US Presidential Election 2024

[Nearly Sane]

Harris now slight favourite in UK for Democratic candidate

[Nearly Sane]

In a normal time, the gaffes would be seen as the type of thing thar might happen but now? And the gaffes themselves stick out because of what the are about - Putin instead of Zelensky, Trump instead of Harris.

Trump could do the above and get away with it.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl75kdm420o

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps not surprising that a business driven by appearances is speaking out against Biden as.a candidate


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c84j12xxz8jo

[ProfessorDavey]

That's because politics is ludicrous. The idea that I'm suggesting this is how it should be is your strawman.

Your suggestion that Starmer will somehow be harmed by his (frankly super careful and diplomatic) comments to Chris Mason is ludicrous. And as for the second sentence - is that supposed to mean something!!

He's  held himself out as an expert.

When? He did no such thing - he focussed his response entirely on how he found Biden during his (behind closed doors) meeting and also on his record over the past couple of years.

My post covered how he might have caveated it

But your claimed caveat:

'Should have said there didn't seem to be any problem during his meeting.'

Is basically exactly what he did.

NS - you seem to have a tendency on this MB not to read what other poster actually wrote, but what you think they did. You know seem to be basing your assessment of what Starmer said on made-up notion of what you think he said ... rather than what he actually said.

[Nearly Sane]

Your suggestion that Starmer will somehow be harmed by his (frankly super careful and diplomatic) comments to Chris Mason is ludicrous. And as for the second sentence - is that supposed to mean something!!
When? He did no such thing - he focussed his response entirely on how he found Biden during his (behind closed doors) meeting and also on his record over the past couple of years.
But your claimed caveat:

'Should have said there didn't seem to be any problem during his meeting.'

Is basically exactly what he did.

NS - you seem to have a tendency on this MB not to read what other poster actually wrote, but what you think they did. You know seem to be basing your assessment of what Starmer said on made-up notion of what you think he said ... rather than what he actually said.

Where's the caveat? You seem incredibly naive about how statements of politicians will be played. There's no equivocation here about not really being for him to make that sort of judgement, so if Biden does continue to show problematic signs of mental acuity, Starmer's quotes will get dragged out to show that he 'got it wrong' and he will be portrayed as having 'interfered' in the election.


Do I think that is fair? No. Do I think politics should work like that? No. Does it work like that? Yes.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where's the caveat? You seem incredibly naive about how statements of politicians will be played. There's no equivocation here about not really being for him to make that sort of judgement, so if Biden does continue to show problematic signs of mental acuity, Starmer's quotes will get dragged out to show that he 'got it wrong' and he will be portrayed as having 'interfered' in the election.

Starmer spoke only about how Biden appeared to him in a closed, behind doors meeting. Which is exactly what you said he should have done ... which is actually what he did. Even if Biden steps down that has no bearing on how he was in a single meeting, which none of us can comment on as we weren't there.

He also spoke of his record, which of course is a completely different matter.

Only in your weird wishful thinking mind would Starmer's comment rebound negatively on him.

Oh - and you claimed that he held himself out as an expert - he did no such thing, he just gave his opinion on how he found Biden in a single behind closed doors meeting.

[Nearly Sane]

Starmer spoke only about how Biden appeared to him in a closed, behind doors meeting. Which is exactly what you said he should have done ... which is actually what he did. Even if Biden steps down that has no bearing on how he was in a single meeting, which none of us can comment on as we weren't there.

He also spoke of his record, which of course is a completely different matter.

Only in your weird wishful thinking mind would Starmer's comment rebound negatively on him.

Oh - and you claimed that he held himself out as an expert - he did no such thing, he just gave his opinion on how he found Biden in a single behind closed doors meeting.

And already his comments are being called into question

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy08kl145j3o

[ProfessorDavey]

And already his comments are being called into question

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy08kl145j3o

Chris Mason marking his own homework I see.

And actually even he recognises that Starmer effectively said the only thing he could have done in his interview - note:

'What else could he really say?'

[Nearly Sane]

Chris Mason marking his own homework I see.

And actually even he recognises that Starmer effectively said the only thing he could have done in his interview - note:

'What else could he really say?'

  I already covered that in terms of caveats.  I didn't expect to be shown to be correct quite so quickly, Professor Putin

[ProfessorDavey]

  I already covered that in terms of caveats.  I didn't expect to be shown to be correct quite so quickly, Professor Putin

NS - I note you have sidestepped my challenge to your claim that he held himself out as an expert.

Where did Starmer hold himself out as an expert NS?

[Nearly Sane]

NS - I note you have sidestepped my challenge to your claim that he held himself out as an expert.

Where did Starmer hold himself out as an expert NS?

By making the statement uncaveated. It portrays him as being an expert in doing this, Professor Zelensky.

[ProfessorDavey]

By making the statement uncaveated. It portrays him as being an expert in doing this, Professor Zelensky.

Complete non-sense. All he did was give his opinion on how he found Biden during his meeting. That suggests no expertise whatsoever, beyond being able to hold an opinion (note an opinion, not an expert opinion).

What 'expertise' was Starmer demonstrating or relying on NS?

[Nearly Sane]

Complete non-sense. All he did was give his opinion on how he found Biden during his meeting. That suggests no expertise whatsoever, beyond being able to hold an opinion (note an opinion, not an expert opinion).

What 'expertise' was Starmer demonstrating or relying on NS?

He wasn't 'demonstrating' or 'relying on' expertise. He was sounding as if he was an expert by not caveating it. Politically that's the position he's ended up in hence he's already fallen foul of the Biden gaffes. Your political naivety is showing again.

[ProfessorDavey]

He wasn't 'demonstrating' or 'relying on' expertise. He was sounding as if he was an expert by not caveating it.

Non-sense on stilts. Sounding like he was an expert on what NS?

People do not assume someone is an expert when they voice an opinion, unless they caveat it. They just assume that they are expressing a non-expert opinion. Here are some examples:

Q - 'I think you met Jim yesterday - how was he?'
A - 'OK, but he's really struggling with his back at the moment'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion on how they found Jim.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as an expert orthopaedic practitioner, unless they caveat that they aren't an expert in orthopaedics.

Q - 'How was the film you saw yesterday?'
A - 'Bit shit really - didn't enjoy it at all'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion that they didn't like a film.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as a expert film critic, unless they caveat that they aren't an expert in films.

Q - 'What did you do last night?'
A - 'I went to that new restaurant on the High St - it was really good'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion on a restaurant.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as an expert restaurant critic, unless they caveat that they aren't an expert on restaurants.

Q - 'What 'expertise' was Starmer demonstrating or relying on NS?'
A - 'He wasn't 'demonstrating' or 'relying on' expertise. He was sounding as if he was an expert by not caveating it. Politically that's the position he's ended up in hence he's already fallen foul of the Biden gaffes. Your political naivety is showing again.'
Real people conclusion - person is expressing a non-expert opinion on the Biden/Starmer situation.
NS conclusion - person is portraying themselves as an expert political commentator, unless they caveat that they aren't a political expert.
But trust me NS - no-one thinks you are an expert on politics even though you never caveat your opinions

[Nearly Sane]

Trump keeping quiet to keep Biden?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd17yd3jq4ro

[Nearly Sane]

Shots fired at Trump rally. Extremely scary stuff.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cljy6yz1j6gt

[Nearly Sane]

Shots fired at Trump rally. Extremely scary stuff.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cljy6yz1j6gt

And with some Republicans blaming Biden, it's not getting less scary

[Nearly Sane]

Thomas Matthew Crooks has shot into the light as the suspect.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1d31jeyzlo

[Roses]

I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo.   

[Nearly Sane]

I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo.   

And that's exactly the same sort of conspiracy nonsense touted by amongst Trump supporters.

[Aruntraveller]

I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo.   

Not likely. The margin of error between the ear and the brain is not a risk even a shyster like Trump would take.

[Nearly Sane]

It has substantially shifted the odds in favour of  Republican victory in UK betting

[Roses]

Not likely. The margin of error between the ear and the brain is not a risk even a shyster like Trump would take.

Maybe not, but whatever is the case sadly Trump is likely to attract many more voters.

I have saw this statement on the BBC News

"But some of Mr Trump’s closest allies and supporters are already blaming Mr Biden for the violence, with one Republican congressman accusing the president of “inciting an assassination” in a post on X."

[Aruntraveller]

Maybe not, but whatever is the case sadly Trump is likely to attract many more voters.

I have saw this statement on the BBC News

"But some of Mr Trump’s closest allies and supporters are already blaming Mr Biden for the violence, with one Republican congressman accusing the president of “inciting an assassination” in a post on X."

Oh yes. Undoubtedly there will be a lot of that sort of misinformation from the fringes (I count Trump's closest allies as being on the fringe) and it is an incredibly dangerous moment. You have to hope that sense will prevail. At the moment I don't know what the odds are for that happening, I suspect not terribly good.

[SteveH]

I am wondering if this was somehow set up by Trump to get the sympathy, and more importantly the votes he requires to get a second term in office? Trump is likely to put the blame on Biden, imo.   

Nonsense. That's the sort of rubbish conspiracy theorists come out with.