Says a man in the country that delivered Brexit and Boris Johnson
Brexit was the democratic will of the people. Opposition to it's implimentation was undemocratic. Johnson was elected with 42.4% of the vote. Starmer has been elected with just 33.7% of the vote.
You ridicule me and eight years ago, you lot elected a president with no political experience. Just think on that.
Like I said, I barely have the motivation to ridicule your dim takes. Perhaps you've had a random synaptic connection register that you posted stupidly about the relative goodness of our current candidates. I doubt it, but perhaps it's so. Regardless, you've moved the goal posts to weigh-in on something even more irrelevant than your previous take. I didn't think that was possible, but here we are.
We lot endured four years of Tr*mp. In the same timeframe you lot initiated Brexit, then went through four Tory PMs, all "politically experienced," leading to, and I put it kindly, a cataclysmic Conservative loss of power. You're not proving anything meaningful on this score, and pointing out political bungling is a zero-sum game anyway.
No one I know is discounting the horrific tragicomedy that Tr*mp2 would be. To me it's a staggeringly, nearly literally halting prospect. We can't count on a close victory being enough. Every Republican-led State Legislature is going to delay and/or challenge Harris victories and hold off from or refuse to certify their elections. It's going to be a terrible process that I feel can only be overcome by sizable State-level wins culminating an unambiguously, even historically large margin. We need a broad, deep electoral smackdown of all of MAGA, and especially the abhorrent character at its head.
No one I know is discounting the horrific tragicomedy that Tr*mp2 would be. To me it's a staggeringly, nearly literally halting prospect. We can't count on a close victory being enough. Every Republican-led State Legislature is going to delay and/or challenge Harris victories and hold off from or refuse to certify their elections. It's going to be a terrible process that I feel can only be overcome by sizable State-level wins culminating an unambiguously, even historically large margin. We need a broad, deep electoral smackdown of all of MAGA, and especially the abhorrent character at its head.
This. One can only hope, and pray (if prayer is of any efficacy), that a smackdown does indeed come to pass. For the sake of all of us.
And if you think misogyny plays no part in voters' decisions
Of course it does, but not every criticism of Harris' stems from misogyny.
🙄 And not every man is a serial sex offender, so you would think the Republicans could have found a candidate who isn't. But thanks for the mansplaining.
I would have answered your other points but I see Ruth has already done so, far better than I could.
🙄 And not every man is a serial sex offender, so you would think the Republicans could have found a candidate who isn't. But thanks for the mansplaining.
🙄the immediate context was an issue on which many people feel unable to vote for Harris while not necessarily wanting to vote for Trump.
Brexit the will of the people? To me, though I am an American, it seemed more like the will of the Russian government which sent a lot of disinformation on it through social media. Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In total: There were 17.4 million votes for Leave, 16.1 million votes for Remain, and 12.9 million abstentions. A further 18 million people living in the UK were not on the electoral register, including all young people below the age of 18 and many long-term residents who are not citizens, though they contribute to British society and have a stake in it. So, although 17.4 million is a large number, it is only a relative majority, not an absolute one.
Multiple arrests of opponents, mass deportations, internment camps, a ban on abortions, pulling the plug on Ukraine...there's much more, no doubt, but these are items already mentioned in news outlets over here.
I think he feels since he "has it in the bag" he can get away saying anything he wants.
No, he knows that he’s not going to convince anyone new at this point, and that his chance of winning depends on a very good turn-out from his base. So, he’s feeding his base the red meat it craves.
[There's a pretty big, painfully clear difference between the way Harris and the Democrat Party view and address the issues of LQBTQIA+ people and how Tr*mp and the MAGA Right approach them.
🙄 And not every man is a serial sex offender, so you would think the Republicans could have found a candidate who isn't. But thanks for the mansplaining.
🙄the immediate context was an issue on which many people feel unable to vote for Harris while not necessarily wanting to vote for Trump.
Which is American Politics via microscope, and something anyone can do with any issue or combination of issues. Task #1 is voting with the understanding that regardless of how inadequately VP Harris has addressed *my signature issue* to date, abstaining from voting, or voting in an ultimately meaningless political way (i.e. Green Party) bolsters Tr*mp, who doesn't just match Harris in inadequacy of consideration of these issues, but will by any and all measure undermine, oppose, and even criminalize them if given the chance. Even four-eight more years of Biden-Harris Playbook stasis on some of these issues is preferable to Tr*mp. Even a tiny amount of backsliding on some of these issues is preferable to Tr*mp. This is really, really f-ing serious, and I have precious little patience for protest or withhold vote mentalities. Lots and lots of people held their noses and voted for Sec. Clinton in 2016, but plenty of Democrats didn't. It's so dumb, and we cannot afford repeat that, yet communicating that has been more difficult than it ought to be.
So you can appreciate why no American -- let alone the almost categorically aware Americans on these SoF boards -- needs Know-little-to-nothing cranks like @Telford foisting his intergalactically vapid "both candidates are bad" takes into the mix. To not see the myriad differences between Harris and Tr*mp and their respective potential Administrations is to be willfully, woefully ignorant of the most fundamental qualities of each. Further, after being told repeatedly what those differences are, that it still seems too difficult for some to come around on VP Harris while continually opining about how internationally important this election is pretty damn frustrating.
I think he feels since he "has it in the bag" he can get away saying anything he wants.
No, he knows that he’s not going to convince anyone new at this point, and that his chance of winning depends on a very good turn-out from his base. So, he’s feeding his base the red meat it craves.
[There's a pretty big, painfully clear difference between the way Harris and the Democrat Party view and address the issues of LQBTQIA+ people and how Tr*mp and the MAGA Right approach them.
I think he feels since he "has it in the bag" he can get away saying anything he wants.
No, he knows that he’s not going to convince anyone new at this point, and that his chance of winning depends on a very good turn-out from his base. So, he’s feeding his base the red meat it craves.
[There's a pretty big, painfully clear difference between the way Harris and the Democrat Party view and address the issues of LQBTQIA+ people and how Tr*mp and the MAGA Right approach them.
It is beyond awful that there are people who have to feel like their lives are being traded away in someone's political strategy. At the same time, if Harris did stand up loudly for trans people and lost a bunch of people in the political middle because of it, trans people would be in a far worse position, and she knows this. I don't think she discussses it well (the limitations of X, perhaps). I found this a far more nuanced discussion of the Harris campaign's strategy in this regard.
Also, she has an X account and a Substack newsletter. So she's one way or another, probably for very good reasons, okay with contributing content to Elon Musk's platform and helping Substack make money after they refused to de-platform Nazis. Musk and Substack haven't "earned" anything from her, but she is contributing a lot more to them than to Harris with her one vote. People do what they have to do in the situations they're in. As she knows.
@Arethosemyfeet, I happen to have family ties to Kansas; my mother's family homesteaded there when they came to the US in the 1870s, and some of my mom's younger cousins and their children own and work small family farms in Kansas, including that homestead. There's still a family circle letter that my aunt sends me copies of. But of course your point stands. I couldn't tell you about Arkansas what I can tell you about California. Nevertheless, I have a context for US news that people outside the US don't have, one far more finely grained. The sources: a lifetime spent immersed in American culture and an adult lifetime participating in American politics as a voter and occasional volunteer; the things I've picked up from friends and family who live or have lived in Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Nevada, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Washington DC (list off the top of my head); and my own travel in the US. When I read about Nevada, for instance, I have the context of all the things learned from a friend who was the historic preservation officer for Virginia City for a couple of decades, on the state payroll, trying to get stuff done in Carson City, someone who knows Nevada politics inside and out. When I read about Maine, I have the context of things learned from my sister-in-law's brother, who works in state government, and his wife, a healthcare lobbyist there, as well as my own observations and experiences in 10 or so visits. It's just a lot of little things that add up over the years.
Conversely: I fell in love with British literature in high school, studied British lit and history in college, did graduate work specializing in 18th-century British poetry, then was an English professor for a while and was routinely assigned the British lit survey courses. I read UK news and follow UK politics. I remember reading the Brexit vote results while on vacation with my family in Yosemite and being brought to tears. I am interested in the UK, I care about it, I'm well educated about the UK and reasonably well informed -- but I've only visited a few times and never lived in the UK, and I have no strong personal ties there. Contrasting my understanding of the UK with my understanding of the US tells me the difference lived experience makes. Can you get a lot out of reading news about the US? Of course. Does it rival what I get out of it? I doubt it.
Which is American Politics via microscope, and something anyone can do with any issue or combination of issues.
Of course, but - and talking here about the situation in multiple countries, not just the US -when every election cycle becomes a referendum on some form of extremism when does normal politics operate? If you are granting the opposition carte blanche to be only slightly less worse ..
Even a tiny amount of backsliding on some of these issues is preferable to Tr*mp.
.. what's going to be the moment that arrests that slide? (Because you have non-existent leverage to keep that backsliding to a tiny amount).
As it is, many people interpreted Bill Clinton's remarks as putting the foot down on any anti-war/anti-interventionist sentiment, with the clear message that our existing policies will continue as normal and you will abide.
People can work out the "lesser-evil" thing for themselves and decide whether or not it applies. OTOH if you can't find positive reasons to persuade people to vote for a party, maybe that's the fault of the party, not of the unpersuaded voter.
Which is American Politics via microscope, and something anyone can do with any issue or combination of issues.
Of course, but - and talking here about the situation in multiple countries, not just the US -when every election cycle becomes a referendum on some form of extremism when does normal politics operate? If you are granting the opposition carte blanche to be only slightly less worse ..
Even a tiny amount of backsliding on some of these issues is preferable to Tr*mp.
.. what's going to be the moment that arrests that slide? (Because you have non-existent leverage to keep that backsliding to a tiny amount).
I would really like to be in the position of holding the feet of a would-be Harris administration to the fire over trans rights, climate change, immigration reform ... you name it. Everything. But right now absolutely everything, the future of the country and the world, turns on simply putting her into office. She could be a much worse candidate and I'd still be arguing hard for voting for her. Normal politics can operate again if and when we get past the current reality, when one of our two major political parties is proposing full-on fascism, the American version of Germany in 1933, starting as Hitler did with jailing political opponents. With family and friends, I am trying to prepare myself for conversations about what we will and will not be willing to do in a second Trump administration. What we'd be willing to risk. We are so very far from normal -- it's terrifying. So I don't have patience for voices that might cool off the vote for Harris.
As it is, many people interpreted Bill Clinton's remarks as putting the foot down on any anti-war/anti-interventionist sentiment, with the clear message that our existing policies will continue as normal and you will abide.
Bill Clinton's remarks were atrocious and indefensible. And he won't be making decisions in the next administration. Who thinks he's in a position to put his foot down on anything?
People can work out the "lesser-evil" thing for themselves and decide whether or not it applies. OTOH if you can't find positive reasons to persuade people to vote for a party, maybe that's the fault of the party, not of the unpersuaded voter.
Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, as is JD Vance. As the humor columnist in the Washington Post said in her endorsement of Harris, "I like elections and want to keep having them." Positive enough for you?
Bill Clinton's remarks were atrocious and indefensible. And he won't be making decisions in the next administration
Platforming him in Michigan was in the gift of the campaign, and perhaps speaks to the motivations and blind spots of those who will.
People can work out the "lesser-evil" thing for themselves and decide whether or not it applies. OTOH if you can't find positive reasons to persuade people to vote for a party, maybe that's the fault of the party, not of the unpersuaded voter.
Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, as is JD Vance. As the humor columnist in the Washington Post said in her endorsement of Harris, "I like elections and want to keep having them." Positive enough for you?
Long periods in power by a single party are the exception rather than the rule, and hoping that voters turn out for a (possibly) "much worse" candidate for the next X election cycles seems a big and not particularly motivating ask, especially if some of them are unsure whether they'll be the price demanded next time.
Other US-based shipmates may have seen this, but the Harris-Walz campaign has four signs that people can put in their front yard so that cars driving past can read "WE'RE NOT GOING BACK!" In response to this, Trump supporters have started putting up a series of three signs (that I think are from the Trump-Vance campaign?) that say as you drive past "WE'RE GOING BACK!" It all strikes me as having reached a new level of absurdity.
I listened to (was it the editor in chief?) of the Cook Political Report say that 45% percent of voters don't like anything about Trump, 35% percent generally like him, and the remaining 20% don't like Trump but some of them vote for him anyway.
I saw a big banner stretched between two trees while driving today that said on one side "Save America. Save Democracy. Please vote Trump" and on the other side "We may not like Trump. But we need him." (It obviously was not an official Trump-Vance sign. But it was not handmade so someone had paid to have it made and may be selling them.)
I believe very strongly that everyone needs to come together to make sure that Trump is not put back into office. But if the figures above are accurate than there are about 20% of voters who dislike Trump but not enough to either disqualify him as an option in their minds or to convince them to vote for whomever is likeliest to beat him.
@Hugal, Brits hear or read about the US frequently because UK news outlets regularly report on the US, so you all think you know what you're talking about, but in general British knowledge of the US tends to be superficial and more than a little bit colored by a basic distaste for American culture.* Is this universal? By no means. For instance, when alienfromzog posts about the election, I pay attention; to me he's the epitome of the well-informed outsider who sometimes points out things I hadn't considered. But the general idea that UK folks know about the US because UK news covers the US is underbaked. (Also, as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of UK news really sucks.)
You're over-confident, Hugal -- it shows in your telling me about the difference between UK news and US news, as if I didn't know, as if I never looked at UK news outlets. I read UK news outlets to get non-US coverage of the world and also of the US. The Guardian in particular I think covers the US well. For instance, today there's a good piece about the Orange County, California congressional races, which are crucial to Democrats' chances of taking back the House. While it's a very good piece, I can still tell you more things about these races and their context that you'd need to know if you really want to understand them:
1. It doesn't mention that Democrats took all the Orange County seats in the 2018 Blue Wave election, completing an historic flip of the county; they're trying to claw back seats they previously held.
2. The Steel vs. Tran race in the 45th has relevant background that's not discussed. The guy who won this seat for the Dems in 2018 did nothing once he got into Congress; the son of a friend of mine worked for him and was utterly disgusted that the guy didn't want to do anything and wasted the opportunity. How much he was really a Democrat I would seriously question, as he only registered as a Democrat after Trump was elected. This gets at an important issue in California -- because the Republicans are so weak at the state level, if you have political ambition, in most of the state you'll do better if you're a Democrat, so the range of the political beliefs of the people running as Democrats has gotten bigger and bigger, to the point where Democratic strength at the state level is yielding up weaker Democratic candidates.
3. It says Katie Porter vacated her OC Congressional seat to run for Senate but "fell short" in the primary. But she didn't fall short so much as she was kneecapped by fellow Democrat Adam Schiff, who gave Steve Garvey a huge boost by singling him out as "too conservative" in the primary, thus consolidating the Republican vote for Garvey and making sure Katie Porter, who could have really challenged him in November, wouldn't make it that far. So a very strong OC Democrat is nowhere on the ballot, thanks to the political machinations of another Democrat.
4. It briefly mentions taxes, but taxes are really important. Californians pay high taxes to the state, and Republicans are kind of stuck with that since Democrats have all the power in the state capital, so California Republicans are highly motivated to get their federal taxes down as much as possible.
None of this is to say that The Guardian's piece is bad. It is in fact excellent. But I've lived and voted in southern California my whole adult life. I'm seeing the nasty political ads aimed at Orange County voters every time I turn on the TV to watch baseball. I lived in Orange County 1984-1993, when Democrats couldn't get elected to save their souls, I can walk over the county line from where I live now, and my best friend lives in Huntington Beach, the OC town called "radical" for book banning. You cannot simply read the UK coverage of the US and know what Americans know. Chances are the guy who wrote the Guardian piece does know the things I talked about -- he lives in Los Angeles and has been based in the US for over 25 years -- but here's another limitation of relying on the news instead of first-hand experience: news reports are by necessity too short to tell you what people learn through years of lived experience.
*You're probably not aware of how often Brits on the Ship say things that essentially mean "Ew, it's American," but dear god, yes, we decorate for Halloween and kids go trick-or-treating and it's a big deal and it's fun, a lot of us are perfectly happy and successful baking with cup measures, we're sticking with miles, feet and inches, and yes, it's the goddamn World Series and I don't give a flying fuck that it's not an international contest.
Yes I am aware how often Brits say those things. I have been on the ship 20 plus years. I have seen all that stuff and more, particularly Halloween. Please don’t judge me without knowing the full info. You must also be aware of the amazing lack of knowledge of most things about the UK we get. It is annoying for us.
I was reacting to your strong Hell posts. I think they were not warranted. In them you come across in a way you wouldn’t want to.
It doesn’t help when things like the commentator not knowing the Prime Minister happen. It backs up the bad stereotype.
People over here comment without having the full picture, that is true. The same can be said about the US commenting on the UK. The lack of knowledge can be astounding. We don’t tend to make that much fuss about it. I know why the World Series was named that. I know the arguments to and fro around US cultural imperialism, and much more
I was reacting to your strong Hell posts. I think they were not warranted. In them you come across in a way you wouldn’t want to.
I think this is true of you too, Hugal.
ISTM that the US, and American shipmates, are in a moment of political crisis. People in crisis should be the centre of concern, so to speak. It feels to me like a political version of the "rings of support" theory. Those in the further-out rings should not attempt to make their thoughts and feelings the centre.
It's like complaining to the husband of a woman with cancer how stressed you are about her condition.
ISTM those not in the centre can appropriately say these things:
1. I'm sorry you're going through this.
2. Is there anything I can do to help? (in this case, no - non-Americans can't vote)
3. I hope this gets better for you soon.
Anything else looks defensive, ignorant, and douchey, IMO. Non-Americans attempting to centre their thoughts and feelings doesn't seem to me to be appropriate, at this sensitive time.
@Hugal, Brits hear or read about the US frequently because UK news outlets regularly report on the US, so you all think you know what you're talking about, but in general British knowledge of the US tends to be superficial and more than a little bit colored by a basic distaste for American culture.* Is this universal? By no means. For instance, when alienfromzog posts about the election, I pay attention; to me he's the epitome of the well-informed outsider who sometimes points out things I hadn't considered. But the general idea that UK folks know about the US because UK news covers the US is underbaked. (Also, as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of UK news really sucks.)
You're over-confident, Hugal -- it shows in your telling me about the difference between UK news and US news, as if I didn't know, as if I never looked at UK news outlets. I read UK news outlets to get non-US coverage of the world and also of the US. The Guardian in particular I think covers the US well. For instance, today there's a good piece about the Orange County, California congressional races, which are crucial to Democrats' chances of taking back the House. While it's a very good piece, I can still tell you more things about these races and their context that you'd need to know if you really want to understand them:
1. It doesn't mention that Democrats took all the Orange County seats in the 2018 Blue Wave election, completing an historic flip of the county; they're trying to claw back seats they previously held.
2. The Steel vs. Tran race in the 45th has relevant background that's not discussed. The guy who won this seat for the Dems in 2018 did nothing once he got into Congress; the son of a friend of mine worked for him and was utterly disgusted that the guy didn't want to do anything and wasted the opportunity. How much he was really a Democrat I would seriously question, as he only registered as a Democrat after Trump was elected. This gets at an important issue in California -- because the Republicans are so weak at the state level, if you have political ambition, in most of the state you'll do better if you're a Democrat, so the range of the political beliefs of the people running as Democrats has gotten bigger and bigger, to the point where Democratic strength at the state level is yielding up weaker Democratic candidates.
3. It says Katie Porter vacated her OC Congressional seat to run for Senate but "fell short" in the primary. But she didn't fall short so much as she was kneecapped by fellow Democrat Adam Schiff, who gave Steve Garvey a huge boost by singling him out as "too conservative" in the primary, thus consolidating the Republican vote for Garvey and making sure Katie Porter, who could have really challenged him in November, wouldn't make it that far. So a very strong OC Democrat is nowhere on the ballot, thanks to the political machinations of another Democrat.
4. It briefly mentions taxes, but taxes are really important. Californians pay high taxes to the state, and Republicans are kind of stuck with that since Democrats have all the power in the state capital, so California Republicans are highly motivated to get their federal taxes down as much as possible.
None of this is to say that The Guardian's piece is bad. It is in fact excellent. But I've lived and voted in southern California my whole adult life. I'm seeing the nasty political ads aimed at Orange County voters every time I turn on the TV to watch baseball. I lived in Orange County 1984-1993, when Democrats couldn't get elected to save their souls, I can walk over the county line from where I live now, and my best friend lives in Huntington Beach, the OC town called "radical" for book banning. You cannot simply read the UK coverage of the US and know what Americans know. Chances are the guy who wrote the Guardian piece does know the things I talked about -- he lives in Los Angeles and has been based in the US for over 25 years -- but here's another limitation of relying on the news instead of first-hand experience: news reports are by necessity too short to tell you what people learn through years of lived experience.
*You're probably not aware of how often Brits on the Ship say things that essentially mean "Ew, it's American," but dear god, yes, we decorate for Halloween and kids go trick-or-treating and it's a big deal and it's fun, a lot of us are perfectly happy and successful baking with cup measures, we're sticking with miles, feet and inches, and yes, it's the goddamn World Series and I don't give a flying fuck that it's not an international contest.
I was reacting to your strong Hell posts. I think they were not warranted. In them you come across in a way you wouldn’t want to.
To the contrary, knowing what I know of @Ruth, I suspect she came across exactly as she wanted to.
And I fwiw, I do think her reaction was warranted.
ISTM those not in the centre can appropriately say these things:
1. I'm sorry you're going through this.
2. Is there anything I can do to help? (in this case, no - non-Americans can't vote)
3. I hope this gets better for you soon.
Anything else looks defensive, ignorant, and douchey, IMO. Non-Americans attempting to centre their thoughts and feelings doesn't seem to me to be appropriate, at this sensitive time.
I was going to respond, but I'm shaking too much - anxiety and anger. I'm sitting outside at a coffee place a few blocks from home and an enormous convoy of trucks and cars is going by with Trump signs and flags, honking continuously, disturbing our little business district in our liberal and very gay-friendly city. It's been going on for more than 15 minutes. There are stoplights at every corner, close together, so they can't just motor through.
All I was trying to say basically what I said it goes both ways. US and UK really are very different and it can annoy both sides.
Ruth seemed not to know my long history with the ship and not know how much I have understood and taken in. Her comment about me was misplaced the rest is fair from her side of the pond
I won’t attempt to answer for what Ruth might or might not know, but merely note that she registered on the old Ship as long ago as 2001.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Americans in her situation for whom, ISTM, we do best if we say ‘we’re here for you’ as far as that’s meaningful on an internet forum, and ‘we’re praying for you’.
Even if we’re consistently close observers of American politics we’re unlikely to be able to speak intelligently about a huge and extraordinarily diverse nation 3000 or more miles away.
I was going to respond, but I'm shaking too much - anxiety and anger. I'm sitting outside at a coffee place a few blocks from home and an enormous convoy of trucks and cars is going by with Trump signs and flags, honking continuously, disturbing our little business district in our liberal and very gay-friendly city. It's been going on for more than 15 minutes. There are stoplights at every corner, close together, so they can't just motor through.
@Hugal, you might be confused, but I am not. I don't buy for a moment that UK shipmates are asked to suffer a comparable level of foolishness coming from outsiders on their political threads. And @Nick Tamen was right -- I came across as I meant to.
Bill Clinton's remarks were atrocious and indefensible. And he won't be making decisions in the next administration
Platforming him in Michigan was in the gift of the campaign, and perhaps speaks to the motivations and blind spots of those who will.
Or it speaks to the fact that he left office almost a quarter century ago and has lost more than a little off his fastball. Because in addition to being indefensible, his remarks were colossally stupid.
People can work out the "lesser-evil" thing for themselves and decide whether or not it applies. OTOH if you can't find positive reasons to persuade people to vote for a party, maybe that's the fault of the party, not of the unpersuaded voter.
Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, as is JD Vance. As the humor columnist in the Washington Post said in her endorsement of Harris, "I like elections and want to keep having them." Positive enough for you?
Long periods in power by a single party are the exception rather than the rule, and hoping that voters turn out for a (possibly) "much worse" candidate for the next X election cycles seems a big and not particularly motivating ask, especially if some of them are unsure whether they'll be the price demanded next time.
I have read this at least five times, and I am really not following it. It seems like a complete non sequitur to me. How is the typical length of time in power by a single party relevant? Who is making this ask?
* * *
Walking home yesterday, I was relieved to see that I was far from being the only Long Beach denizen wearing out my middle finger saluting the Trump convoy. Did I say there was an actual garbage truck? There was an actual garbage truck.
Walking home yesterday, I was relieved to see that I was far from being the only Long Beach denizen wearing out my middle finger saluting the Trump convoy. Did I say there was an actual garbage truck? There was an actual garbage truck.
Walking home yesterday, I was relieved to see that I was far from being the only Long Beach denizen wearing out my middle finger saluting the Trump convoy. Did I say there was an actual garbage truck? There was an actual garbage truck.
@Ruth
I had taken my dog to the dog park this morning, where she did her business. On the walk home, I was not paying much attention to her, and all of a sudden she backed up and pooped again next to a Trump yard sign. Yes, I cleaned it up, but I laughed all the way home.
I’m optimistic today. Gonna go ahead and predict a decisive Harris/Walz victory.
Let’s GO!
Amen! May your optimism be well and truly justified! President Harris will ISTM be a welcome breath of fresh air, and a gleam of hope, in these otherwise dark days...
There are an insane number of early voters standing in line, in the driving rain, down at our closest library. i and LL plan to join them as soon as he gets off work, armed with umbrellas, chairs and snacks.
Comments
*clip-clop, clip-clop*
Because you said this:
In other words, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Like I said, I barely have the motivation to ridicule your dim takes. Perhaps you've had a random synaptic connection register that you posted stupidly about the relative goodness of our current candidates. I doubt it, but perhaps it's so. Regardless, you've moved the goal posts to weigh-in on something even more irrelevant than your previous take. I didn't think that was possible, but here we are.
We lot endured four years of Tr*mp. In the same timeframe you lot initiated Brexit, then went through four Tory PMs, all "politically experienced," leading to, and I put it kindly, a cataclysmic Conservative loss of power. You're not proving anything meaningful on this score, and pointing out political bungling is a zero-sum game anyway.
How's the sodding going?
I think buggering, faffing, naffing or pissing would be equally acceptable.
This. One can only hope, and pray (if prayer is of any efficacy), that a smackdown does indeed come to pass. For the sake of all of us.
🙄the immediate context was an issue on which many people feel unable to vote for Harris while not necessarily wanting to vote for Trump.
In total: There were 17.4 million votes for Leave, 16.1 million votes for Remain, and 12.9 million abstentions. A further 18 million people living in the UK were not on the electoral register, including all young people below the age of 18 and many long-term residents who are not citizens, though they contribute to British society and have a stake in it. So, although 17.4 million is a large number, it is only a relative majority, not an absolute one.
Then what?
Multiple arrests of opponents, mass deportations, internment camps, a ban on abortions, pulling the plug on Ukraine...there's much more, no doubt, but these are items already mentioned in news outlets over here.
The Democratic Party, please. “Democrat Party” is intentionally used by Republicans and conservative commentators as a form of disparagement.
Which is American Politics via microscope, and something anyone can do with any issue or combination of issues. Task #1 is voting with the understanding that regardless of how inadequately VP Harris has addressed *my signature issue* to date, abstaining from voting, or voting in an ultimately meaningless political way (i.e. Green Party) bolsters Tr*mp, who doesn't just match Harris in inadequacy of consideration of these issues, but will by any and all measure undermine, oppose, and even criminalize them if given the chance. Even four-eight more years of Biden-Harris Playbook stasis on some of these issues is preferable to Tr*mp. Even a tiny amount of backsliding on some of these issues is preferable to Tr*mp. This is really, really f-ing serious, and I have precious little patience for protest or withhold vote mentalities. Lots and lots of people held their noses and voted for Sec. Clinton in 2016, but plenty of Democrats didn't. It's so dumb, and we cannot afford repeat that, yet communicating that has been more difficult than it ought to be.
So you can appreciate why no American -- let alone the almost categorically aware Americans on these SoF boards -- needs Know-little-to-nothing cranks like @Telford foisting his intergalactically vapid "both candidates are bad" takes into the mix. To not see the myriad differences between Harris and Tr*mp and their respective potential Administrations is to be willfully, woefully ignorant of the most fundamental qualities of each. Further, after being told repeatedly what those differences are, that it still seems too difficult for some to come around on VP Harris while continually opining about how internationally important this election is pretty damn frustrating.
Of course, absolutely, and yes -- my mistake. Very important distinction.
Thanks, @Nick Tamen.
Also, she has an X account and a Substack newsletter. So she's one way or another, probably for very good reasons, okay with contributing content to Elon Musk's platform and helping Substack make money after they refused to de-platform Nazis. Musk and Substack haven't "earned" anything from her, but she is contributing a lot more to them than to Harris with her one vote. People do what they have to do in the situations they're in. As she knows.
@Arethosemyfeet, I happen to have family ties to Kansas; my mother's family homesteaded there when they came to the US in the 1870s, and some of my mom's younger cousins and their children own and work small family farms in Kansas, including that homestead. There's still a family circle letter that my aunt sends me copies of. But of course your point stands. I couldn't tell you about Arkansas what I can tell you about California. Nevertheless, I have a context for US news that people outside the US don't have, one far more finely grained. The sources: a lifetime spent immersed in American culture and an adult lifetime participating in American politics as a voter and occasional volunteer; the things I've picked up from friends and family who live or have lived in Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Nevada, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Washington DC (list off the top of my head); and my own travel in the US. When I read about Nevada, for instance, I have the context of all the things learned from a friend who was the historic preservation officer for Virginia City for a couple of decades, on the state payroll, trying to get stuff done in Carson City, someone who knows Nevada politics inside and out. When I read about Maine, I have the context of things learned from my sister-in-law's brother, who works in state government, and his wife, a healthcare lobbyist there, as well as my own observations and experiences in 10 or so visits. It's just a lot of little things that add up over the years.
Conversely: I fell in love with British literature in high school, studied British lit and history in college, did graduate work specializing in 18th-century British poetry, then was an English professor for a while and was routinely assigned the British lit survey courses. I read UK news and follow UK politics. I remember reading the Brexit vote results while on vacation with my family in Yosemite and being brought to tears. I am interested in the UK, I care about it, I'm well educated about the UK and reasonably well informed -- but I've only visited a few times and never lived in the UK, and I have no strong personal ties there. Contrasting my understanding of the UK with my understanding of the US tells me the difference lived experience makes. Can you get a lot out of reading news about the US? Of course. Does it rival what I get out of it? I doubt it.
Thanks, @Nick Tamen!
Of course, but - and talking here about the situation in multiple countries, not just the US -when every election cycle becomes a referendum on some form of extremism when does normal politics operate? If you are granting the opposition carte blanche to be only slightly less worse ..
.. what's going to be the moment that arrests that slide? (Because you have non-existent leverage to keep that backsliding to a tiny amount).
As it is, many people interpreted Bill Clinton's remarks as putting the foot down on any anti-war/anti-interventionist sentiment, with the clear message that our existing policies will continue as normal and you will abide.
People can work out the "lesser-evil" thing for themselves and decide whether or not it applies. OTOH if you can't find positive reasons to persuade people to vote for a party, maybe that's the fault of the party, not of the unpersuaded voter.
Bill Clinton's remarks were atrocious and indefensible. And he won't be making decisions in the next administration. Who thinks he's in a position to put his foot down on anything?
Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, as is JD Vance. As the humor columnist in the Washington Post said in her endorsement of Harris, "I like elections and want to keep having them." Positive enough for you?
Platforming him in Michigan was in the gift of the campaign, and perhaps speaks to the motivations and blind spots of those who will.
Long periods in power by a single party are the exception rather than the rule, and hoping that voters turn out for a (possibly) "much worse" candidate for the next X election cycles seems a big and not particularly motivating ask, especially if some of them are unsure whether they'll be the price demanded next time.
No, I don't suppose it will - I was merely wondering if she was aware of it...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/02/elon-musk-donald-trump-us-presidential-elections
Be afraid. Be very afraid...
I listened to (was it the editor in chief?) of the Cook Political Report say that 45% percent of voters don't like anything about Trump, 35% percent generally like him, and the remaining 20% don't like Trump but some of them vote for him anyway.
I saw a big banner stretched between two trees while driving today that said on one side "Save America. Save Democracy. Please vote Trump" and on the other side "We may not like Trump. But we need him." (It obviously was not an official Trump-Vance sign. But it was not handmade so someone had paid to have it made and may be selling them.)
I believe very strongly that everyone needs to come together to make sure that Trump is not put back into office. But if the figures above are accurate than there are about 20% of voters who dislike Trump but not enough to either disqualify him as an option in their minds or to convince them to vote for whomever is likeliest to beat him.
Yes I am aware how often Brits say those things. I have been on the ship 20 plus years. I have seen all that stuff and more, particularly Halloween. Please don’t judge me without knowing the full info. You must also be aware of the amazing lack of knowledge of most things about the UK we get. It is annoying for us.
I was reacting to your strong Hell posts. I think they were not warranted. In them you come across in a way you wouldn’t want to.
It doesn’t help when things like the commentator not knowing the Prime Minister happen. It backs up the bad stereotype.
People over here comment without having the full picture, that is true. The same can be said about the US commenting on the UK. The lack of knowledge can be astounding. We don’t tend to make that much fuss about it. I know why the World Series was named that. I know the arguments to and fro around US cultural imperialism, and much more
I think this is true of you too, Hugal.
ISTM that the US, and American shipmates, are in a moment of political crisis. People in crisis should be the centre of concern, so to speak. It feels to me like a political version of the "rings of support" theory. Those in the further-out rings should not attempt to make their thoughts and feelings the centre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_theory_(psychology)
It's like complaining to the husband of a woman with cancer how stressed you are about her condition.
ISTM those not in the centre can appropriately say these things:
1. I'm sorry you're going through this.
2. Is there anything I can do to help? (in this case, no - non-Americans can't vote)
3. I hope this gets better for you soon.
Anything else looks defensive, ignorant, and douchey, IMO. Non-Americans attempting to centre their thoughts and feelings doesn't seem to me to be appropriate, at this sensitive time.
And I fwiw, I do think her reaction was warranted.
This.
They're having fun.
Just 🙏.
Ruth seemed not to know my long history with the ship and not know how much I have understood and taken in. Her comment about me was misplaced the rest is fair from her side of the pond
I have a great deal of sympathy for Americans in her situation for whom, ISTM, we do best if we say ‘we’re here for you’ as far as that’s meaningful on an internet forum, and ‘we’re praying for you’.
Even if we’re consistently close observers of American politics we’re unlikely to be able to speak intelligently about a huge and extraordinarily diverse nation 3000 or more miles away.
🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯 and also 🫂 and ❤️🩹
Yes but things seem to have got a bit confused I wanted to be clear.
Or it speaks to the fact that he left office almost a quarter century ago and has lost more than a little off his fastball. Because in addition to being indefensible, his remarks were colossally stupid.
I have read this at least five times, and I am really not following it. It seems like a complete non sequitur to me. How is the typical length of time in power by a single party relevant? Who is making this ask?
Let’s GO!
I had taken my dog to the dog park this morning, where she did her business. On the walk home, I was not paying much attention to her, and all of a sudden she backed up and pooped again next to a Trump yard sign. Yes, I cleaned it up, but I laughed all the way home.
Amen! May your optimism be well and truly justified! President Harris will ISTM be a welcome breath of fresh air, and a gleam of hope, in these otherwise dark days...