Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

The only comforting thing is that pollsters have gotten it wrong both ways in the past

Lindsay Graham playing cheap election theater, again. Introducing a bill to end jus soli for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders.

The 14th amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to everyone born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Graham thinks it cute to define a new law that would announce the children of illegal immigrants/temporary visa holders are not so subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - which on its face is ludicrous, it would mean those children are not subject to our laws or our enforcement, they could get away with murder? And we wouldn't have any say in it, because they are not subject to our jurisdiction. Never mind that this would be an Article 15 human rights violation insofar as it makes some individuals Stateless.

So it makes for some droll midweek hay, but it has no chance of becoming law, least of all when Republicans don't control the agenda in the Senate - and I don't think you could even get the Republican votes in the House to pass this. Sure is a great way to titillate the base, but nothing more.

Clinton was right and should never walked back the basket of deplorables comment.

Funny you should mention that…

“In 2016, I famously described half of Trump’s supporters as ‘the basket of deplorables.’ I was talking about the people who are drawn to his racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia — you name it. The people for whom his bigotry is a feature, not a bug. It was an unfortunate choice of words and bad politics, but it also got at an important truth. Just look at everything that has happened in the years since, from Charlottesville to Jan. 6,” Clinton wrote.

Clinton previously expressed regret over her comment, which was widely shared by critics. In 2016, Clinton said she was “grossly generalistic” when describing Trump supporters. At a New York fundraiser, she accused Trump of lifting up racist and xenophobic people.

In her new op-ed, Clinton said “deplorables” was too kind of a word to describe the worst of MAGA.

“The masks have come off, and if anything, ‘deplorable’ is too kind a word for the hate and violent extremism we’ve seen from some Trump supporters,” she wrote.

(MediaITE)

Free copy of the op ed:

https://wapo.st/3MXRlvU

That will be sure to rile up some of the ‘deplorables’ so coming out with this article right now is certainly a choice. I don’t really know how it will play out now.

She has a point though, all the things we’ve seen since her basket comment, Charlottesville and beyond, Jan 6, etc., it’s hard to suggest that she was wrong in her assessment, shown to be far more cautionary and prophetic than arrogant.

Now, it's a long op-ed and she says a lot more than that, so it's definitely worth a read, eg. some enlightening reading in there about efforts to and examples of deprogramming white supremacists. It spotlights one Shannon Foley: a reformed white supremacist who works to deprogram other white supremacists such as one girl in the piece, Samantha, who was introduced to white supremacy through an ex boyfriend who was a Unite the Right (Charlottesville) organizer.

I'm not sure the masks were ever on. I think the only thing that's really happened is that the standard of language/rhetoric has slid downward in a steady incremental way. You could almost set a watch by the process. Trump or crony says something heretofore considered outrageous or too much. Everyone goes 'can you believe what they said?'. Usual suspects go, 'eh, wasn't actually that bad' or 'it's hypocritical for the left to be mad about this' or some other equivocation. After a few days people are no longer shocked by it and the Overton Window inches right a bit further.

That's why Trump's number one beau at the moment is Laura Loomer - a woman who likened Harris to a 'DEI Shanique' recently because, in MAGAland, you cannot get a good job as a person of colour unless you are hired on the basis of diversity, or unless you're Candice Owens, possibly.

Haven't read it yet, but FFS Hilary would you shut up and go away till after the election? Your name gets the old fart GQP excited, and we don't need them excited we need them sitting at home and forgetting to vote. REALLY REALLY stupid to get her name in the news, useless loser that she was. Running against the worst candidate the GOP has fielded since Reagan, should have easily won, and stupid arrogance blew it plus a massive sense of entitlement.

I'm sure Trump will be all over this once it filters into the rotting orange matter that compromises what's left of his brain.

Shut up, Hilary, go away. You've been useless and remain so.

Edit: It's a brief read. She's still useless, stop it about empathy. Her daughter is a perfect example of the 'protected class' that Peggy Noonan described in a great editorial in 2016:

https://archive.ph/9ERrg

The unprotected felt lumped into 'deplorable' when they weren't. Because they'd been hearing about being racists, from the protected classniks like HRC, for decades. Chelsea works for the "NonProfit industrial complex," never did get that med degree from Stanford and has skated on her name. Chelsea's 3 kids will do the same.

HRC never had anything for anyone other than the well off, and here she comes again. There are far better ways to slag Trump than bring up the fact he attracts and encourages extremists. He's ga-ga, has got no morals and no loyalties, and is dumb and lazy to boot. Don't pick on his followers - if you can, get a few of them to vote for Harris.

The editorial at least mostly focuses on rehabilitating white supremacists, but this election being so close no one needs HRC bringing up what is a VERY failing message for the democrats at this late date. Useless person. Go away, so damn sick of Clintons.

Why's that.

Because if she says half is supporters are not a basket of deplorables, it still suggests the other half are.

Not just Trump but people, on both sides I might add, make up all manner of claims that it seems no-one fact checks or calls them on it.

I was looking for a clip of Rush Limbaugh from many years ago claiming that Obama's trip to India was going to cost the tax payer $100M a day, and with him was apparently going one third of the US Navy. Can't find it now :(

Some people don't fact anything they read or hear. They assume editors or producers would have already done the fact checking before it gets published. Depending on the publication, we all know that is often not the case.

It would sound like a retraction but it wouldn't be...

If I remember correctly, it comes from an exchange in the House of Commons during the Thatcher years- Denis Skinner was supposed to have said that ' half the members opposite are crooks' and when asked by the speaker to withdraw the remark did so by saying ' half the members opposite are not crooks'

There's a YouTube channel I'd suggest watching called Perun, he does defence economics focusing on the war in Ukraine

Short story, the US is a key supplier to Ukraine and will remain so in the near future. While many European states have the money, knowledge and production capacity they don't have the stockpiles of munitions ready to go

In addition Europeans have been slow to ramp production of key munitions like artillery shells which has meant the US is still the main producer.

This was somewhat offset by the Czech initiative earlier this year where they basically went shopping around for shells and managed to buy around 1 million, largely from nations like India and South Korea which have large artillery parks (NATO tends to focus significantly on air dominance over artillery dominance)

Overall in Ukraine, things don't look great on the surface but it's important to keep it all.in context. The Ukrainians are focusing on defence and are not showing any signs of rolling over. If the US stops shipments it's unlikely Ukraine will just surrender, Russia will still need to defeat the Ukrainian military on the field

From Russia's viewpoint, while they have the initiative there's signs of their offensive burning out. They need to recruit 30,000 soldiers every month to replace the ones getting turned into paste, and there's signs they're struggling to match that. So far the Russian military has had to vastly increase signing up bonuses to try and keep encouraging recruits

In addition the Russian economy is seriously heating up. So far the wartime economy has actually benefitted many employees in Russia due to pay rises, however consumer goods and fuel are going up in price (partly because the Ukrainians are trying to turn Russian oil storage facilities into an endangered species. Their own analysis is saying that the economy is going to majorly run out of steam around early 2026 if this keeps up

They've also running low on soviet era vehicles and munitions to feed their army, and new production generally can't keep up. To be clear, they'll never run out but will reach a point where their new production is balanced against losses. This is behind their switch in tactics to more infantry based assaults, the so called meat waves

All this is to say that the war is far from over and both sides are not showing signs of giving up. It's too early to call victory for either side yet

Also I just realised I said "short story" then launched into an essay, sorry about that 😂

Great post thanks!

Yeah even with your relatively optimistic outlook, it’s a long hard slog and what sort of country will be left? Maybe Europe needs to shout louder at America- there are massive knock on effects -.greater migration within Europe increased pressure on housing and supports etc but a hugely destabilised European nation as a whole - not something that will be good for America regardless of what Trump might say about let Russia invade.

Im seeing criticism of Harris online and in news articles being seeing as Biden 2- she needs to plough her own furrow and doesn’t have long left to show this - I know it’s a risk but as Trump is seeing more favourable when it comes to security no less the economy, she needs to start being identified as an independent thinker, and a good one at that.

I am sure you have watched the whole 24 minute video as you posted it here in good faith can you timestamp to the:

"same verbal diarrohea and dodging of answering questions" .

and

"cliched phrases regurgitated over and over again with little to no details on policy or how to solve issues"

Thanks.

For someone who claims to not be a Trump supporter, you never post any of his interviews and say anything similar. And you'd have plenty to criticise from his interviews.