidate less than a month before the election day would have been a winning strategy. Quote
Spike Posted November 6 Posted November 6 58 minutes ago, Coma said: Do you think so? I don't. There were a lot of Democrats that were upset that they didn't have a say in who their nominee was. I think Biden should've pulled out sooner so they could've done a proper primary. Yeah I do, Harris was monstrously more popular when Biden announced he was out Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 6 Posted November 6 57 minutes ago, Coma said: Do you think so? I don't. There were a lot of Democrats that were upset that they didn't have a say in who their nominee was. I think Biden should've pulled out sooner so they could've done a proper primary. I think so too. His age was the major issue when he was first elected (which is a bit funny because Trump is older than that now). He should have stuck to doing 1 term and having a primary. Looking at the numbers, seems like democrats not truly being energized by a candidate hurt them. Republican voters always fall in line, but Democrat voters tend to need some love for the candidate to turn up. Letting voters have a say in the candidate probably would have helped. Quote
Subscriber Viva la FCB+ Posted November 6 Subscriber Posted November 6 7 hours ago, LFCMike said: Labelling people idiots or stupid for voting that way doesn't help at all. It's what happens when the alternative doesn't do anything to help those who need it most. I think Spike in a previous post covered the reasons better than I could. Those are the reasons why you end up with people like Trump in power and the likes of Farage/Reform winning seats in the UK and probably will gain more after 5 years of Starmer's Labour here in the UK I get what youre saying and electing Trump for the first term wasn't really that surprising and hence allot of people got on board as a middle finger to the rest of politics etc. But after seeing 4 years of him and the fallout of him losing, the lawsuits, the impeachments, the criminal charges etc etc people voting him in again are fucking dumb. That being said its nearly entirely the Dem's fault. Absolute theatre. 4 Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 6 Posted November 6 11 minutes ago, Viva la FCB said: I get what youre saying and electing Trump for the first term wasn't really that surprising and hence allot of people got on board as a middle finger to the rest of politics etc. But after seeing 4 years of him and the fallout of him losing, the lawsuits, the impeachments, the criminal charges etc etc people voting him in again are fucking dumb. That being said its nearly entirely the Dem's fault. Absolute theatre. I agree with this. In any democracy I think it’s fair to blame voters for being stupid when they’ve been stupid. Can you imagine what it’s like inside the mind of a swing state voter that went Biden in 2020 then Trump in 2024? It wasn’t that long ago he was a demonstrably terrible president - even before you account for lawsuits. If they have internal monologues I bet they’re hilarious. But yeah also the dems are truly a fantastic party at being inept and complacent. Still in a democracy… always blame the voters because they’re the ones who voted. Quote
Popular Post Devil-Dick Willie Posted November 6 Popular Post Posted November 6 America is an unfair battleground democratically, due to their policy on voter freedom. Republicans in general, but Trumps republicans especially, tend to vote based on feeling. Not any policy or real issue. So they always turn out. A larger proportion of dems need to be stimulated by policy, and won't get up to vote if what they want isn't on the table. Funnily enough, the flag waving god fearing church on sunday types that infest the red states vote like it's their god given duty. I agree with the sentiment here that the first Trump victory was kiiiiiiiiiiind of acceptable, in that he platformed on being radically different to the established order and that he was going to change everything, and was crazy enough to do it. I didn't buy it, but people are dumb, so can be excused for the 1st mishap. But none of it happened. He didn't drain the swamp, he filled it with his own invasive creatures, then regularly had to fire them. It was 4 years of riots, garbage economics that crippled the US export industry, then a call to a fascist takeover at the 11th hour of the term, which every right wing talking head (Shapiro ect) now says 'no it wasn't a fascist takeover, because the takeover never happened!'. Like the police intervening and stopping the event somehow makes it a freebie and politically inconsequential. 5 Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted November 7 Posted November 7 17 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: I agree with this. In any democracy I think it’s fair to blame voters for being stupid when they’ve been stupid. Can you imagine what it’s like inside the mind of a swing state voter that went Biden in 2020 then Trump in 2024? It wasn’t that long ago he was a demonstrably terrible president - even before you account for lawsuits. If they have internal monologues I bet they’re hilarious. But yeah also the dems are truly a fantastic party at being inept and complacent. Still in a democracy… always blame the voters because they’re the ones who voted. It is now a second chance for the Abraham accords, Saudi Arabia have played their cards very close to the chest and refused to be bullied by Joe Biden, they will however agree to the conditions of the Abraham accords which will conclude issues of all territorial disputes resolved and formal recognition in the International community and a recognition of Israel amongst Islamic states. Saudi Arabi want NATO protection against the hostilities faced by Iran and its proxies, they also want to modernise their military capacity to defend their sovereignty. KSA have made moves to pitch out to Russia and China but the reality is they know it is inferior equipment and really want to renew a long contract with the US and NATO to ensure it can protect itself against genuine threats. The internal conditions are reasonable, it will be more along the lines of the 1947 UNGA 181 policy, with some minor tweaks, it will allow for the extension of the Gaza strip across the Sinai bord and a land bridge to join the West Bank, there will also be a DMZ along the Jordanian border to ensure there is not illicit smuggling and encroachment from outside actors. The more complex one is the split of Jeruselem between all the religions into certain blocks with Central being International territory. To get the accords to work Trump will need to get Netenyahu, MBS, bin Zayid Al Nahyan, Farrah el Sisi, Erdogan and Aoun on board. Netenyahu will be the hardest to convince but the benefits of it are far greater, it will open a diplomacy line amongst Saudi and Turkey, there are also lots of opportunities that open up with new partnerships with the Gulf and Turkey. Quote
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted November 7 Subscriber Posted November 7 One factor amongst many but I've seen a few people point stuff like this out. You could see it in the UK elections as well where a lot of people voted for Reform, Lib Dem or other third parties. A lot of Western economies are just in a bit of a shit state at the moment and have been for long enough that people are increasingly fed up of what they see of "the establishment" or whoever has been in charge, regardless of whether they're left, right, centrist. The whole capitalist/neo-liberal thing just isn't really equipped for the simultaneous challenges posed by post-Covid economic recovery, climate and various wars affecting supply of important goods. Quote
Spike Posted November 7 Posted November 7 17 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said: America is an unfair battleground democratically, due to their policy on voter freedom. Republicans in general, but Trumps republicans especially, tend to vote based on feeling. Not any policy or real issue. So they always turn out. A larger proportion of dems need to be stimulated by policy, and won't get up to vote if what they want isn't on the table. Funnily enough, the flag waving god fearing church on sunday types that infest the red states vote like it's their god given duty. I agree with the sentiment here that the first Trump victory was kiiiiiiiiiiind of acceptable, in that he platformed on being radically different to the established order and that he was going to change everything, and was crazy enough to do it. I didn't buy it, but people are dumb, so can be excused for the 1st mishap. But none of it happened. He didn't drain the swamp, he filled it with his own invasive creatures, then regularly had to fire them. It was 4 years of riots, garbage economics that crippled the US export industry, then a call to a fascist takeover at the 11th hour of the term, which every right wing talking head (Shapiro ect) now says 'no it wasn't a fascist takeover, because the takeover never happened!'. Like the police intervening and stopping the event somehow makes it a freebie and politically inconsequential. Antifa are the real fascists though, mate. It even has it in the name. Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 7 Posted November 7 4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said: It is now a second chance for the Abraham accords, Saudi Arabia have played their cards very close to the chest and refused to be bullied by Joe Biden, they will however agree to the conditions of the Abraham accords which will conclude issues of all territorial disputes resolved and formal recognition in the International community and a recognition of Israel amongst Islamic states. Saudi Arabi want NATO protection against the hostilities faced by Iran and its proxies, they also want to modernise their military capacity to defend their sovereignty. KSA have made moves to pitch out to Russia and China but the reality is they know it is inferior equipment and really want to renew a long contract with the US and NATO to ensure it can protect itself against genuine threats. The internal conditions are reasonable, it will be more along the lines of the 1947 UNGA 181 policy, with some minor tweaks, it will allow for the extension of the Gaza strip across the Sinai bord and a land bridge to join the West Bank, there will also be a DMZ along the Jordanian border to ensure there is not illicit smuggling and encroachment from outside actors. The more complex one is the split of Jeruselem between all the religions into certain blocks with Central being International territory. To get the accords to work Trump will need to get Netenyahu, MBS, bin Zayid Al Nahyan, Farrah el Sisi, Erdogan and Aoun on board. Netenyahu will be the hardest to convince but the benefits of it are far greater, it will open a diplomacy line amongst Saudi and Turkey, there are also lots of opportunities that open up with new partnerships with the Gulf and Turkey. Saudi Arabia are cunts, I don’t think anyone should be having better relations with them. Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted November 7 Posted November 7 20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Saudi Arabia are cunts, I don’t think anyone should be having better relations with them. Plan B is get rid of the IRGC and establish normality with Iran like it was before the dark days Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 7 Posted November 7 3 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said: Plan B is get rid of the IRGC and establish normality with Iran like it was before the dark days A return to democracy in Iran, with either no monarchy (ideal) or only a symoblic monarchy (to appease Iran's rabid monarchists), would be ideal for the region. And the west regaining access to Iran's massive oil reserves in full under a democracy would actually serve as a way to pressure Saudi Arabia. Because right now they've got the west by the balls and there's nothing the west can really do about it. Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted November 7 Posted November 7 13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: A return to democracy in Iran, with either no monarchy (ideal) or only a symoblic monarchy (to appease Iran's rabid monarchists), would be ideal for the region. And the west regaining access to Iran's massive oil reserves in full under a democracy would actually serve as a way to pressure Saudi Arabia. Because right now they've got the west by the balls and there's nothing the west can really do about it. Oman has flourished as a Monarchist state, the geographics and resource breakdown of Yemen and Oman shows two states with similar land build and resources, one is in a perpetual state of war and the other is thriving Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 7 Posted November 7 1 minute ago, OrangeKhrush said: Oman has flourished as a Monarchist state, the geographics and resource breakdown of Yemen and Oman shows two states with similar land build and resources, one is in a perpetual state of war and the other is thriving The last monarchist, that some - especially in the US Iranian diaspora - absolutely love was an idiotic thin skinned autocrat that managed to piss so many people off they had a revolution to get rid of him... which ultimately led to an autocratic regime where all the problems of Iran remained the same, but much worse. They've got the framework for democracy, they had the first democracy in the Middle East - and the Majlis (their parliament) still exists. If things like the Guardians Council are removed and there aren't weird limitations on who can run... they've already got a democratic system. The autocratic bits of the constitution just need to be cut out. There's an angry domestic population in Iran that's caused a great deal of civil unrest over the last few years. With the right kind of external pressure and international assistance, there can actually be positive change in the Middle East. But if the plan is just to carpet bomb Iran and turn it into another Syria... it's just going to be the same situation as Syria where you get a bunch of insane terror groups popping up and it becomes a multinational free for all where nobody declares war but they commit all kinds of war crimes. I do suspect that with Trump in power, the IR backs down a bit - although I wouldn't be surprised if they do all they can to press ahead to get a nuke. But Israel will definitely be emboldened to act less restrained in Gaza and Hezbollah with Netanyahu's boy sitting in the white house. And a more aggressive Israel should scare the shit out of Khamenei & co. But I can't imagine his foreign policy is anything other than chaotic... because he's not an unknown quantity at this point, and now his inner circle is loyalists and fanatics. Quote
Reluctant Striker Posted November 7 Posted November 7 The more I look into internal trading standards, the better it seems there has not been the right alignment of US President & UK PM to do some kind of enhanced trade deal. I was watching a documentary recently on lots of American sourced snack foods & soft drinks being seized from small UK shops, because the ingredients used are known to cause diseases, such as cancer. The US is that far behind on regulations. And many US toothpastes contain peroxide, way above any level the EU would sanction. Plus, if it was ever a Trump deal, which does at least seem off the menu now, he would bend the UK over a big one. Even if he does prefer the UK (which he can just about understand the language of) over a number of other places. But, honestly can not say I will miss the Biden, Macron, UVDL cosy up at all the 'diplomatic' get togethers. Maybe that's their approach with China, Russia, North Korea, etc. In my opinion 'the left' these days seem to forget how many people just are not hard wired into looking for anything but the others. And so often it feels like that's a significant part of the sales pitch. Quote
Rucksackfranzose Posted November 8 Posted November 8 (edited) On 07/11/2024 at 11:03, OrangeKhrush said: It is now a second chance for the Abraham accords, Saudi Arabia have played their cards very close to the chest and refused to be bullied by Joe Biden, they will however agree to the conditions of the Abraham accords which will conclude issues of all territorial disputes resolved and formal recognition in the International community and a recognition of Israel amongst Islamic states. Saudi Arabi want NATO protection against the hostilities faced by Iran and its proxies, they also want to modernise their military capacity to defend their sovereignty. KSA have made moves to pitch out to Russia and China but the reality is they know it is inferior equipment and really want to renew a long contract with the US and NATO to ensure it can protect itself against genuine threats. The internal conditions are reasonable, it will be more along the lines of the 1947 UNGA 181 policy, with some minor tweaks, it will allow for the extension of the Gaza strip across the Sinai bord and a land bridge to join the West Bank, there will also be a DMZ along the Jordanian border to ensure there is not illicit smuggling and encroachment from outside actors. The more complex one is the split of Jeruselem between all the religions into certain blocks with Central being International territory. To get the accords to work Trump will need to get Netenyahu, MBS, bin Zayid Al Nahyan, Farrah el Sisi, Erdogan and Aoun on board. Netenyahu will be the hardest to convince but the benefits of it are far greater, it will open a diplomacy line amongst Saudi and Turkey, there are also lots of opportunities that open up with new partnerships with the Gulf and Turkey. There's a possibility KSA want that. I've serious reservations one of the Scandinavian countries, one of the Benelux countries, one of the Baltic countries, Austria, the UK France, Spain, Italy or Germany would agree on it, and they all had to for the KSA becoming a NATO member. Edited November 8 by Rucksackfranzose Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted November 8 Posted November 8 7 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said: There's a possibility KSA want that. I've serious reservations one of the Scandinavian countries, one of the Benelux countries, one of the Baltic countries, Austria, the UK France, Spain, Italy or Germany would agree on it, and they all had to for the KSA becoming a NATO member. It would be hard to do, it is hard enough keeping Turkey loyal to NATO. It will be hard to know what KSA's ultimate intentions are other than getting sweet new American toys. Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 8 Posted November 8 4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said: It would be hard to do, it is hard enough keeping Turkey loyal to NATO. It will be hard to know what KSA's ultimate intentions are other than getting sweet new American toys. I think Turkey trying to skirt the line of what side they're on is precisely why Saudi Arabia won't be in NATO. The other member states aren't going to want a country that's even closer to Russia politically than Turkey into the country - don't forget the whole purpose of the agreement was to deter Russian expansion into Europe. There's also the whole Saudi Arabia being the biggest sponsor of ISIS by far... and ISIS having conducted several attacks in Europe. Quote
OrangeKhrush Posted November 9 Posted November 9 18 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: I think Turkey trying to skirt the line of what side they're on is precisely why Saudi Arabia won't be in NATO. The other member states aren't going to want a country that's even closer to Russia politically than Turkey into the country - don't forget the whole purpose of the agreement was to deter Russian expansion into Europe. There's also the whole Saudi Arabia being the biggest sponsor of ISIS by far... and ISIS having conducted several attacks in Europe. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/who-s-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006 The Sources seem to point towards Qatar being the sponsor, that makes more sense as Qatar currently house Hamas and Hezbollah without ramifications, they are also the rogue gulf state that somehow enjoys protection from US bases. Some suggest that the US in order to threaten co-operation with Qatar with the Gulf states and peripheral nations need to threaten removal of military bases leaving Qatar exposed and vulnerable to the terror groups they intrinsically fund. ISIS FUNDING Quote The State of Qatar has long been accused of acting as a conduit for the flow of funds to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. While there is no proof that the Qatari government is behind the movement of funds from the gas-rich nation to IS, it has been criticized for not doing enough to stem the flow of financing. Private donors within Qatar, sympathetic to the aims of radical groups such as al-Nusra Front and IS, are believed to be channelling their resources to support these organisations.[38][39] According to the U.S. Treasury Department, a number of terrorist financiers have been operating in Qatar. Qatari citizen Abd al Rahman al Nuaymi has served as an interlocutor between Qatari donors and leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Nuaymi reportedly oversaw the transfer of US$2 million per month to AQI over a period of time. Nuaymi is also one of several of Qatar-based al-Qaeda financiers sanctioned by the U.S.Treasury in recent years. According to some reports, U.S. officials believe that the largest portion of private donations supporting IS and al-Qaeda-linked groups now comes from Qatar rather than Saudi Arabia.[40] [40] https://newrepublic.com/article/119705/why-does-qatar-support-known-terrorists Saudi Arabia like Turkey may not be trust worthy due to one being largely a fundamentalist state with Wahhabism the core practise and the other beign run by a person that has expressed interest in Sufism and has spoken about a new caliphate with its center in Germany. they are also functionally to weak to take on NATO so they remain compliant. Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 9 Posted November 9 4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/who-s-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006 The Sources seem to point towards Qatar being the sponsor, that makes more sense as Qatar currently house Hamas and Hezbollah without ramifications, they are also the rogue gulf state that somehow enjoys protection from US bases. Some suggest that the US in order to threaten co-operation with Qatar with the Gulf states and peripheral nations need to threaten removal of military bases leaving Qatar exposed and vulnerable to the terror groups they intrinsically fund. ISIS FUNDING Saudi Arabia like Turkey may not be trust worthy due to one being largely a fundamentalist state with Wahhabism the core practise and the other beign run by a person that has expressed interest in Sufism and has spoken about a new caliphate with its center in Germany. they are also functionally to weak to take on NATO so they remain compliant. When Saudi funded mosques in Europe were being used as recruitment centers for radicals to go to Iraq and Syria, I’m not sure it’s so easy to dismiss them as a funder of ISIS. Remember too, ISIS was the coming together of several Wahhabi groups. So I have no doubt Qatar is no doubt a big sponsor as well. Honestly all the big power players in the region use the tactic of backing groups of extremists (which is why they are keen to keep spreading extremism). That’s why Syria is such a shitshow. But I think ISIS are particularly inhumane shitheads, even compared to the other inhumane shithead terror groups. And I don’t think their backers should be so easily forgiven just because they’re very rich. Quote
Dr. Gonzo Posted November 11 Posted November 11 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/11/israel-iran-war-news-gaza-palestine-lebanon/ Gonna be a fun four years for the mental gymnasts in Dearborn, Michigan. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.