Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Well, you wouldn’t crudely say “nice Latvia you’ve got there, shame if Russia overran it”.

But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a load more flexibility than last time. I gave example of youth mobility which I don’t think is even nailed on as an EU competency. Stuff like that needs leaving at the door.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:17 am Alongside the scapegoats it’ll be interesting to see who the early candidates for anointed saviour turn out to be, albeit that most of them will be forgotten within months or even weeks.

Harris’ presidential ambitions are almost certainly toast. She was handed the nomination on a plate, which will not be happening again and might not have happened this time had Biden stepped or been pushed aside earlier.

Retired US politicians go and work for law firms. Harris might do that.

I’d be surprised if all that much thought had been given to alternatives. Don’t think there was time. Perhaps at some point someone could address the fact that the process makes Labour’s Benn v Healey contest look clinical. I get that primaries are important in America, but why can’t more states declare at the same time?

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:17 am Alongside the scapegoats it’ll be interesting to see who the early candidates for anointed saviour turn out to be, albeit that most of them will be forgotten within months or even weeks.

Harris’ presidential ambitions are almost certainly toast. She was handed the nomination on a plate, which will not be happening again and might not have happened this time had Biden stepped or been pushed aside earlier.

Probably someone like josh Shapiro.

Funny that in the US so much is made of primaries, in which only that state's party members can vote (see Littlejohn's complaint that Harris's candidacy was "anti-democratic" because nobody contested it).

Meanwhile we have constituency selection committees, and take the piss out of the Tories for thinking someone chosen by 50,000 cunts on the wrong side of the A1 has some sort of mandate.

What is it with professors who write in the Guardian? After David Edgerton's "reheated Tory" nonsense about the budget, now it's Benjamin Selwyn who opines that low waged Americans didn't have an offer from Harris because she didn't promise a Green New Deal or Medicare for All, like low wage Americans are Caroline Lucas voters.

Harris' platform (they don't have manifestos) included reinstated tax credit and $15 national minimum wage. The tax credit, unusually for these things, wasn't just to be directed at families with children (though for obvious reasons, families with children would get more). Plus ACA credit too.

It's often said that the working class see no difference between Democrats and Republicans. You'd think professors might see a duty to point out the truth?

Someone BTL on the Guardian who I regularly look at pointed out that there's a special problem with countries with big extraction sectors. Getting the public to consistently support climate change policies is extremely hard. That applies to Australia and the US.

I dunno, maybe the solution to this is to go big, as Ed Milliband put it. Trouble is that climate change policies are very expensive upfront. If you want the working class to see a result in their pocketbooks, it's about the last thing you'd do in a fossil fuel producing economy.

I work with academics. Qualifications and intelligence are correlation, not causation.

One of the key issues with net zero is the same thing that fired up a lot of the Brexit crowd, and can be sensed behind the never ending PC/'wokery' whinge: people don't like being told what to do.

Also, they don't like being told what to do now in order to stave off some disaster years in the future. Especially when they're being asked to make changes NOW, and rich bugger MP bloke is still driving around in his motorcade. And as for the disaster, so what? If preventative measures are taken, the disaster doesn't materialise, so it fades in potential severity. Face it, you don't spend restless nights awake wondering about the dictator you could have produced if you hadn't used contraception.

Yes, it's short sighted. Yes, it's ultimately self-harming. Yes, it's more expensive in the long run. But everything is disposable, and like the people who built nuclear bunkers in the 60s, many look at the impending apocalypse, and the misery of living with drastically reduced means, and decide both are equally shit so go out with a bang.

I do wonder how much of our incredulity at what's happened is because we see the President as some sort of global Foreign Secretary whereas for Americans it's about the economy, stupid.

I have no idea what that means. It is somink to do with their added-adverts version of Rugby League?

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:01 pm

Probably suggests that the House might be a possible target in 2026. Senate who knows? But they won’t have the Presidency and if things are going shit which if I’m honest I half expect they will get a kicking.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:20 pm I have no idea what that means. It is somink to do with their added-adverts version of Rugby League?

I think it shows who won the presidential race in each state and some other person who won something from the Democrats. Possibly the governor, or a senator. Or maybe the town dog-catcher.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:52 pm

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:20 pm I have no idea what that means. It is somink to do with their added-adverts version of Rugby League?

I think it shows who won the presidential race in each state and some other person who won something from the Democrats. Possibly the governor, or a senator. Or maybe the town dog-catcher.

>edit<
After a bit of Googling I discover they are junior senatorial candidates.

I do hate it when I have to Google to make sense of a post...

Yeah god forbid you have to do some work Malcolm.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:26 pm Yeah god forbid you have to do some work Malcolm.

God forbid you actually post like a grown up.

Sums you up - "I'll post something obscure and expect you all to find out whatever the fuck I might (or might not) mean - fucked if I'm going to post intelligently just to suit you cunts..."

Grow the fuck up.

It's not that obscure Malcolm.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:52 pm

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 8:20 pm I have no idea what that means. It is somink to do with their added-adverts version of Rugby League?

I think it shows who won the presidential race in each state and some other person who won something from the Democrats. Possibly the governor, or a senator. Or maybe the town dog-catcher.

They're not junior senatorial candidates they're senatorial candidates plus one candidate who was running for Governor of North Carolina (Josh Stein).

It's an important point whether you know the names or not. Think the lesson is that Harris (Biden) ran behind their party. Shame about Casey though.

In a rare plus point, the North Carolina house has lost its Republican supermajority. Josh Stein's veto cannot be overridden anymore, unlike Roy Cooper's.