GRALISTAIR
Established Member
I agree. Bernie Sanders possibly, but I would describe the Democrats in the USA a bit like Liberal Democrats in the UK. So possibly slightly left of centre but definitely NOT left wing.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The 2024 US presidential election.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No they haven't.
Trump is very, very bad but his unpredictability means nasty leaders like Putin will sue for peace on their terms. Fears of conflict in Taiwan will decrease slightly too.
I am saying that the progressive vote totalled significantly more than the right wing vote. If you could disprove that for me, please do so.
Also, 37% is something of a collapse, compared to 2019.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
At least we (probably) won't have a situation where Trump is running the US and Badenoch and/or Farage are running the UK. Imagine how depressing that would be.
However, I still think things are a bit dangerous for Labour if they continue with FPTP. They should use the opportunity to reform the electoral system as a progressive coalition will almost certainly beat a right-wing coalition. On the other hand Labour on their own are not guaranteed to beat the Tories, or a Tory-Reform alliance. I feel that just in the last three months or so attitudes in the UK have turned markedly rightwards and, while I said otherwise over the summer, I think Badenoch as PM is now a realistic possibility if Labour do not watch their backs and do everything they can to prevent it, even if that requires a change to the voting system.
Last edited:
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Oh come on - hyperbole much!
I'm surprised it was that much of a difference between the candidates. I expected knife-edge.
But I still really don't understand why more than half of voters went for him. To me he is just a thug and a yob. He is no George W. Bush, no Cheney, no Reagan. I don't agree with the politics of those three but at least they are or were basically civil and reasonably sane human beings.
I'd put the Dems to the left of the current Tories. They don't go in for the same populism and anti-immigrant rhetoric that the post-2019 Tories do. However I would place the Dems about the same position on the axis as Major or Cameron.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Confirmed. Harris will speak to the nation at 4pm. She has called Donald Trump to concede the race. This from Newsweek:
So invasion of Nato wouldn't be an issue? Along with the "genius" move of invading Ukraine?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The same guy who encourages Putin to do as he pleases?
I can claim (proudly I have to admit) that of all the States I have visited (only five I will admit, if you exclude airport transfers) none have ever voted for Trump. Not in 2016, not in 2020, and not now.
Florida has never appealed to me either. Flat and boring, and now a hotbed of reactionary right-wing conservatism.
How do you envisage “World War 3” starting, if not in a conflict between the USA or one of its proxies and another large power?
Am I the only one who thinks in retrospect that it might have been better if he had won in 2020? He didn't seem quite so unhinged and extreme then. He seemed to go off on one immediately after the 2020 election; I would argue that he only became a genuine extremist four years ago.
If he had won then we might just have seen "more or the same" as 2017-20 (which, while not good, wasn't anything like as extreme as what we've seen during this campaign), and today we'd be celebrating the end of his reign, and probably be celebrating a commanding Democrat win from their candidate (who would probably not be Biden, but someone more dynamic).
I know I wouldn't have been nearly as upset if he had won in 2020 as I am today!
If he had won then we might just have seen "more or the same" as 2017-20 (which, while not good, wasn't anything like as extreme as what we've seen during this campaign), and today we'd be celebrating the end of his reign, and probably be celebrating a commanding Democrat win from their candidate (who would probably not be Biden, but someone more dynamic).
I know I wouldn't have been nearly as upset if he had won in 2020 as I am today!
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Of course it would but you said in your post that the USA had just voted for WW3 to start. They have not.
I think Biden partly won due to Covid in 2020. I am shocked that Trump achieved the same winning margin as 20 years ago though. I could understand the anti Hillary dynamic in 2016 but I don't really get it this time, he has really expanded support among Hispanics and other groups though. It's a really intriguing appeal. Maybe the economy is part of the explanation as well.
I guess the hope is the GOP will be turfed out of the House and the Senate in 2026 as many people will be sick of their authoritarianism and their attacks on personal freedom by then. The most dangerous time is arguably the next two years.
I'd also hope that if the "Jesus He Knows Me" (Genesis, 1992) types do manage to ban abortion, it will result in a commanding Dem win next time.
(It is ironic that the American right call themselves "libertarians" yet they are obsessed with crackdowns on personal freedom and telling people what they can and cannot do with their own body, for example. It seems that American-style "libertarianism" extends only to the right to bear arms, the right to find ways to legally avoid taxes, and the right for a business person to make megabucks at the expense of everyone else. Also, try walking in the American countryside away from designated national parks, etc. A hell of a lot more difficult than it is in the UK or other European countries).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The economy has been hit due to the after-effects of Covid plus Putin's imperialism; it's worrying people don't understand that. It shows the power of propaganda.
Last edited:
brad465
Veteran Member
If Trump puts tariffs on "aluminum", the UK will be okay because we use "aluminium" 
Strathclyder
Established Member
Florida is the only US state I've ever visited, when I holidayed there in (I think) summer of 2007. I have distant family relatives in Tampa, one (an uncle) is vehemently anti-Trump/Republican and has been since at least 2015/16. We haven't spoken in years, but I suspect he's feeling much the same as I am right now. I had wanted to go back over and visit, but I'm putting that idea on the backburner for the forseeable future.
I suspect the GOP would've cried 'stolen election' in such a scenario anyway in some shape or form, regardless of who the candidate was. The foundations for what happened last night was laid decades in advance; Trump has merely allowed the shared mask the party shared to fall away through his impotence, depravity, rank stupidity and outright denial of reality. A good chunk of the populace voted for him/the GOP not in spite of, but because of this. Ironic then that they'll be among those he'll target first should he go full Hitler.
Purple Train
Established Member
Many Americans don't care what Trump's foreign policy is like. Why would you? You're the most successful country in the world, from an early age the flag - the ultimate expression of your country's sovereignty and power - is sanctified and its importance drummed into you. You are a nation of dreamers - the American Dream is a concept enshrined in culture and central to the future and prospects of any American. After all, the most successful country in the world didn't get there by passively remaining on the sidelines, in the equivalent of a sensible, comfortable, mediocre job. It rose to the top with a little luck and some sharp elbows. People like Trump seem like the embodiment of that American Dream because they are there, at the top, with the power, with the money. It's his name on the tower. It's his name that has that universal recognition. It doesn't matter that thousands upon thousands of broken hopes and shattered aims prove that the American Dream is nothing more than a streetcar named desire. Those thousands upon thousands of broken hopes and shattered aims prove that those thousands upon thousands of broken dreamers simply didn't have sharp elbows, acumen, nous.
You have no taxation without representation. You, yourself, are taxed. Therefore, you, yourself, are represented. How do you best represent yourself? By voting for the person who will give you, yourself, a better quality of life. Lower petrol prices. Lower food prices. Lower taxes. You, yourself, are pretty comfortably-off, mind. But why should that matter? It's about the ability to get a quality of life that is better still. You're American. You share in that collective dream, that you have been taught to dream every night since you were a child. How can you best realise that dream? By having room enough to use those sharp elbows of yours. Success follows an exponential curve, in your experience anyway. And immigrants? It's the American Dream. That should be pointed enough for you. And, after all, they seem to be pretty horrible - the Stanley Kowalskis of this generation.
There is a left wing that opposes you. A left wing that is your only realistic choice, except Trump. The politics of envy writ large, as you see it. Over-taxing, under-representing. How can you be properly represented by a government that loathes you? And they support abortion too, well, that does it. You have Christian principles - more than that, you believe every word of the Bible - and this goes so deeply against it. Your principles inform your vote, after all. If any would not work, neither should he eat - that's 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11, and Moses and Paul are quite against a lot of this liberal agenda. And that's not forgetting the fact that all these important preachers whose words you hang upon are endorsing the Republicans as well.
Not a million miles away, although it could just as well be, the dreams of others - parents and children - are silent amidst the clamour. An immigrant parent, juggling awful jobs in terrible conditions for paltry pay to put food on the table. A young, black child, still facing adversity and hardship simply for the colour of their skin as opposed to the content of their character, despite the dream of a man over 60 years ago.
They, too, are America. But they are not the America that the American in the first half of this post sees, thinks of, dreams of. The United States, the American dream - surely they are universal experiences, just as they honour the same flag, sing the same patriotic songs, have the same President as the Americans a million miles away?
The fatal flaw in the first American's logic, of course, is that their ancestors were likely to have been towards the bottom of the ladder once. That they know: it has been drummed into them as proof of the American Dream. But what were they then? A recent immigrant, travelling to a new world in search of a better life. I know I've already thrown in a couple of references, but, looking at A Streetcar Named Desire, Stanley Kowalski is undoubtedly brutal. Either the inevitable result of nasty foreigners coming into the country or just one gone rogue, depending on your point of view.
Dig deeper, however, and his physical brutality is a metaphor for that American Dream. Sharp elbows, no compromises, all the advantages you can get. It is a very powerful critique, but it needs digging out. It needs the reader to consciously get a spade, and start digging.
As a classic of American literature, I'm sure that a fair amount of the American population will be, to some degree, familiar with it. But how many of them will go out of the way to deliberately dig up that fundamental pillar of the cultural dream they were taught as children and have carried with them all their life?
That's why (in my opinion, at least) Trump is so appealing, and why Harris's techniques and language didn't work. It was always going to win over the people who simply thought Biden was too old, but I don't think it would have substantially won over the people who were voting for Trump as the "least worst". I may just be talking nonsense - but that's my interpretation!
You have no taxation without representation. You, yourself, are taxed. Therefore, you, yourself, are represented. How do you best represent yourself? By voting for the person who will give you, yourself, a better quality of life. Lower petrol prices. Lower food prices. Lower taxes. You, yourself, are pretty comfortably-off, mind. But why should that matter? It's about the ability to get a quality of life that is better still. You're American. You share in that collective dream, that you have been taught to dream every night since you were a child. How can you best realise that dream? By having room enough to use those sharp elbows of yours. Success follows an exponential curve, in your experience anyway. And immigrants? It's the American Dream. That should be pointed enough for you. And, after all, they seem to be pretty horrible - the Stanley Kowalskis of this generation.
There is a left wing that opposes you. A left wing that is your only realistic choice, except Trump. The politics of envy writ large, as you see it. Over-taxing, under-representing. How can you be properly represented by a government that loathes you? And they support abortion too, well, that does it. You have Christian principles - more than that, you believe every word of the Bible - and this goes so deeply against it. Your principles inform your vote, after all. If any would not work, neither should he eat - that's 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11, and Moses and Paul are quite against a lot of this liberal agenda. And that's not forgetting the fact that all these important preachers whose words you hang upon are endorsing the Republicans as well.
Not a million miles away, although it could just as well be, the dreams of others - parents and children - are silent amidst the clamour. An immigrant parent, juggling awful jobs in terrible conditions for paltry pay to put food on the table. A young, black child, still facing adversity and hardship simply for the colour of their skin as opposed to the content of their character, despite the dream of a man over 60 years ago.
They, too, are America. But they are not the America that the American in the first half of this post sees, thinks of, dreams of. The United States, the American dream - surely they are universal experiences, just as they honour the same flag, sing the same patriotic songs, have the same President as the Americans a million miles away?
The fatal flaw in the first American's logic, of course, is that their ancestors were likely to have been towards the bottom of the ladder once. That they know: it has been drummed into them as proof of the American Dream. But what were they then? A recent immigrant, travelling to a new world in search of a better life. I know I've already thrown in a couple of references, but, looking at A Streetcar Named Desire, Stanley Kowalski is undoubtedly brutal. Either the inevitable result of nasty foreigners coming into the country or just one gone rogue, depending on your point of view.
Dig deeper, however, and his physical brutality is a metaphor for that American Dream. Sharp elbows, no compromises, all the advantages you can get. It is a very powerful critique, but it needs digging out. It needs the reader to consciously get a spade, and start digging.
As a classic of American literature, I'm sure that a fair amount of the American population will be, to some degree, familiar with it. But how many of them will go out of the way to deliberately dig up that fundamental pillar of the cultural dream they were taught as children and have carried with them all their life?
That's why (in my opinion, at least) Trump is so appealing, and why Harris's techniques and language didn't work. It was always going to win over the people who simply thought Biden was too old, but I don't think it would have substantially won over the people who were voting for Trump as the "least worst". I may just be talking nonsense - but that's my interpretation!
They voted for a guy who directly said he wants Nato to be invaded. How much more clear could it be???
brad465
Veteran Member
The Democrats were going to have a hard time with the Senate this week regardless: this particular class was 24D:10R, so there was a low potential to attack and defence was much harder. However in 2026, if no constitutional changes in this area arise, the distribution will be 13D:20R, so the Republicans will have the double whammy of more seats to defend and mid-term protest votes.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
How so?
The point with NATO is that there is a potential for article 5 to be meaningless.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
They have not voted for WW3
Not only will they not care, they wouldn’t even notice. ”Overseas” tourists account for just 5.8% of Florida’s visitors. (with apologies for linking to the page of the Florida Governor)
That’s putting it mildly.
That is a superb piece of writing, and a great assessment.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,347
There may not be much of Florida left to visit in a few years. I wonder if the displaced people will thank Trump when much of it is destroyed by increasingly ferocious storms - partly caused by failure to discourage oil burning by non-believers in global warming.
1D54
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 1,482
A tongue in cheek remark made when asked about NATO members who fail to meet their financial obligations.
He said Russia can do what the hell they want to them but surely no one took him at his word.. Well almost no one!
londonteacher
Member
I would be surprised if they change the rules. It could backfire if the Democrats win the next election and then decide to stick to them.
To be fair Starmer could change the system here also with his majority, but is unlikely too.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Trump is a showman and wouldn't take too much for granted in what he said over this campaign most of it is for effect. We all want dramatic changes whichever side of the centre line we are on but majority of us know that doesn't happen but Trump appealed to a lot of groups in giving them hope but with no intention of delivering on most of it. Harris was too truthful but as we've seen in numerous elections around the world that no longer has the value it once had to the electorate.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Worryingly: there is only one person hearing those words that matters: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin!
It might all be nonsense, but it might not be. Trump has said many things about NATO, few of them good.
He should do. He is at far more risk of losing the next election if he doesn't, than if he does (accepting that he would have to govern as part of a progressive coalition).
I can just see it: Badenoch 30%, Labour 27%, Lib Dems 15%, Reform 10%, Greens 8%. Badenoch likely wins under FPTP but the progressives win under a proportional system.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Trump is an isolationist and a nationalist. So other world leaders won’t sue for peace now he’s in charge because, ultimately, they know he won’t lift a finger to stop them doing whatever they want.
Just as Trump was the one who pulled out of Afghanistan, he’ll be the one do pulls all support from Ukraine. Without US weaponry they’re screwed, Russia just pile bodies into the meat grinder until they win.
Apart from Israel, of course. The Republicans will let them carry on their genocide with impunity.
A stable and predictable administration like Biden’s allows belligerents to cause much more upset and havoc. That’s because Putin, Netanyahu, and their ilk are not irrational by nature, but rather strategists who make choices. Putin’s in particular appears to have been well calculated.
If you have a bizarre and unpredictable leader like Trump, the chance of conflict decreases.
Who would you like to provoke? Someone whose responses are predictable and can be mitigated, or someone who might either do nothing or might launch a nuke?
- Status