US Presidential Election, Nov 5th 2024

[flook]

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Tee hee.

Everybody here who has done business with Donald Trump stand up.

Oh.

I suggest everyone else do some research on doing business with him. I would suggest around 92 percent or so who have would never vote for him. Including nearly all his cabinet.

But what do we know, eh?

I'm not foolish enough to do business with him. :)

 

[Dax777]

The naïveté is incredible.

Rogan’s audience supported Trump 2-1 BEFORE the election according to Edison.

His audience would have wanted to see a pig-sticking, not have their minds changed. Rogan knows this. Do you think he does his job for free, out of the goodness of his heart? He might have been fair, probably would have been actually. But of what benefit would that have been to Harris? Even if there was some, the opportunity cost was just a few weeks before the election.

The downside risk for Harris was greater than the upside. Whose mind was she going to change?

And he ended up supporting Trump anyhow. Shocker. Of course there’s no complaining from his fans about another dumb celebrity endorsing someone.

It’s over — you won. Well, now you get a full red slate to make the U.S. the way you want it.

No excuses if things aren’t a lot better for EVERYONE in the nation in four years.

The highlighted above was all you had to say. That was the point at issue. And on that point you agree with me and disagree with Chicago Blue.

Thank you!

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The highlighted above was all you had to say. That was the point at issue. And on that point you agree with me and disagree with Chicago Blue.

Thank you!

What I had to say included a logical explanation of why she turned it down so I don’t have to repeat it for the several here who don’t seem to understand why she didn’t go on the show. It’s not a PM.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I'm not foolish enough to do business with him. :)

Well — my team didn’t exactly do business with him. Turned him down. But saw enough.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

By the way for those who asked my daughter is fine. Just spent all weekend with her. An isolated incident, perpetrator not caught, but as I noted the school and her friends/community were super-supportive.

 

[Dax777]

What I had to say included a logical explanation of why she turned it down so I don’t have to repeat it for the several here who don’t seem to understand why she didn’t go on the show. It’s not a PM.

Fair enough. Agree with all that too. I guess your first statement threw me off. I suppose it was meant for the gallery.

 

[Frank the Yank]

James Carville On Why Dems Lost The Election
Carville makes many interesting points. Well worth the watch.

Are there subtitles?

 

[Frank the Yank]

By the way for those who asked my daughter is fine. Just spent all weekend with her. An isolated incident, perpetrator not caught, but as I noted the school and her friends/community were super-supportive.

That’s superb she has a strong support system. I assume the administration is quite supportive as well. That will help her immensely. Hopefully they can catch the perp and deal with them swiftly.

 

[Dax777]

I'm happy to disagree agreeably on the majority of this.

Two things though.

I have thought if I am superimposing my feelings about Trump the man as opposed to his actions, it is a possibility but I think I'm backed with plenty of evidence about the man's character to confidently say I am not, "by their fruits, you shall know them" (a biblical phrase we can surely agree Trump has no knowledge of).

Regarding the Middle East Accords. There was already a pre-existing strategy among certain leaders in the Middle East to reshape regional alliances and counteract Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. Saudi, UAE, and Israel were particularly interested in a coalition to reduce Iranian influence and strengthen their own political and economic positions not just regionally but globally.

They saw Trump as a favourable partner/useful idiot (delete as appropriate) due to his business interests in the region and his transactional approach to foreign policy. Rather than instigating these alliances himself, he was seen as a useful, cooperative figure who could implement policies that aligned with their goals. Policies like exiting the Iran nuclear deal, supporting Saudi-led actions in Yemen, and recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

I think most foreign policy experts ( even those who despise Trump) will still disagree with you on the above framing.

Trump provided a much more compliant US, that helped advance their goals with US backing, which was a shift from past US administrations. It can be argued that this contributed to increased tensions leading to the current conflict.

The meeting with Kim Jong Un was just a photo-op, nothing substantial came out of it.

It was the thawing of a Frosty relationship.

The second is the use of the word 'they' in relation to the assassination attempts. The Republicans knew that by saying 'they' when talking about it, they were implying that it was the Democrats/the deep state/the enemy within.

Yes. Well "they" was originally a reference to the actual shooters. But there is no doubt that Democrats and their rhetoric inspired it.

Unless, that rule only applies one way.

Suggesting handlers is heading towards conspiracy, which is a very dark hole that some don't come back from.

Fair enough. Let's stick to what we know. It was utter incompetence. Which is probably worse.