President Trump

So, during a particularly shitty 4 hours on the M6/M40 last night I listened to the entire 3 hrs of trump with Joe Rogan. On the whole not particularly enlightening and I don't recommend giving the time to it unless you are particularly interested.
Rogan tried to initially take trump down the route of how he had been victimised by 'the system'. Surprisingly trump didn't seem to want to go very far with that. The first hour seemed to be mostly trump repeating how loved he is by everyone and how everything he has done ever has been an incredible success I found this daft, as nearly every billionaire, film star, sports star or whatever that has reached the top generally has to endure many failures and knock backs - the ability to bounce back from these is what makes successful people. I think a psychologist could put a label on this but I assume some sort of narcissism.
Rogan did press him a little and sort of had him on the ropes a couple of times and I think could have pushed harder for a straight answer. Notably re acceptance of the last election result and how he would have stopped/prevented the current situations in Ukraine and the middle east. Trump made many claims of successes which were I not driving I might have fact checked - I think rogan could have though. Trump is rather adept at slipping out of difficulty questions simply by linking his answer to a long meandering and unrelated story. He managed to divert the chat to MMA / UFC for quite some time.
Trump made some very compelling arguments for huge import tariffs or the threat of them as a solution to various economic problems. I'm no economist but I think he ignored the possible second order effects of such economic isolationism.
Similarly he made sound arguments for voter id and no postal voting. Cited the french system, and an electoral commission led by ex president carter in the 80s - I can't find that, I tried as it sounded interesting. His most compelling argument was that anything but paper votes in a ballot box can be cheated and both parties have tried to include /exclude certain voters to their advantage historically.
He made the usual gags about bidens fitness for office, Kamala's IQ and legitimacy etc. seems to be very impressed by 'smart' and successful people - mostly business people and military generals on the ground as opposed to the staff officers in the pentagon who I imagine gave him some trouble in office. His take on the environment is unsurprisingly pro oil and pretty dismissive of climate change. A lot of blame thrown at china/India for that and raises some valid objections to wind power.
Surprisingly he seemed very aware of the possibilities and danger of nuclear power. Also showing genuine fear and concern for the perilous state of the globes expanding nuclear arsenal's as well as pride in making Americas nukes great again which seemed contradictory.
Very pro Israel - worryingly so. Anti china, and surprisingly very anti Taiwan who he sees as robbing the chip industry from the US. I think he'll let Putin have Ukraine although he reckons Putin would never have dared invade if he were in office. He'll start a(nother) trade war via tariffs with china/Taiwan, and will let netanyahu do whatever he likes (and give US military assistance).
He has some tittivating insights into secret files on aliens and JFK, without actually giving anything new away. On JFK in particular he has promised to open all the files - he didn't last time he was in office as some key players who may be named were still alive. He was pretty cute throwing this and the MMA stuff into the conversation as he knows Rogan will take the bait.
Interestingly he was quite open on where he and RFK deviate. Certainly on pharma. Trump seems to be targeting food additives and pesticides instead - I imagine more a reflection on the power of lobbyists than conscience and conviction.
Overall his audience will love this, and the people who already hated him will hate it. This probably has more reach than anything else he (or Kamala) will do this side of the election, won't have done him any harm and may do some good. He's good entertainment and can 'freeball' as Rogan puts it - I don't think many politicians can, certainly not Kamala.
I think the offer for Kamala to go on Rogan is still open. I don't think she would do as well in that format as trump, but if she is slipping in the polls it may be worth doing as a last roll of the dice.
 
I typically don’t pay too much attention to polling data, but this analysis is particularly well thought-out.

tldr; There is a massive (and growing) correlation between Senate and Presidental voting. The Senate races, in swing states, show a healthy skew towards Democrats, yet national poll Presidential data in the same states shows a much tighter race. Why? As the article states, Averages like those from 538 and RCP try to counter these biases by minimizing outliers and accounting for partisan effects. However, the problem is that every publicly released poll is biased. No one is releasing a $25,000–$80,000 poll out of the goodness of their heart. When a campaign releases a poll, it’s not to inform the public; it’s to shape public perception in favor of their candidate or agenda.

 
On what grounds?
Trump's disgusting and I'd not shed a tear if he dropped dead. But welcoming another assassination attempt (which would disgust many) is just plain daft and shows no understanding of U.S. politics. The reaction to his death from a bullet would guarantee the election of whichever Republican candidate took his place and unleash trouble in the streets that would make Jan 6th look like a tea-party.
 
This is what Mike Johnson—who is a constitutional lawyer, and who is the current speaker of the house, a position in which the person swears to protect the constitution of the United States—actually said when pressed on Trump’s “we have a little secret” comments at the American Nazi Party rally in NYC on Sunday (comments in [brackets] are my own):

Outcry over Trump’s hint at ‘little secret’ with House Republicans

Critics condemn ‘sinister’ remark that suggests potential Trump-Mike Johnson plot to settle contested election

Donald Trump faced mounting suspicion of hatching a plot to steal next week’s presidential election as Democrats and commentators focused on his references to a “little secret” at Sunday night’s tumultuous Madison Square Garden rally. The allusions initially attracted little notice amid the angry backlash provoked by racist jokes and incendiary rhetoric from a succession of warm-up speakers, including an offensive comment about Puerto Ricans that even Trump’s own campaign felt obliged to disavow.

However, some observers and Democratic politicians believed the most telling remark of the night came from the Republican nominee himself after he introduced Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, on stage and alluded to a shared secret.



“Speaking of secrets, Harris knew Biden was physically and mentally impaired and kept it a secret,” he
[Johnson] wrote, referring to unproven accusations that the White House had covered up an age-related decline in the president’s cognitive abilities.

“They also knew that Russia collusion was a fake
[Johnson, of all people, knows that Russian collusion and interference was not “fake”] and kept that secret too. It appears that all those secrets didn’t matter to the media because they all helped Democrats [none of these claims he is making were “secrets”; all of the claims were widely reported and discredited]. But this one might help Donald Trump and now they care [again, they always cared, just as the care now; these are more false claims to muddy the waters]?

“By definition, a secret is not to be shared – and I don’t intend to share this one
[Johnson is tacitly admitting that they have a plan to intervene via his constitutional role should Trump lose the election].”

 
The only thing that will decide this election is the amount of votes cast for each candidate (and the quirks of the electoral college system). This is all getting a bit paranoid now and both sides are making noises to suggest if they don't win the result may be illegitimate. Pretty irresponsible.
 
The only thing that will decide this election is the amount of votes cast for each candidate (and the quirks of the electoral college system). This is all getting a bit paranoid now and both sides are making noises to suggest if they don't win the result may be illegitimate. Pretty irresponsible.
One side is making a lot more noise than the other.
 
One side also has more form than the other.
Indeed.

Any claim that “both sides” are equally threatening to subvert the results of the election if they don’t win is made in bad faith and should be treated with due disdain.

Some of the comments being made in this thread as of late would make Chamberlain proud.
 
The only thing that will decide this election is the amount of votes cast for each candidate (and the quirks of the electoral college system). This is all getting a bit paranoid now and both sides are making noises to suggest if they don't win the result may be illegitimate. Pretty irresponsible.
Being a tad paranoid in a dangerous situation is natural and fair. I think the Democrats are right to right at this time to be very concerned about what is spouted by the Republicans.

I hope the authorities are currently preparing for the worst by reviewing their roles, responsibilities, scope, procedures, etc. The US's future could be reliant on people knowing their jobs.
 
Being a tad paranoid in a dangerous situation is natural and fair. I think the Democrats are right to right at this time to be very concerned about what is spouted by the Republicans.

I hope the authorities are currently preparing for the worst by reviewing their roles, responsibilities, scope, procedures, etc. The US's future could be reliant on people knowing their jobs.
In this case, it is not only “fair”, it is everyone’s duty to call it out and work to combat it. Those that refuse to do so, at this point, are complicit.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of “good Germans” about these days which want to minimise, obfuscate, or ignore the mounting danger of the rise of this new fascist movement.

I still strongly encourage any interested to listen to the first segment of this episode of On The Media (NPR series). It features a professor of Philosophy at Yale University who has written several books about fascism.

He actually highlights how many aspects of MAGA rhetoric, policies, and governmental actions are straight from Nazi Germany. And how refusing to acknowledge that, or even call it what it is, is similar to what happened in the 1920s, when many refused to recognise the danger of the rhetoric and promised policies and actions Hitler and his surrogates were espousing, which helped the Nazis rise to power and commit myriad atrocities.

His books are also must reads, in my opinion.

This is absolutely a hill I will die on, as I refuse to be complicit in the rise of the American Nazi Party.


Fascism, Fear and the Science Behind Horror Films

Host Brooke Gladstone speaks with Jason Stanley, a professor of Philosophy at Yale University and who has written several books on fascism. He first warned about Trump's fascist rhetoric in 2018, and explains why it's more important than ever to call it by its name.

https://one.npr.org/i/1261127421:1261127423
 
Trump is now strong favourite in all the categories bar One and closing in on the Popular Vote. Remarkable tbh.

Could he really do a clean sweep?

To be President.........1/2
Control of Senate......1/6
Control of House.......4/5
Popular Vote..............13/8
 
Trump is now strong favourite in all the categories bar One and closing in on the Popular Vote. Remarkable tbh.

Could he really do a clean sweep?

To be President.........1/2
Control of Senate......1/6
Control of House.......4/5
Popular Vote..............13/8

pretty depressing he is guaranteed to have control of the senate, will be able to influence a lot of legislation and set agendas.
 
The only thing that will decide this election is the amount of votes cast for each candidate (and the quirks of the electoral college system). This is all getting a bit paranoid now and both sides are making noises to suggest if they don't win the result may be illegitimate. Pretty irresponsible.
So based on what Trump said and then what the speaker said, you think people asking questions about that is paranoid.

You’re both siding this to the n-th degree aren’t you.
 
Trump is now strong favourite in all the categories bar One and closing in on the Popular Vote. Remarkable tbh.

Could he really do a clean sweep?

To be President.........1/2
Control of Senate......1/6
Control of House.......4/5
Popular Vote..............13/8
He can only do one thing which is win the presidency.

Which he will not do. The senate is the most likely one given which seats are up for a vote in 2024. If he wins the popular vote, I’ll personally send you £1k and then quit the forum. It’s just not going to happen.

Can you give us a break on the daily erroneous odds please.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top