2024 U.S. Elections | Thread Closed

Status
Not open for further replies.
FriedClams said:
It's a very sad state of affairs when you can confidently say that the first female president in history is going to make any tangible difference over the next four years.
Click to expand...

I said I hope I'm proved wrong, but personally I just think she's on to an impossible job. A bit like the United manager in a way.

The US is way too divided politically, and it's got so toxic and venomous I can't see Kamala changing it. They already have their excuses and lines of attack drawn up at the ready. They have been using them as a reason she shouldnt be a candidate and they will use them for the entire duration of her Presidency be it one or two terms.

Simply being a woman means that will be thrown at her or used against her, as will her race and the fact she wasn't voted to run for President. She's already being called a liar for saying she owns a gun and also being called a liar for saying she's a Christian.

Saying she will put Republicans in her cabinet and give them a say on policy etc is all fine and well, it shows she's serious about listening to the other side and shows she wants unity in Government between politicians the same as she wants for the people in the country. However, Obama made that mistake and he just got fecked over and ultimately it cost him putting through some real changes. The other big downside is she will put many off for pandering to the right and true liberals or Dems on the left won't like her for it at all, especially if it causes issues getting policy agreed or put to vote etc.

Total unity is a fallacy anyway, it's never going to happen, but it's even less likely in the near future simply because of how divided the US is and because of how much hate and fear Trump and people like Musk have fed everyone day after day after day.

So it's really nothing to do with her being a woman, although that will be used against her, it's more that I just don't think the country is ready to be unified. If she gets elected though and did manage to repair the damage and being everyone closer together she could go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever given the monumental tasks and obstacles and opposition she faces.

I wish her the best of luck as it would also be the icing on the cake for Trump to have to watch her become so successful and liked. And even better if he had to watch it all from prison. But sadly, I can't see that happening either.
 
thegregster said:
You accept all those types if they have money ffs.

You had no problem with Trump buying assets in Ireland.
Click to expand...

Yes we did. Loads of us did. There were protests.

My original post was literally saying we don’t want those types, money or not.
 
langster said:
I said I hope I'm proved wrong, but personally I just think she's on to an impossible job. A bit like the United manager in a way.

The US is way too divided politically, and it's got so toxic and venomous I can't see Kamala changing it. They already have their excuses and lines of attack drawn up at the ready. They have been using them as a reason she shouldnt be a candidate and they will use them for the entire duration of her Presidency be it one or two terms.

Simply being a woman means that will be thrown at her or used against her, as will her race and the fact she wasn't voted to run for President. She's already being called a liar for saying she owns a gun and also being called a liar for saying she's a Christian.

Saying she will put Republicans in her cabinet and give them a say on policy etc is all fine and well, it shows she's serious about listening to the other side and shows she wants unity in Government between politicians the same as she wants for the people in the country. However, Obama made that mistake and he just got fecked over and ultimately it cost him putting through some real changes. The other big downside is she will put many off for pandering to the right and true liberals or Dems on the left won't like her for it at all, especially if it causes issues getting policy agreed or put to vote etc.

Total unity is a fallacy anyway, it's never going to happen, but it's even less likely in the near future simply because of how divided the US is and because of how much hate and fear Trump and people like Musk have fed everyone day after day after day.

So it's really nothing to do with her being a woman, although that will be used against her, it's more that I just don't think the country is ready to be unified. If she gets elected though and did manage to repair the damage and being everyone closer together she could go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever given the monumental tasks and obstacles and opposition she faces.

I wish her the best of luck as it would also be the icing on the cake for Trump to have to watch her become so successful and liked. And even better if he had to watch it all from prison. But sadly, I can't see that happening either.
Click to expand...

I think her greatest achievement will be cock-blocking Trump until the point he is too old to be considered.
 
langster said:
I said I hope I'm proved wrong, but personally I just think she's on to an impossible job. A bit like the United manager in a way.

The US is way too divided politically, and it's got so toxic and venomous I can't see Kamala changing it. They already have their excuses and lines of attack drawn up at the ready. They have been using them as a reason she shouldnt be a candidate and they will use them for the entire duration of her Presidency be it one or two terms.

Simply being a woman means that will be thrown at her or used against her, as will her race and the fact she wasn't voted to run for President. She's already being called a liar for saying she owns a gun and also being called a liar for saying she's a Christian.

Saying she will put Republicans in her cabinet and give them a say on policy etc is all fine and well, it shows she's serious about listening to the other side and shows she wants unity in Government between politicians the same as she wants for the people in the country. However, Obama made that mistake and he just got fecked over and ultimately it cost him putting through some real changes. The other big downside is she will put many off for pandering to the right and true liberals or Dems on the left won't like her for it at all, especially if it causes issues getting policy agreed or put to vote etc.

Total unity is a fallacy anyway, it's never going to happen, but it's even less likely in the near future simply because of how divided the US is and because of how much hate and fear Trump and people like Musk have fed everyone day after day after day.

So it's really nothing to do with her being a woman, although that will be used against her, it's more that I just don't think the country is ready to be unified. If she gets elected though and did manage to repair the damage and being everyone closer together she could go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever given the monumental tasks and obstacles and opposition she faces.

I wish her the best of luck as it would also be the icing on the cake for Trump to have to watch her become so successful and liked. And even better if he had to watch it all from prison. But sadly, I can't see that happening either.
Click to expand...
She's not just any woman though. She's waiting to unleash and I'm voting for her and I hope she gets the chance to show her capabilities.
 
Maticmaker said:
Thanks for that, if you think Channel 4 is the best in the UK for coverage of the US Presidential race (in fact for anything) that tells me all I need to know.
Click to expand...

I didnt think you could fill a cup that was already full?

For the record, what I meant by the best is that you only have to look at the line up of guests to see why I said that, especially when conpared to the alternatives. It's got the potential to be extremely entertaining. I for one am hoping to see Brian Cox completely dismante Bumbling Boris the bell end.

4 years ago the BBC spent most of the night indulging Sebastian Gorka and Nigel Farage. If that's more your cup of tea then have at it, hoss.
 
My 93 year old father in law called me this morning trying to convince me to vote trump. He's lucky my parents taught me to respect elders. This is a man who is an immigrant and most of his family are immigrants. I don't get it. He was a Democrat until he moved to Florida and started spending more time around Trumptards. He's an old man so the brainwashing was easy.
 
One minor but very interesting detail that isn't talked about enough about the Selzer's poll: if IA is on track to flip at least 2 of its 4 House seats, that means the GOP won't have a majority of 26 house delegation if it comes to a contingent election.

That being said, if she has it right then the election won't be particularly close, so that mechanism won't come into play.
 
FriedClams said:
It's a very sad state of affairs when you can confidently say that the first female president in history is going to make any tangible difference over the next four years.
Click to expand...

It won't make a difference, in fact, it will make the opposition to her more venomous. Who ever gets elected will become a lame duck from day one given the bifurcated nature of American politics. Any move the next President makes will be viciously counter-programmed by the opposition in the lead up to the 2026 mid terms.
 
langster said:
For the record, what I meant by the best is that you only have to look at the line up of guests to see why I said that, especially when conpared to the alternatives. It's got the potential to be extremely entertaining. I for one am hoping to see Brian Cox completely dismante Bumbling Boris the bell end.
Click to expand...
What about reporting the news?

I like watching Brian Cox (both of them, Actor and/or Physicist/musician*) as well, but not giving his views on a news programme, or having some fun with Boris.

If I want entertaining I watch entertainment programmes, which strikes me what C4 has become, it reports in depth 'the news' only on the items that contain its own versions of the truth.

Because of the 24/7 news cycle, news editing, rather than simply reporting, is now the main format, but with elections overseas, such as the US Presidential race, more in depth coverage and commentary is required in an event that will affect the UK, that is why I prefer BBC Newsnight.

(* not sure which one you were referring to?)
 
Sweet Square said:


GbgyP2zaUAAvXaC
Click to expand...

This is good to hear. Let’s hope that it will move some votes in Michigan and other places.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
I just can't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg57dg5zyzrt?post=asset:cbc74b83-7ad8-47f1-b7dc-96bb034fa06a#post
Click to expand...

It's just so typical of the me, myself and I, me, me, me selfish attitude. I'm alright Jack, feck everyone else.
Maticmaker said:
What about reporting the news?

I like watching Brian Cox (both of them, Actor and/or Physicist/musician*) as well, but not giving his views on a news programme, or having some fun with Boris.

If I want entertaining I watch entertainment programmes, which strikes me what C4 has become, it reports in depth 'the news' only on the items that contain its own versions of the truth.

Because of the 24/7 news cycle, news editing, rather than simply reporting, is now the main format, but with elections overseas, such as the US Presidential race, more in depth coverage and commentary is required in a event that will affect the UK, that is why I prefer BBC Newsnight.

(* not sure which one you were referring to?)
Click to expand...

It's an election. Of course they are going to report the results and as they always do, go quite in depth about those votes. Channel 4 have always had excellent coverage of US and UK elections.

I think you just wanted an argument as your original post could easily have just said 'i don't agree, I will be watching BBC as personally I find the coverage or reporting better' or something like that. But no, instead you chose a pathetic snarky comment instead which ironically just told everyone what they already knew about you.
 
langster said:
I think you just wanted an argument as your original post could easily have just said 'i don't agree, I will be watching BBC as personally I find the coverage or reporting better' or something like that. But no, instead you chose a pathetic snarky comment instead which ironically just told everyone what they already knew about you.
Click to expand...
Really, tossing in the towel now, I wouldn't have thought this of you.. but, actually there is a case to be made for C4 News, but it's not about unbiased, in depth news reporting.
;)
 
FriedClams said:
He’s a populist blue Tory, but from what i have read he has taken a much more liberal stance on immigration, same sex marriage and abortion?
Click to expand...
It's not really the right thrwd for this, but yeah, he's obviously less to the right than the current US federal Republicans; that would be a certain loss in Canada. And everyone in Canada supports large immigration, it's pretty much a tradition and the only way to soften the blow of aging just a little. Poilièvre is also the guy that proposed a cultural values test at the end of the last Harper government though. And I have no idea where he really stands on same-sex marriage or abortion, he's just stifling discussion on these topics within his party (as all leaders before him, to be fair) because any opposition to those would greatly hurt their chances.

Anyway, all that to say that this has to be seen in the Canadian context. Poilièvre is pretty far to the right for Canada, and also on the right within his own party (even if he's not Bernier of course).
 
Maticmaker said:
Really, tossing in the towel now, I wouldn't have thought this of you.. but, actually there is a case to be made for C4 News, but it's not about unbiased, in depth news reporting.
;)
Click to expand...

I never said it was unbiased, and I can't throw a towel in as you received a 10 count after knocking yourself out the minute you got in the ring.

The BBC isn't known for its impartiality, no matter how much they say otherwise. It's a fecking election, I'm not watching it to educate me or lead me to the Holy Grail. I just want to see the results come in. I will probably end up flicking between C4, Sky and BBC like I always do whilst having the laptop showing CNN and Fox.
 
langster said:
I never said it was unbiased, and I can't throw a towel in as you received a 10 count after knocking yourself out the minute you got in the ring.

The BBC isn't known for its impartiality, no matter how much they say otherwise. It's a fecking election, I'm not watching it to educate me or lead me to the Holy Grail. I just want to see the results come in. I will probably end up flicking between C4, Sky and BBC like I always do whilst having the laptop showing CNN and Fox.
Click to expand...

Why not just watch everything on CNN.
 
Almost $500 million spent in Ohio for the Senatorial race between Brown & Moreno.

Absolutely batshit number.
 
langster said:
It's a fecking election, I'm not watching it to educate me or lead me to the Holy Grail.
Click to expand...
Clearly not or you wouldn't be watching C4 ;)
Surely some unbiased understanding of background, expectations etc. is useful especially when its outcome effects all the world?
 
CNN on election night is every bit as Entertainment > News as C4 with a few celebrities on.

I'm still not sure which Brian Cox it's going to be. I find the idea of either equal parts enticing and ridiculous.
 
While MSNBC will definitely be providing a strong left bias, Kornacki is right up there with King, so I'll be switching back and forth depending on when each of those guys are on.
 
Do the news networks not kind of just nerd-out in a big way on election night and its actually not that partisan? Or am I forgetting how it generally goes.

I seem to remember them all just wheeling out their own version of Steve Kornacki and getting deep into the weeds of the electoral map.
 
SirAF said:
Exactly. The Norwegian TV2 are actually pretty good at covering US elections, but I'm sticking to CNN and John King.
Click to expand...

Yep. Beyond King and the wall, CNN just seem to have struck the right balance in presenting the general cadence of what is transpiring. Pretty good balance of pundits and journos as well.
 
WI_Red said:
While MSNBC will definitely be providing a strong left bias, Kornacki is right up there with King, so I'll be switching back and forth depending on when each of those guys are on.
Click to expand...

Kornacki is good, but he can sometimes come across as that annoying middle tier office nerd who organizes the annual march madness office pool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.