I just sat through a recording of the Trump/Harris debate. Ignoring the merits of their political stances, I agree with the general consensus that Kamala Harris “won” in performance terms, but only because Trump was awful.
Both were of course terrible on Palestine. While I appreciate that that is of most interest to perhaps a majority of my readers, and that it is a key issue for a significant slice of US voters, it is not what this post is about. I am considering more broadly the prospects for who becomes US President.
Trump’s ability to make a coherent argument appears to have deserted him and he was easily sidetracked by Harris into irrelevant quibbles, notably on rally attendances.
While Harris said nothing even vaguely impressive herself, and was wide open to attack on her own record, Trump did not seem sufficiently in command of the logic of debate effectively to counterpunch.
I suspect that the debate will have done very little to affect public support, because Trump’s attack messages on immigration will motivate his followers regardless, and he kept banging then out.
But I wanted to focus in on the shameless bias of the moderators in favour of Harris. The framing of questions to each candidate was far more hostile towards Trump. Let me take the first four questions asked, two to each candidate:
David Muir to Trump:
“Mr President, I do want to drill down on something you both brought up. The Vice President brought up your tariffs, you responded, and let’s drill down on this. Because your plan, it is what she calls, it is essentially, a national sales tax. Your proposal calls for tariffs, as you pointed out here, on foreign imports across the board. You recently said that you might double your plan imposing tariffs of 20% on goods coming into this country. As you know many economists say that with tariffs at that level, costs are then passed on to the consumer. Vice President Harris has said it will mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing, medication, arguing it will cost the typical family nearly 4,000 dollars a year. Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs.”
Note what is happening here. Muir twice quotes Harris and validates her assertion that a tariff is a sales tax: “it is what she calls, it is essentially, a national sales tax”. He then quotes Harris again on it costing American families $4,000 a year. His question then to Trump is not framed as whether he agrees with Harris’s assertion, but the much more loaded question of “Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices?”
I am in general inclined towards free trade myself, but a tariff is not simply a sales tax, and the $4,000 a year claim is utter nonsense.
The average US household spends only about 11% of its consumption on imported goods. That equates to about $8,000 worth of imported goods per household per year.
Even if Trump were to slap a 20% tariff on all imported goods – which is not his plan – and even if all those goods currently enjoyed zero tariff – which is certainly not the case – and even if there were no import substitution and the entire cost was passed on to the consumer – neither of which would be the case, it plainly is not remotely possible that a 20% tariff on part of $8,000 of spending could cost $4,000.
But whereas various nonsenses spouted by Trump were “fact-checked” by the moderators, Harris’s completely clueless propaganda was endorsed and reinforced.
Trump however ought to have been able to counter by talking of the purpose of promoting domestic production and encouraging domestic industry and agriculture. His inability to do so – and indeed to counterpunch with logical refutation on anything – made this deeply unsatisfying watching.
Lindsey David to Trump
“I want to turn to the issue of abortion. President Trump you have often touted that you were able to kill Roe v Wade last year. You said that you were proud to be the most pro-life President in American history. Then last month you said that your administration would be great for women and their reproductive rights. In your home state of Florida you surprised many with regard to your six-week abortion ban because you initially said that it was too short and said (quote) “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks”. But then the very next day you reversed course and said that you would vote to support the six-week ban. Vice President Harris says that women should not trust you on the issue of abortion because you have changed your position so many times. Therefore why should they trust you?”
Note the aggression in the phrasing of this question, and the use of the negative connotation verb “touting” in the setup. Also throwing in of amplifier phrases… “the very next day”.
Now contrast the tone with the superficially “combative” questions to challenge Harris
David Muir to Harris:
“We are going to turn now to immigration and border security. We know it’s an issue to Republicans, Democrats, voters across the board in this country. Vice President Harris, you were tasked by President Biden with getting to the root causes of migration from Central America. We know that illegal border crossings reached a high in the Biden administration. This past June President Biden passed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act, and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?”
This is fascinating because plainly the intention is to appear to be tackling Harris, while the entire framing of the question is slanted to favour her. The characterisation of Harris’s role is precisely the framing of her campaign team: she was not in charge of border control or immigrant policy, but rather of tackling “the root causes” of immigration. This is exactly how Harris wants it put, but not really true.
Furthermore the problem is presented as essentially solved, again an extremely dubious proposition, and the question is basically – why did it take you so long?
After a couple of exchanges between the candidates Muir leapt in to interject and reinforce a point already made by Kamala Harris:
David Muir:
“President Trump on that point I am going to invite your response”
Trump:
“Well I would like to respond”
David Muir:
“Let me just ask though, why did you try to kill that bill, and successfully do so, that would have put thousands of extra agents on the border?
Let us then look at the framing of another “challenging” question to Harris:
Lindsey David to Harris:
Vice President Harris, in your last run for President you said you wanted to ban fracking, now you don’t. You wanted mandatory buyback programmes for assault weapons, now your campaign says you don’t. You supported decriminalising border crossings, now you are taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed, so then why have so many of your policy positions changed?
Note how, with both questions to Harris, the answer is provided within the question. The immigration question was presented as solved and the flip flop question as reflecting consistent values. Harris did grab on to the proffered lifeline and banged on about her values as a “middle class kid”, and all the hard luck cases she claimed to have been inspired to help.
On Palestine, naturally both vied to present themselves as the staunchest supporters of Israel. Kamala Harris did genuflect towards protection of Palestinian civilians and the Palestinian right of self-determination, but this was so obviously a token gesture from Israel’s chief armers and funders as to not need further comment.
All in all, extremely dispiriting. Harris came over as an entirely unprincipled political operator who will adopt whatever positions serve her career, but is rather more intellectually competent than previously expected. Trump came over as a loose cannon which nobody has loaded.
As with Starmer, there is no doubt that Harris is the Deep State shoo-in candidate, and the priming of the debate in her favour is hardly unexpected. It does require an effort of textual analysis to pin it down, and I hope I have given you a start on that.
The blog is in something of a financial crisis. Over half of subscriptions are now “suspended” by PayPal, which normally happens when your registered credit or debit card expires. The large majority of those whose accounts are “suspended” seem to have no idea it has happened. This is different from “cancellation” which is deliberate.
Please check if your subscription is still active. There is in fact no way to reactivate – you have to make a new subscription with a new card if your card expired.
The bank standing order method works very well for those who do not want to use PayPal.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Most goods are imported from China, with the exception of Food. So its essentially a sales tax, it will make things considerably more expensive to consumers in the States
I think the problem is not in total quantity of goods that are imported from China, it is also that they tend to be essential to the production of goods produced in the West, so their impact is greater than simple numbers and direct costs.
You, Kamala & David Muir are quite correct that tariffs are to all intents and purposes sales taxes, Geoff. Of course, companies that import foreign goods can always choose not to pass the tariffs on to consumers and take the resultant hit to profits – but companies can always spare consumers sales taxes by reducing their prices, taking a similar hit to profits.
As regards the $4000-a-year figure: What Kamala’s people will have done is divide the $3.2 trillion a year of foreign imports to the US by the circa 150 million households in the US, and then multiply this figure by 20% to get a mean cost per household of Trump’s proposed tariffs. Of course, it’s a moot point whether the ‘typical’ US household (or family in politician-speak) is represented by the mean or the median or the mode, but they’ll have gone with the mean as it gives a much larger figure. By politics standards, this can in no way be considered as lying.
Lapsed Agnostic
“but companies can always spare consumers sales taxes by reducing their prices, taking a similar hit to profits.”
But would any company seriously take such a hit?
I am wondering about this when passing by our supermarket shelves in Germany.
The changes on origin of products (drop in quality) and price increase since the Ukraine War has stated are astonishing.
Thanks for your reply AG. Very few companies will choose not to pass on the cost of any tariffs to consumers, which is why tariffs are essentially sales taxes. I’m fairly sure that price inflation in Germany will have been caused by the ECB’s money-printing policies during the pandemic – it takes a while to feed through the system though. It’s won’t be due to the War in Ukraine: if the price of natural gas sky-rockets, it means that people have less money to spend on other things, so overall inflation remains stable.
Since tariffs represent revenue going to the government, it can use that to increase public spending and services and/or to reduce other taxes. Not to guarantee that it would, rather than giving it to arms makers and squillionnaire donors, but in principle it could. Trouble is that that way lies ruinous trade wars as has happened in the past.
Oh puh-lease… if they want to increase tax revenues they can tax the rich. Taxing essential goods just puts them out of reach of the poorest, and reduces the quantity of imports. Government spending is not dependent on tax revenues because money is Deficit. Having stuff available for people with money, who want to buy stuff which negatively impacts the trade balance, is perhaps an area for government to manage – IF – they want to invest in developing industry for the internal market. However monopolies may not allow something so close to Marxism or Germany’s 1930s industrial investment programme. Austerity is theft. Fact. It impacts those in need of essential services, or cuts their wages, or makes them homeless. Debt should never be an excuse to cause harm. Christian values have taken a hit with Greed taking centre stage for the only people who matter – rich people.
95% of those who call themselves “Christian” are best described as God Bothering Moralizing Humbugs who oppose abortion but support the death penalty, a mere 5% are supporters of the probably apocryphal Joshua Ben Joseph of Nazareth. I suspect that he was a character in a very seductive story that underwent the 1st Century AD equivalent of going viral but there may have been a prototype who if he propagated ideas similar to those attributed to Jesus would have died nailed to 2 pieces of crossed wood because these ideas were (and are still) absolutely toxic to law and order and the privilege hierarchy in any authoritarian state such as The Roman Empire or any any modern nation of the Euro-North American Empire (aka US Empire).
The fact is that Jesus is obsolete and his Neo-liberal & Pentecostal Christian replacement is Jeebus who is absolutely against every precept supposedly preached by Jesus.
Gosh! I’m not sure the bishops in the HoL would see it that way, or even the women bishops either. Christianity is a minority religion, largely due to it overthrowing the tables of the money lenders, sharing everything equally, especially at times like Harvest Festival, and providing kind and well intentioned archetypes for relationship guidance.
Hellfire went out of fashion a century ago. Peace and reconciliation was the message after WWII and pretending the centrally important Mary Magdalen should be shamed for being an independent healer, has also had its day.
I mean, I know the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, is a verse in all Things Bright and Beautiful which is no longer sung, but celebrating the agricultural calendar and reflecting via the prayer book written by Catherine Parr, is an improvement on forms which predominate in some other countries.
No haters necessary. Samaritans welcome. Keeping principles of compassion relevant is the bishop’s job, and it is an uphill struggle against efforts to try and make the respect for tradition irrelevant in our multicultural diversity. Church of England principles matter as the foundation for our laws and justice system, and there are plenty of far worse belief systems which are not based on kindness and equality for all. as Jesus taught.
I didn’t watch any of it, but I agree with your take on the biased framing of some of the questioning. Muir lends undue authority to Harris’ assertion and then strays into simply reiterating her arguments, albeit by furnishing them with greater detail to make them appear more impressive. And neither candidate could be described as impressive. Both illustrate the moribund state of internal democracy and near non-existent meaty policy debate in the big two US parties.
On which, I find it shocking how in recent days, Harris supporters have been claiming Liz and Dick Cheney’s endorsement, of Harris, is a huge win. Dick Cheney, remember, along with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, were their bêtes noires – the embodiments of evil, as far as most Democrats were concerned. When Glenn Greenwald says to his liberal critics, ‘it’s you who have changed, not me’ he speaks the truth. It just goes to show how the politically confused Democrats have ceased to have any discernible ideological underpinnings; they are politically lost at sea, adrift. The US Democrats have spurned all radicalism to become borderline apolitical, small ‘c’ conservative, ‘middle management’ outfit, like Starmer’s New Labour; a party defending the status quo with no desire to change anything. A party that believes in nothing but following superior orders; from the likes of wrongheaded, reckless security establishment and big finance. In the service of the people? More like, in the service of the establishment.
The ‘MAGA’ Republicans leave a helluva lot to be desired too, for sure, but at least they know who they represent and who their political opponents actually are.
There is a reasonable suspicion that Kam has an earpiece ( a commercial one !) and that some wordsmith (Barak?) is directing her – ‘look ahead keep smiling, say exactly this…’
She was doing.not thinking, that makes it look like slick TeeVee action.
It’s something that Sleepy Joe obviously couldn’t deal with and they couldn’t get away with his standins any longer.
The only little bit I saw of the pantomime – the Don was gurning away like the MAD cartoon character. Trying to remember some talking point and response.
Ie all by himself , without a voice in his ear. Thinking before talking always looks slower.
Its the worst pantomime. No audience. No unscripted questions. It’s almost as though the whole thing is for show now. Harris obviously a lame duck. She may well become president after the election for the handover – when she will have to carry the can for the ignominious defeat to take Russia by the khazar masters or even Crimea that our Admirials have been heavily involved in. Biden is being prepped for a dementia defence.
Given that both the seniorest spooks have been thrown into the spotlight by their real Masters – it seems that smoke and mirrors are being deployed to escape by the shapeshifters. The whole Palestine daily mass murder is about that. Vindictiveness and brutal land grab, pound of flesh consolation demand, for the same failure as WW2.
By the same arsehole mass murdering global robber barons. The fascist , Nazis and Zionists.
I have seen enough evidence that Trump already has final say on most major decisions.
Cameron said so when he was hoaxed.
The lines of Suckerberk and Musk , the techbros, coming to beg for mercy for their previous deeds , seems to confirm that.
It was looking too one sided with his massive support from endless live rallies he has constantly been cutting through the media – that it seems they need some semblance of a ‘fair’ competition. So the polls can be roughly equal and the result not already acknowledged. It’s a drawback for the Yankee pantomime – it goes on way too long, well after it stops being relevant, entertaining or even funny – only of use for the brain dead.
A bit like adults still loving the chuckle brothers!
Ps the Blinken, Lammy, Zaluzny train wreck arrival in Kiev is absolutely hilarious.
Is that ‘earpiece’ rumour confirmed?
Just imagine the MSM coverage were it Trump accused of having backstage assistance. Worth remembering also, that Harris wasn’t elected: Biden simply chose her to be his running mate. The way she got the nod, inheriting the candidacy as if next in line – without a proper contest – makes me wonder why the Yanks bothered fighting the British monarchy? What an absolute joke of a system.
Like their UK Labour counterparts, the Democrat party’s hierarchy are terrified of open debate and real democracy. Open debate and open candidate selection would reveal just how out-of-touch with the membership, the party’s leadership actually are. Not having these things allows the leadership to continue pretending they are representative, when in reality, the only reason they get votes is because they’re seen as the lesser evil vs the Republicans.
DunGroanin
Is there any evidence to support the earpiece conjecture?
The consequences for Harris if she were discovered to be wearing one would be terminal.
And with modern electronic equipment I expect it would be easily detected?
There seems to be a received wisdom among Harris’ opponents that she is not very bright?
Last night’s performance would suggest otherwise.
Along with the fact that (unlike anyone here) she was elected to the US Senate and AG of California.
I mean of course that afaik no-one here has been elected to any political office.
JK redux
Given the often overt nepotism and factional patronage in these parties, does ‘being elected’ really carry the prestige it once did?
Look at the UK Labour party, and how many of the deeply factional, anti-Corbyn,RW staffers were gifted safe seats at the last moment; in places where a sheep wearing a red rosette would be returned to parliament. Respect has to be earned and barely any of the 650MPs deserve much respect tbh. Hence, why polling shows the public esteem in which parliamentarians are held, has fallen dramatically. This isn’t due to someone saying ‘hurty feelings’ stuff online either.
The solution to this corruption of process, is a better, more representative democracy, via proportional representation.
“Is there any evidence to support the earpiece conjecture?
“The consequences for Harris if she were discovered to be wearing one would be terminal”.
Not so, I fear. “Who knew that Kamala had a hearing aid? Obviously her maidenly modesty prevented her from mentioning it publicly… Vote for the handicapped!”
“The consequences for Harris if she were discovered to be wearing one would be terminal.”
JK redux.
Nova H1 Audio Earrings.
https://www.laptopmag.com/headphones/airpods-earbuds/did-kamala-harris-wear-these-nova-h1-audio-earrings-during-the-presidential-debate
JK redux
September 11, 2024 at 14:19
“Is there any evidence to support the earpiece conjecture?
The consequences for Harris if she were discovered to be wearing one would be terminal.”
Lol! If Harris had worn headphones with a wire going to a room full of Clintons, Obamas, the MSM and fact checkers would still be able to say there was no evidence, and then there would be “no evidence”.
It’s a bit like a Neo-Nazi state bombing hospitals, schools, refugee camps, torturing and raping prisoners, and the MSM and the western world “struggling” to determine if crimes have been committed.
Well JKRedux, as I said it was a rumour and it doesn’t really bother me – it’s all pantomime anyway.
But here’s a take on it and quoting the boss of the company that makes the remarkably similar earpieces. They are offering a orange one for Drumpff😆
‘Mike Benz
@MikeBenzCyber
19h
Uhhh I wasn’t ready to bite on this story before but this is wild. The Managing Director of the corp that makes the earpiece earrings Kamala was accused of said “The resemblance is striking” to its product, marveled how “suited” it is for debates, & offered to sell one to Trump.
John Solomon
@jsolomonReports
Sep 11
Updated: Company responds to theory Harris wore audio earrings at debate: ‘The resemblance is striking’ justthenews.com/nation/cultu…
Sep 12, 2024 · 12:50 AM UTC ‘
– “…a loose cannon which nobody has loaded.”
Classic. My best laugh for over a week 😀
“But I wanted to focus in on the shameless bias of the moderators in favour of Harris.”
Indeed – what is it about Trump that those who run America don’t like – is he seen by the organ grinders in the background, as less controllable than Harris – are the Mad Dogs at the Pentagon – afraid that Trump might reduce, or even cut altogether – the funding to the Neo-Nazi ran regime in Ukraine. His actions as POTUS prior to this contest, show us he’s definitely pro-Zionist.
What of Harris – who was caught red handed cutting and pasting, Joe Biden’s policies to what her policies would be – if she was elected as POTUS – I think Harris will be easier to control, as she’s already on the same page as Biden, and his handlers. The state propaganda machine the BBC – today on their lunchtime programme, spent a bit of time doing down Trump, and backing Harris.
In my opinion – it doesn’t really matter who the American public votes for – for nothing will really changes – the American public are only voting for a face – this face changes (or not) every five years – it gives the public the illusion – that they have the power to elect a new POTUS with the hope, that the new POTUS will change things for the better – but, in the background plans and policies continue, without skipping a beat – and voters don’t get to vote on them, whether they be wars, regime changes, assassinations, or domestic policies that make Americans worse-off. Mind you, I suppose when your country is the most belligerent country in the world – you’d need to waste a trillion dollars of taxpayer cash on weapons.
This also applies to Westminster – where there’s very little difference between the Tories and Labour – albeit their rosettes are a different colour, but not much else. Its getting worse, with politicians promising this and that in their manifestos – and whilst out meeting the public – and at conferences, only to stick two-fingers up to Joe Bloggs and his other half, once they get into office – where they forge ahead with a completely, and often detrimental to the public at large – new agenda.
Who appoints the moderators? Quis moderat moderatores?
Tom Welsh.
Good point Tom – I’d say the USA is predominately ran with big business interests at heart – which are well above that of the average citizen in the USA. Consecutive American government administrations, have become over the decades – more, and more accommodating to big business interests, and no doubt certain politicians past – and present, have been well compensated for their co-operation.
Its gotten to a point where – big business is sponsoring many of those who stand for POTUS – the aim is to get their man or woman into the Whitehouse – the person, will then be sympathetic to the needs of their sponsors – both Trump and Harris – have very wealthy donors at their backs.
Who could forget Merrill Lynch – telling the then POTUS Ronald Reagan to “speed it up.”
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2012/09/who-speaks-to-the-president-of-the-united-states-that-way-2/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM&t=18s
Kamala Harris was allowed to repeat yet again during the debate the October 7th Hamas mass rape hoax, cornerstone of the effort to justify her administration’s year-long genocide.
Can anyone confirm whether this completely debunked genocide-enabling lie has been fact checked by the BBC’s disinformation squad or by the fact-checking disinformation experts in US media?
If not, why do we think that might be?
There used to be a smart-aleck saying, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But no one is entitled to their own facts”.
That has changed. Now everyone has their own facts – guaranteed up the wazoo by their own fact-checkers.
I think you know the answer as to why.
This is the whole problem with these anti-mis/disinformation outfits ; namely, they are thinly disguised intelligence cutouts, established to protect state narratives. The BBC often blithely run false claims and attributions on the main news programmes; sourced from Israeli and Ukrainian officials, yet presented as if 100% authenticated. And because it suits the govt’s wider worldview/foreign policy, the BBC know there’ll be no pushback when, or if, it’s shown, irrefutably, to be false. This is why they hate the likes of WikiLeaks and more recently, the Grayzone, so much, because they actually put the investigatory effort in to debunk a lot of this stuff. They’re the equivalent of the gang in Scooby-Doo revealing the real villains – invariably the US and UK.
A role parts of the MSM used to carry out, before they became part of the deception.
Today I listened to RTE coverage of the “debate” and couldn’t get it out of my head that everybody in that room was and is continuously complicit in mass murder. In that context, trying to choose between an unhinged sociopath and a moderator-backed clone is a bit of a fool’s errand. Regarding complicity, we are all guilty, with the exception of the Palestinian victims themselves and the medics and other heroes who are trying to help them. Written efforts on my part don’t amount to a hill of beans.
I do not understand why Trump accepted that that the debate was to be managed by the pro-DNC/Kamala Harris network of ABC.
Trump not only met Kamala but 2 biased moderators. Of course he is going to lose such a rigged debate. Because, from what I understand there is no planned debate on lets say FOX.
Trump says he’s ‘less inclined’ to debate Harris again
The former president has condemned ABC News for letting Kamala Harris “say anything she wanted”
https://swentr.site/news/603857-trump-second-debate-harris/
It would be better for world peace if Trump won, it would even be better for palestinians, because if Trump were to be elected and he took a harsh stance against Palestine, then, the Democrats and Europe would wake up. No one would support that. However if Kamala Harris is to be elected she could take a harsh stance against palestinians and get away with it.
Also, in a normal world the moderators would of course ask why Kamala Harris/Biden support, aid the genocide of Gaza.
It strikes me how horrible the Republicans are in supporting their candidate and how passive and inactive they are overall, it is like they are sleeping compared to the more energized DNC party/media.
if Trump were to be elected and he took a harsh stance against Palestine, then, the Democrats and Europe would wake up
Optimist!
George Porter
Optimist!
In my view there is no way that the western msm, liberals, EU and so on would have supported the US government on Israel this far if Trump were the one that gave green light to the israeli slaughter. He would be framed as an extremist, genocidal enabler by the media. Still, when the “other side”, the DNC, actually do exactly this, the genocidal-enabling policies is suddenly OK.
Remember how Trump played a role in creating more peaceful relations in Korea during his term. The DNC/Media could not take it because Trump get criticised for everything just because he is Trump.
Why Can’t Democrats Give Trump Credit on North Korea?
The Singapore summit actually made the world a safer place. The president’s critics won’t admit it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/trump-kim-jong-un-summit/562934/
Both candidates are rabid zionists. Whoever wins, the genocide will continue. The Palestinians are doomed to a future akin to the american indians, confined to small reservations in crap locations with minimal rights..
The point for the Palestinians is that Trump is not capable of sustaining a policy – a swipe at something, like the killing of Suleimani, he can do – but something that requires a long intensive concentration in the war room, like running a war, he can’t and won’t do. That’s why Netanyahu can’t use a Trump in power to launch a war on Iran. Trump isn’t interested in that kind of thing.
I don’t think Trump really wants to win. (He didn’t want to win last time, he just wanted to leverage his campaign to get a better deal at NBC. No one was more shocked than he was when he won; he hadn’t written an acceptance speech. And Clinton hadn’t written a concession speech.)
Trump’s happy place is standing in front of a huge mass of people who laugh and chant and just love him so much. That, plus campaigning allows him to raise money, and raise more money by making the campaign pay his properties and his companies for stuff they need.
I hope he runs again in 2028. Not that I’m not sick of listening to him. Just, he’ll be even easier to beat, and between now and then he’ll continue the self-destruction of the Republican Party.
i have just ordered 2 Chihuahuas and a blond Shitzu from O’Magas Springfield Butcher.The Shitzu is going in the freezerfor sunday but the guaranteed Mexican Chihuahuas are for tea tonight’s Bbq.
Got friends coming, bringing some Salsa and Philli flatbread for wraps.
Just to get the juices flowing; in this macabre world where the US of arse is determining our thinking, politics and our Russophobic tactics, I will open a bottle of Bushmills 16 to get hammered.
Yep. Kamala gave Don a ticket for the crazy train, and he got on board. Unbelievable.
Trump has, of course, already been President and, in my view, was the best US President since Clinton. Harris has that wild, gurning look of many overpromoted senior female politicians (and not just in the US – see Reeves here). Maybe appearances are deceptive – but then if so, why are the institutionally deceitful establishment media so keen on Harris?
Tom74
Q. why are the institutionally deceitful establishment media so keen on Harris?
Because western newsrooms follow the cues of the intel establishment, who have infiltrated all news media; editors, producers; researchers, presenters and none more so than with US media. All under the guise of ‘controlling information’. US media is positively bristling with former State Dept people and spooks.
They overwhelmingly support the continuation of weapons flows to Ukraine and see Harris as the best guarantor of that. It’s a misguided, dead-end, escalatory policy however, one with no ‘good ‘ outcome. A policy that could potentially lead to a NATO v Russia war; a war so bad even the victorious side won’t feel very victorious with its cities destroyed and tens of millions of its citizens dead and injured.
Even today, we have the appallingly inept FS Lammy and the sinister US Secretary of State, Blinken, about to make an announcement in Kyiv, Ukraine in which they predicted to give the go-ahead for the use of Storm Shadow missiles to be fired deep into Russian territory. There’s a genuine risk that Russia may view this as akin to a US/UK declaration of war; as once they allow targeting of one part of Russia what’s to stop them providing longer and longer range missiles to target all Russia? If Ukraine hits the wrong targets i.e. Moscow, I honestly think there will likely be a nuclear response, because Storm Shadows are so destructive, Putin will feel he has no choice.
Crazy stuff from Starmer and co.
Even the gung-ho guardian is carrying articles that sound a note of caution : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/11/west-missile-go-ahead-ukraine-risks-russia
Current director of the CIA, William Burns, says the west should not be intimidated by Russian threats of nuclear escalation. So, either he knows Putin can’t carry out the threat for some reason, or more scarily, he thinks a nuclear war is somehow winnable? Maybe Putin would opt for a nuclear test to prove efficacy e.g. warhead yield etc. Warheads require lots of maintenance such as replacing tritium – which has a relatively short half-life. But afaik, Russia does carry out that work.
Goose
Said before but the USA and the USSR didn’t use nukes against the Viet Cong or the Taliban.
What personal self interest would be served by the Little Dictator using nukes against Ukraine or the Baltics or Poland?
The certainty of response in kind should deter him.
Not a comparable situation, not at all.
The West is providing Ukraine with a destructive long-range capability they otherwise wouldn’t have. A Storm Shadow missile costs about £2.54million (US$3.19 million) per unit. The reason Russia can’t be confident of electronically jamming its guidance systems, is because they leverage highly classified US technology. With so much US dependent involvement, it effectively makes the US/UK direct accomplices to any notionally ‘Ukrainian’ attacks.
Russia have been incredible tolerant thus far, btw, far more tolerant than the US would be of such supplies in a similar situation. But every country has its red lines, and hitting sites deep inside Russia with missiles as destructive as Storm Shadow will, I believe, cross it. I think the fear of the Russian population’s reaction has probably kept the nuclear option firmly off the table, to date. But attacks with US/UK missiles in the heart of Russia could create a public and media clamour for that previously unthinkable course of action.
Also another issue with this escalatory approach:
Under the heading : Promote Peace and human rights
Starmer pledged : No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.
Do you think his positions thus far on Ukraine, and Israel, in relation to their Gaza conduct, live up to his ‘force for international peace and justice’ pledge, or even the spirit of it?
The establishment must hold the UK electorate in contempt, foisting this guy on us, and allowing him to pose as something he clearly never intended on being.
Goose
The logic of your position is that Russia should have impunity when lobbing cruise missiles etc at Ukraine. In other words brave Russian artillerymen should be able to launch missiles without fear of retaliation.
Well tough tits but the agressor is liable to counterattack by the defender against the aggressor’s territory.
Some posters seem to regard Russia as having impunity, the ability to attack without fear of retaliation.
In the unlikely event of a US attack on Mexico, I have no doubt that China would supply weapons to that country to resist US aggression.
And quite right too.
If the Little Dictator feels threatened by attacks on missile launch sites in Russia, he needs only to pull his troops out of Ukraine and cease his missile attacks on that country.
There is nothing to stop the little dictator, as you seem to know him from your past encounters with your keyboard and a mind trained in western Gleichschaltung, that he could evacuate most Russians from Kursk and nuke his own country disappearing the wester mercenaries, military advisors and young conscripts in one foul stroke.
Testing a newly developed nuclear device in your own country is de rigieur in the west, destroying atolls areas of desert and all that lives within.
Your little trained mind JK redux would be screaming blue murder at such a test by Putin, unless you are so aghast that you would volunteer to fight with the unelected, kept and NATO armed joker szelenski and his Nazis.
Dont forget to take your ipad and report your very own heroic experience with your brethren in arms, there’s a good boy.
Yes I wondered if some lunatic could nuke his own country with impunity or if the various treaties and international laws only covered use against another country. Actually I don’t think it would; the fall out would drift over most of europe and back into Russia anyway. Definitely not a sound idea.
As far as trying to disguise it as a ‘test’ the 1963 treaty banned all but underground tests and the comprehensive test ban treaty of 1996 banned all testing. Only three countries have conducted tests since 1996, India, Pakistan and North Korea. All have been underground.
Jk redux, Pears Morgan
Nobody wants to give Russia impunity.
But you’re falling into the trap of drawing false historic parallels, as many at Westminster and in Washington have. That asserts this is our 1930s and Putin is a new Hitler: He isn’t!
The Ukraine situation developed into a bloody civil war after the coup. This is a fellow Slavic country bordering Russia, to which it has lots cultural and family ties – it’s very much in Russia’s sphere of influence. Russia sides with ethnic Russians, that’s all.
A more suitable analogy would be with Loyalist Protestants in Northern Ireland vs Nationalist Catholic areas. How would the UK feel had Russia armed the IRA with Storm Shadows, drones – equivalents and okay’ed strikes on the UK mainland including London? I’d imagine our govt would’ve been fairly angry. By backing Kyiv, we are siding with one side in a civil war.
In Russia, what they’ve done in eastern Ukraine is presented as a heroic act in defence of a persecuted ethnic Russian minority.
Can you not see that the framing (Imperial aggression- what was Iraq? or humanitarian intervention) all depends on perspective. That is to say, if the US or UK had done what Russia has done for some persecuted minority, it’d be spun as a vital humanitarian intervention by the UK MoD. And you’d would be on here, arguing that military action to defend the East was the right thing to do!
Both Libya and Iraq were presented as vital humanitarian interventions after the WMD justifications fell apart. And the UK’s history is littered with the corpses of ‘natives’ we’ve conquered.
Yes a civil war broke out in eastern Ukraine post 2014 but that’s what it was, a civil war. Purely a matter for Ukraine. It was not within Russia’s ‘sphere of influence’ any more than the South American countries who’ve had CIA organised coups/revolutions lie within America’s ‘sphere of influence’. Russia had no business getting involved and under the Minsk agreements was supposed to have withdrawn from the area. You might’ve noticed that it didn’t. Oh and no, Ukraine didn’t ‘massacre 14,000 civilians’ about 11,000 of the dead were combatants, roughly divided equally to both sides.
A better analogy might be the US and Britain sending arms to Russia during WW2 but prohibiting Russia from using them inside Germany.
“why are the institutionally deceitful establishment media so keen on Harris?”
Tom74.
For me Harris is more controllable – she’s already onboard with Biden’s policies, having copied and pasted them into her own policy board – policies such as aiding and abetting the Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine – and the same goes for the Zionists committing genocide in Gaza; this is not to say, that Trump isn’t onboard with those policies as well – it may be, that Trump wants to do things his own way – even if the end results is the same – with regards to the Zionist, and the now – dictatorship in Ukraine.
RepublicofScotland
Have you seen Ursula von der Leyen’s post on X today, which she insists Crimea and Sevastopol are Ukrainian.
So historically ignorant, given the fact many who actually live there remember being part of Russia pre-1954; their status transferred to Ukrainian, in a wholly undemocratic process in which they weren’t consulted. The vast majority consider themselves Russian, culturally, and they speak Russian. So who exactly are the west planning on liberating? Isn’t the truth that effectively she’s calling for ethnic cleansing of native Russians from their historic homes in Crimea, on which subject…
She and the EU have no such problem with Israel’s expansionism; stealing land earmarked for a Palestinian state. Why is what Russia is doing worse than what Israeli settlers – with the full approval of the Israeli govt – are doing in the West Bank? This question should be put to every politician and US and UK official.
The very blatant double-standards and hypocrisy are what so infuriates.
Goose.
On Sevastopol in Crimea – the US under the guidance of Barak Obama – who incidentally holds the record of any POTUS, being at war the longest – his entire two-terms, and yet the Nobel Foundation had the chutzpa to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 – anyway I digress – the US under Obama had plans to take over the Russian Naval Base at Sevastopol – and turn it into a US Naval Base.
On Crimeans feeling Russian.
“The U.S. regime prepared for its planned takeover of Crimea by commissioning Gallup to poll Crimeans in 2013 to find out whether the residents there considered themselves to be Ukrainians (which would make the U.S. regime’s job in Crimea easier), or instead still Russians (which would foretell resistance there); and the findings were that Crimeans overwhelmingly still considered themselves to be Russians, definitely not Ukrainians.
A referendum was quickly held in Crimea about whether they wanted to be ruled by the newly installed Ukrainian government, and the results were in line with Gallup’s findings: Crimeans wanted to be ruled from Moscow, not from Kiev.
The U.S. then hired Gallup to survey Crimeans soon after the referendum. (Perhaps the U.S. regime was hoping to find that a scientific sampling of Crimeans would show a far smaller percentage favoring the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine than the referendum had reported, which could greatly intensify international skepticism about the legitimacy of Russia’s takeover of Crimea. But, if that was the purpose, Gallup’s findings again turned out to be a disappointment.)
Here is what Gallup found in both its 2013 and 2014 polls of Crimeans:
When Gallup did their “Public Opinion Survey Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 16-30, 2013” (which was called that because even when Crimea was part of Ukraine, it had a special status, as being an “Autonomous Republic” — not a province), only 15% (slide 8) of Crimeans viewed themselves as “Ukrainian,” but 40% said “Russian,” and 24% said “Crimean.” 53% (slide 14) wanted Crimeans to be part of the “Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” but only 17% wanted Crimeans to be part of “The European Union.” 68% (slide 15) said their feelings toward “Russia” were “warm,” but only 6% said their feelings toward “USA” were “warm.
When Gallup in April 2014 (right after the referendum) polled Crimeans again (slide 25), 76.2% had a “negative” view of the United States, and 2.8% had a “positive” view of it; 71.3% had a positive view of Russia, and 8.8% had a negative view of it. Asked whether (slide 28) “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people there/here,” 82.8% said yes; 6.7% said no. 89.3% in the poll expressed an opinion on this matter, and 93% of those who expressed an opinion said that the referendum “likely did reflect the views” of Crimeans. That was almost exactly the same percentage as those who in the referendum had voted to rejoin Russia. It couldn’t have been stronger verification of the referendum-results, than that. The Gallup poll findings (like its predecessor) were hidden from the public — not broadcast to the public by the regime’s propaganda-media. After all: the U.S. Government is a regime — it’s not a democracy. All of the formalities, now, are just for show. Both of its political parties are imperialists (“neoconservative”). Only their style differs.”
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/11/02/the-obama-regimes-plan-to-seize-the-russian-naval-base-in-crimera/
It’s all terrible theatre – completely fake and fixed.
Why even bother?
Harris is what used to be called a machine politician; she emerges from the system, like Obama did. A pity that she’ll be the first female president of the US. I’d have hoped for better.
I think one also should bury the claim that women are more peaceful than men. Clinton, Von Der Leyen, Albright, Thatcher, Truss, Frederikssen (Denmark), Marin (Finland), Harris, Meloni and countless of other women in power past couple of years, decades have really flipped that theory on its head.
I came across this recently, which is no surprise to me, as I have encountered as many female psychopaths along the way as I have male psychopaths, and they were/are all totally evil:
«Female psychopaths are up to five times more common than previously thought, according to an expert who will present his work at the Cambridge Festival later this month.
Current scientific evidence suggests that male psychopaths outnumber females by around 6:1. However, expert in corporate psychopathy, Dr Clive Boddy of Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), argues that studies may be failing to identify female psychopaths because they are largely based around profiles of criminal and male psychopaths.
During his talk at ARU’s Cambridge campus on Saturday, 16 March, Dr Boddy will argue that the characteristics of female psychopaths differ from males and that gender bias plays a role in the under-reporting, with society ignoring what people perceive to be male traits when they are displayed by women.
Dr Boddy will present his own research which shows that using measures of primary psychopathy, which exclude psychopathy’s antisocial behavioural characteristics and concentrate on its core elements, the real ratio of male female psychopathy may be about 1.2:1 – up to five times higher than previously suggested.
Referencing research into corporate psychopaths and how they operate in high-achieving roles in the workplace, Dr Boddy will explain how female psychopaths are more manipulative than males, use different techniques to create a good impression, and utilise deceit and sexually seductive behaviour to gain social and financial advantage more than male psychopaths do.»
https://neurosciencenews.com/female-psychopathy-psychology-25669/
Women only get to positions of power if they think like men. Women who don’t get nowhere. (Neither do men who aren’t aggressive and ruthless.) We like our leaders to be macho. It’s a design flaw in the species.
I don’t.
If I remember correctly, Thatcher went from being the most unpopular prime minister ever to being the most popular after the Falklands War. The right-wing press did their bit to help, of course!
Bramble
Yes that is a fair point and it is also telling that the political system looking for / appeal to arrogant, warmongering, aggressive leaders, regardless of gender.
Also, I forgot another one to the list, Golda Meir.
We were not designed, we evolved, over millions of years.
Humans lived well enough for many millennia before greed took over (relatively recently, in evolutionary timescales).
The flaw is not in the species – it’s in the system.
Yes, but Trump and the horizontal, diversity hire probably believe in design AKA divine creation and the planet only being 10,000 years old. Fundamentalists are all barking mad.
Not exactly a “design flaw” – and of course talk of “design” in connection with evolution is at best a loose analogy. We are roughly what worked over most of the past million years, where “what worked” means “what survived and reproduced successfully”.
For the vast majority of those million years aggressive and ruthless leaders were probably a huge asset. It’s only since the advent of what we laughingly call civilisation (well, OK, pedants, we do live in cities) that what were strengths among hunter-gatherers have become serious liabilities. But nobody told evolution (to indulge in a little anthropomorphism of my own) that we humans were going to change our environment so quickly.
“[For most of human history] aggressive and ruthless leaders were probably a huge asset.”
No, they were not.
Hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian, not hierarchical. Many indigenous cultures had mechanisms in place to actively prevent the rise of aggressive and ruthless leaders.
That worked fine, until whitey came along and ‘civilised’ them…
Greed has taken over the world. Greed aka wetiko https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/seeing-wetiko-on-capitalism-mind-viruses-and-antidotes-for-a-world-in-transition/
A shift in consciousness is required.
Jack… don’t forget Golda Meir! Praised by H Clinton. As Ussama Makdisi writes today, “Hillary Clinton defames Palestinian solidarity and students. She again brings up a classic Zionist talking point: what was offered by her husband to Arafat in 2000. She surely must know what was actually offered–why does she not spell out with evidence what was offered and let people judge for themselves how “generous” this “most generous” offer was? And, disturbingly, she praises the racist Israeli former pm Golda Meir who predictably was not from Palestine but who expropriated Palestinian natives and also insisted there is “no Palestinian people.” Such is Hillary Clinton’s hero.”
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/12/hillary-clinton-new-book-something-lost-something-gained
CM wrote that it is ‘ extremely dispiriting’, I wonder if that is the idea. To dispirit and demoralise people.
Bias on US TV? ‘T’was ever thus’ At least their bias is on show, unlike ours. Although I much prefer our debates to theirs..
Putin said that he prefers Kamala because she laughs merrily and it means that she’s doing well 🙂
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/05/politics/video/putin-says-he-supports-harris
Ka-MALA
Make America Laugh Again 🙂
Tatyana
Many have interpreted his comments as psychological gamesmanship, i.e. they think he still really wants Trump to win.
Many in the US are so fixated with Russia, they actually believe Russia controls the political weather in the US. This paranoia no doubt suits the Cold War revivalists and especially the US defence industry. I mean, if Russia/Putin wasn’t some, omnipresent ,almost supernatural force, haunting US politics, how would politicians justify the $800 billion per year plus they spend on defence to their more impoverished constituents? There is method to this collective madness.
Goose,
Here is the answer you need:-
George Kennan was the US architect of the ‘Cold War’. It will be impossible to deny that the military-industrial complex is a central part of the US economy. So, Kennan remains highly relevant to this day, when he stated years ago:-
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
― George F. Kennan
CFRB
Indeed.
But the US is a staggering $35 trillion in debt https://www.usdebtclock.org/, and the only way they can service that debt and continue adding to it – with nearly a trillion per year going on defence alone – is through selling bonds : govt backed debt securities. And the only reason they’re attractive to investors is because of the dollar’s continued status as the world’s reserve currency. With de-dollarisation accelerating, the US seems likely to have to use that military might to prop up the dollar’s status at some point in the future. Which, I’m sure most would agree, is a really shitty reason to go to war.
Since the Vietnam debacle, it’s been pretty much politically impossible to send an effective number of American troops into a war against a competent opponent. So, instead, the politicians threw trillions of dollars at “defence” contractors who promised “Wonder Weapons” that would win any war at the push of a button (not the big red one). That’s what makes Ukraine so significant. Those Wonder Weapons, once on a real battlefield, are proving to be little if any better than the opponent’s. Leaving the US with no credible threat to go to war against the powers that count.
There were always entertaining aspects to the Wonder Weapons. Such as the time where they were pitted against captured MiGs and proving far superior. No wonder: the MiGs’ electronics had been disabled. Their pilots toddled off to the local Kmart where they bought Fuzzbuster radar speed trap detectors. With those warning the pilots to take evasive action when radar locked on to them, the tables were turned. As if the Soviets couldn’t make Fuzzbusters or have them sent in the diplomatic bag.
Now, we get the excuse that the weapons supplied to Ukraine aren’t the latest versions in case the Russians get hold of secrets. The implication being that these “secrets” would change the course of the war, if only they could be deployed. Do they think we were born yesterday? The far more plausible explanation is that the further hundreds of billions spaffed on these latest secrets have gone the same way as the earlier trillions and they just don’t want the proof laid out there.
“service that debt…….through selling bonds.”
I used to think that too but after watching this I’m not so sure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fj0zRmEWYc
Goose,
Here is the answer you need:-
George Kennan was the US architect of the ‘Cold War’. It will be impossible to deny that the military-industrial complex is a central part of the US economy. So, Kennan remains highly relevant to this day, when he stated years ago:-
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
― George F. Kennan
I don’t care a tuppenny damn about either of them but I want Harris to lose, like I wanted Gauleiter Clinton to lose. The looks on the faces of the Democratic oligarchs will be worth it. ;O)
Squeeth,
“I don’t care a tuppenny damn about either of them but I want Harris to lose, like I wanted Gauleiter Clinton to lose. The looks on the faces of the Democratic oligarchs will be worth it.”
Having said that – so, a question.
Then what are the qualities which make Trump a more viable, acceptable, appealing and overall better candidate?
Shall await your precise reply.
Both Trump AND Harris were telling porkies:
FactChecking the Harris-Trump Debate (there’s a summary first and then a more detailed look at each claim)
In a lengthy exchange on the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Trump made several statements that were either false, misleading or unsupported, and Harris got a couple of facts wrong, too.
Trump referred to a rumor that began on Facebook alleging that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating local pets. City police have said there have been “no credible reports” of that kind of activity.
Harris claimed Trump intends to enact what in effect is a “sales tax” which she said economists estimate would raise prices on typical American families by almost $4,000 a year. That’s a high-end estimate from a liberal think tank about Trump’s plan for “universal baseline tariffs” on imports.
But Trump was also wrong when he claimed Americans would not pay higher prices due to tariffs, and that the higher prices would be borne by the countries the tariffs are levied against……
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/factchecking-the-harris-trump-debate/
What was their verdict on the claim about mass rape on October 7th? A giant lie told with deadly intent. Get back to us when you’ve got something on that.
Allan Howard
“Factcheck.org – really?
“The Annenberg Public Policy Center, which owns FactCheck.org, is based on the University of Pennsylvania campus in Philadelphia and also in Washington, D.C. and is funded with an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation, which partners with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The (APPC) is within the University of Pennsylvania.
“Joe Biden was head of the Penn Biden Center and also became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Biden made more than $900,000 from the University of Pennsylvania between 2017 and 2019 for very little work. Biden confirmed a leave of absence from the University of Pennsylvania in April 2019 when he started his presidential campaign. ”
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania
So what you’re saying is that one needs to factcheck factcheckers?!
I’m not really familiar with factchecking sites, and the only thing I ever recall was a Channel 4 News factcheck in respect of something or other, which eludes me now.
It did occur to me after I posted the extract from it and re-read it that it says that ‘Trump made several statements that were either false, misleading or unsupported’, whereas Harris just got a couple of facts ‘wrong’, as opposed to being false or misleading or unsupported. Wrong denotes mistaken of course, as opposed to deception and deceit. So that in…fact..got me wondrin’.
Apologies Allan – I didn’t mean to come across as all facetious – years of countering Chinthe BS links – have made me even more cynical than normal.
If you think Trump (when running for POTUS) was ever competent at stringing a cogent argument together, you simply haven’t been paying attention.
Curious how you haven’t once talked about him declaring he would be “dictator from day one”, or how he’s openly calling for political persecution of anyone who disagrees with him – including the entire judicial system – and campaigns against him.
Is the system fair? No. Should we be feeling sorry for fascists? No.
It knocks the credibility of sticklers for democracy, truth, rules and norms when they so brazenly rig debates.
Raises questions.
So too embracing wholeheartedly a figure like Dick Cheney, who rigged the 2000 election and lied America into a catastrophic war.
Time supporters of the sticklers started asking some obvious questions.
Obvious questions like: wouldn’t Mr. Murray have been all over it like a rash if those statements of Trump’s had come from Harris, or Starmer, instead?
Or, given behaviour and statements to date (oh and political affiliations like with the KKK who hate Muslims and Jews alike), which of the candidates is more likely to do a “fairer” job by Gaza?
Or, if the debate had been held how Trump wanted it – on Fox “News” – do you think it would have been any less biased? (It would simply have been biased the other way – and I bet Mr. Murray would still have found a way to criticise Harris rather more than Trump)
Or, why is a Socialist sympathising with a Fascist?
I don’t think it’s about any individual preferring one candidate over another. It’s about the forums available for the public to hear what any candidate has to say and assess their positions being set up to be systematically biased in favour of one candidate or another. That shouldn’t be the case for any candidate in any election anywhere, in this case either Trump or Harris. Neither of them should receive the “helping hand” of media bias and yet they do whilst the media organisations laud their own impartiality.
Our media is failing to do its job and that contributes to the calibre of candidates available for selection.
Of course, a lot of people will know of such biases in media and factor those into their decisions about either candidate, but equally many will trust the media affirmations that they are impartial.
I haven’t watched any of that debate even after the fact. I have, of course, read some of the reports about it.
Cheney hasn’t changed, you know.
Not in any way.
Caitlin Johnstone nails it here.
“So now we’re seeing two warmongering oligarchic parties shoving the Overton window of acceptable opinion as far in the direction of imperialism, militarism and tyranny as possible under the leadership of some of the very worst people alive.
By doing this they ensure that these matters are never on the ballot, and that elections are always about issues the powerful are completely indifferent toward like abortion and trans rights instead.
Progressives who want healthcare and a ceasefire in Gaza are being dismissed and ignored while alliances are being made with the world’s most blood-soaked imperialists. Things have been shoved so far to the right that this election is now a showdown between the Trump Party against the Cheney Party, and no matter who wins, the empire wins.
It is here worth noting that contrary to the narratives circulated in both mainstream Democrat-aligned media and mainstream Republican-aligned media, Donald Trump actually spent his entire term ramping up aggressions against Russia and helped pave the way to the war in Ukraine. He also promoted many longstanding warmongering agendas against official enemies of the U.S. empire such as Iran, Syria and Venezuela. But even Trump’s insane hawkishness is insufficient for these freaks.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/10/caitlin-johnstone-trump-party-vs-cheney-party/
Quote ‘Trump’s insane hawkishness is insufficient for these freaks.’
Caitlin is very good in her analysis, but she misses a key point, imho. For Trump may indeed be a hawk(?), but he was never integrated into the deep state. He was seen as too wild, an outsider; an aberration. They also view him as too stupid, too braggadocious or ‘loose lipped’ to keep secrets. Thus I’d imagine the State Dept probably kept him in the dark and basically had Pompeo act as a protective buffer between him and the CIA – where potentially harmful secrets are. In other words, all the usual geopolitical scheming and plotting the US does with the UK, was probably largely put on hold during Trump’s tenure, with the British deep state treading water, waiting for 2020, and the hoped-for election of Biden and a resumption of normal service.
Trump was also likely viewed as too irrational by the US top brass at the Pentagon to be completely trusted as a rational commander-in-chief. The US wouldn’t have conducted a major war with him at the helm for fear Trump would be demanding the nukes be unleashed at the earliest opportunity. This is probably why you are getting puppet presidents – they have to meet various criteria set by the State Dept, CIA i.e. the Deep State. It wasn’t always like this, but at a guess, it has been since George Bush senior perhaps? They need someone who can keep dangerous secrets and doesn’t have the qualms of a moral conscience.
The MAGA Republicans are currently the far more organic of the two big parties; skeptical of foreign entanglements, suspicious of the Deep State permanent officialdom; and of so-called US ‘liberal interventionism,’ than Democrats. The two parties have literally swapped places on the doves v hawks debate over the last 25 years. The scary thing, is in how many politicians in the two big political parties believe in the absolute righteousness of US power and US exceptionalism ; they all dismiss the leaders of China and Russia, N.Korea and Iran are a mixture of mad and/or bad and dangerous.
Goose.
What is there left to say about Trump – that’s not already been said, we know he’s just as much of a warhawk as Harris, or Biden – he’s rich and very egotistical – and overall he’s a businessman who wants to make money – by hook – or by crook. You’d think these “merits” which are right-up the Washington’s political string-pullers street, would endear Trump into their shady cabal – but no – is it as Johnstone says – that Trump isn’t insane enough for them – to allow him to join the maniacs club, or is it because Trump is in for the money and power – either way, the losers yet again will be the American public.
Republicofscotland
He’s just not one of them, not privy to their secrets. In power. he’ll be manipulated by them though. I’m no defender of Trump, I even prefer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over Trump, and RFK has many faults. Modern day presidential candidates are a world away from the deep intellectuals of yore. But maybe that’s how the Deep State of permanent officialdom like things; they don’t want a man, or woman, who has a deep social conscience, moral boundaries and thinks too deeply, lest they turn the heat on them.
Netanyahu clearly has Trump eating out of his hand, which is deeply problematic for anyone concerned with the plight of the Palestinians. The one positive with Trump, is he doesn’t seem to want nuclear escalation with Russia. On which, I’ve just seen an interview on X, that Putin gave in the last few days, on the subject of the UK and US authorising long-range precision missile strikes deep into Russia. I’m not scaremongering in predicting we could wake up and Kyiv and Lviv won’t exist anymore, with the reckless game Starmer and Lammy are playing. It’s that serious, in my opinion, Lammy could blunder us into WW3. Putin said : there’s a big difference between drones controlled by Ukrainians and heavy precision missile strikes deep into Russia, using wholly western technology and systems, looking deadly serious, he continued by saying, they would view it as a direct attack by NATO and the UK, and respond as such. What the hell is Starmer playing at?
The clip I watched is here:
https://x.com/LonsdaleKeith/status/1834298321239781702
The entire campaign and incorrectly reporting that Harris is lading Trump is simply to enable the Democrats to steal another election. The sooner that the American empire ends the better for all of mankind
When did the Democrats steal an election?
Evidence, please. Not baseless assertion. You really spoil any reasonable points that might have been made when you say nonsense like that.
When did Democrats steal an election? If 2020 does not qualify in your opinion, what about 1960? What about the 1948 Texas senatorial primary that “Landslide Lyndon” stole?
No, 2020 does not qualify – and since that’s what the OP was obviously referring to, do you agree that it was not in fact ‘stolen’?
With the exception of Fox News, the majority of the US broadcast media (MSNBC, ABC, CNN et al) are trying to carry Queen Kamala , aloft, into the White House all by themselves. With the bare minimum of political scrutiny.
Even long-term US watchers have been appalled by the levels of overt bias on display. It’s not a healthy political environment and it wouldn’t pass for impartial coverage in any democracy in Europe. Some dictatorships have greater scrutiny in their sham elections.
Fox News is quite an exception, actually. It is by far and away the most carried channel. Then there is the Murdoch press, and the right-wing dominance on social media and talk radio. The level of bias on display there is staggering.
The BBC used to be a ‘balance’ at a time when national newspapers were fairly well distributed across the political spectrum. The BBC still acts to ‘balance’ media reporting, even though that balance is around 95% on the far right.
We need to be careful in denouncing anything not straight down the middle, even though the majority of the media is way over to the Republican right.
I watched the debate repeat. Two ghastly politicians, in my view. Harris seemed more hawkish, while restoring Roe vs Wade is just satisfying the minimal majority aspiration; Trump seemed to trying to sabotage something, everything, himself. Character-wise, Trump reminded me of a cross between Grandpa Simpson and Zap Brannigan; so perhaps Harris was a cross between Leela and Mayor Quimby. But although the above article makes salient points, the ABC moderator format was designed to constrain participants to rules, which is largely why Trump seemed penalised, I think, but has no legitimate case for grievance. The moderators did effectively paint Harris as a hypocrite and a weathervane; Trump contributed most to painting himself as a liar and fantasist. Both candidates were extraordinarily weak on climate change. But what I noticed in the first segment particularly was how both candidates contradicted themselves. This is not a sign of healthy political debate. Is the USA effectively ungovernable now? Are its last Presidents doomed to ride the monsters their parties have helped spawn?
What struck me watching the clips is Harris’s weak, sometimes shakey, shrill voice and how sanctimonious, smug and patronizing she was. If she becomes President, she’ll patronize by speaking to Americans like they are all five years old.
It’s hard to listen to the point someone is making, however insightful or incisive, ifyou can’t get past the voice. Fingernails down a chalkboard annoying at times. And what accent was that? She’s used various accents Mid-west /Southern / Californian?…occasional Southern drawls and very high-pitched. Remember Emo Phillips?
It may seem like a trivial, petty point – the sort of thing Trump homes in on, but that grating voice and her tendency for condescension will get very annoying, very fast, if she becomes President.
That line was worked against Hillary Clinton too. I’m not sure how much of it is just old fashioned sexism – you never hear that about men, yet it’s a charge levelled against 100% of the female candidates that have ever stood.
Also bear in mind, Harris is unused to public speaking at this level. That nervousness is likely to recede.
Let’s hope it does. Then we can all celebrate a truly confident black woman president committing genocide.
As the brilliant Marc Maron said when Obama got elected – finally, the black community can know what it feels like to be really screwed over by one of your own.
glenn_nl
She may sound fine to Americans? Just an observation from watching the clips.
Hillary had a good speaking voice – I wouldn’t have said the same of her. I disliked Hillary’s hawkishness however, and the fact she wanted to immediately impose a no-fly zone over Syria, bringing the US into direct confrontation with Russia on day one.
I’m not bothered who wins really. Trump’s infatuation with Israel and Netanyahu – a man far cleverer and manipulative than Trump – is dreadful. Although, I do worry that Harris will be pushed by the hawks into escalating with Russia over Ukraine.
The “nails on a chalkboard” phrase was everywhere when Hillary was running in 2016 – it just rang a bell, that’s all.
My mentioning all this must have been taken as huge support for Harris. She’s way better than Trump IMHO, but no decent character seems to have had the slightest chance of coming near the Oval office pretty much ever.
I have yet to hear anything of the kind said of Jill Stein, who has a soothing voice and presence, and whom I intend to vote for.
@Lysias, or, y’know, pop some soma, or whatever the USAmerican electorate is on.
I did mean serious candidates, not vanity freaks who know they’re never going to get even 5%. I can certainly understand why you like someone so incredibly vain and self regarding, though.
Absolutely, Lysias. Indeed.
@Lysias, I wasn’t dissing Jill Stein, who as Wikipedia says:
But surely large parts of the USAmerican electorate are aff their heids on something or other? (soma, fentanyl, Jesus, the glistening exudations of Mammon, video box sets, cat videos, patriotic porn, genocide, slavery, whatever)
The political system gives enormous formal and informal powers to the Executive office, which Elaine Scarry analyses in Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom. Should we be listening more to doomish voices then, the Cassandras in the coal mine? Maybe our wish to be soothed is the problem?
Have I got this right Glenn? You, who set up a forum on here called ‘Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)’ – which will of course have pretty much zero effect on both the UK’s and the EU’s energy policies – and were goading people like Bayard & Stevie Boy to debate you on it, were you a US citizen, wouldn’t vote for their Green Party’s veteran candidate to be president because she is ‘incredibly vain and self regarding’*?.
* Have you met many politicians?
LA: A rather disjointed set of points from you, but yes – I did set up that forum thread. That was because I was tired of seeing shy denialists claiming “covid/ vaccination/ climate change is a hoax!” and running away repeatedly. If they had any courage in their convictions they could discuss it properly. But they don’t and never do.
What that has to do with this here and now is unclear.
I did say Stein is vain, and it is a vanity candidature – yes. But that’s not why I wouldn’t vote for her – that was just your lazy assumption. What I actually said was I could see why Lysias would like her.
Stein pops up every 4 years and does next to nothing the rest of the time. Same with Ralph Nader back in the day. In a FPTP system, any candidate running without any chance of winning only serves to lessen the chances of the party to which they are ideologically closest. So Stein only helps the Republicans, and voting for her helps the Republicans.
That’s why I wouldn’t vote for her.
I didn’t lazily assume anything Glenn, which is why I asked the question. What should Jill Stein be doing when she’s not standing in elections then? Blocking US roads? Throwing soup at oil paintings? Instead she’s giving the American electorate a choice. You seem to be passionate enough about the environment to open forums on this blog about it, but appear to regard Americans that put themselves forward as candidates for election largely on these issues as ‘vanity freaks’.
We also have an FPTP system in the UK, with two main parties. Should no one therefore stand in elections for our Green Party, the TUSC or Galloway’s Workers Party etc, because that might lessen the chances for Labour, who after all are still a smidgen to the left of the Tories (what with their VAT on private schools and one or two other things)? The fact that some people were prepared to stand for the Labour party in the early years of the 20th century (when the deposit was more than an average annual salary and required the candidate to obtain over 12.5% of the vote for it not to be forfeited), to give the left-leaning section of the electorate the choice of not having to vote Liberal, despite it having no chance of forming the government at the time, is why we have a Labour party.
LA: You assumed my only reason for opposing Stein was her vanity. Please don’t deny it.
What should Stein be doing for the other 3.75 years in the presidential cycle? Campaigning. Instead, the Green Party does very little the rest of the time.
There is one of only two people who is going to win the upcoming election – neither of them is Jill Stein. If you vote for her, you might as well vote for Trump. If you’re of the opinion that Dems and Reps are equally bad, fine – go ahead and vote for her, but only if you’re completely indifferent to who actually wins, and in the full knowledge it’s not going to be her.
@Goose, You’re right, it did seem a petty, trivial point, the kind of thing Trump homes in on (and largely in your mind, judging by the lack of corroboration from other commentators I’ve heard). Patriarchal Trump was surely attempting to be more condescending, even if it didn’t work. But in terms of how Harris deployed a mix of personal memoir, simple goal statements, direct addresses to USAmerican public, accusations to Trump, professional reflections, responses to moderators… I’d judge her vocal skills far exceeded Trump’s. What we heard was modulation and mirroring, which is pretty common in political speech. You want to broaden your appeal while sounding authentic (so speakers dip into what they intend to convey as appropriate vernacular when talking about childhood experiences or in professional mode, use an appropriate emotional modulation to convey “I really care about this”, range more subtly over accents to reach different parts of the country, or less subtly when mocking an opponent etc).
When I said ‘ghastly politicians’ I meant their politics, not their appearances or voices. I guessed the rest of my comment would have provided sufficient context clues, maybe not. I was neither attracted nor repelled by either’s personhood, and in any case reject the right-wing Great Man (Occasionally Woman) View of History, the cult of leadership, court politics etc.
But I expect you’re right in that people will largely project what they want to on to these politicians. Even if that wasn’t quite what you said.
SleepingDog
Trump, apparently didn’t do any debate rehearsal, whereas Harris treated it like her bar exam.
Par for the course really, given how the Trump/Vance campaign has been conducted to date. At times it seems like they are doing all they can to lose this; Vance’s ‘childless cat ladies’ comment was an absolute gift to their opponents for example, and Trump holds rallies in which he rambles on aimlessly, like some tedious, stroppy teenager with little to offer voters beyond insults.
They need a campaign manager to sharpen up their messaging quick, or they will likely lose.
I stated here, before he picked Vance, that Trump, if he really wanted to win should pick Vivek Ramaswamy as his running mate. Vivek is very high energy, an impressive speaker, savvy enough to take on the media and defend Trump, while firing up the base. But most importantly of all he could’ve steered Trump away from the personal name calling stuff that voters so dislike about him.
Vance didn’t just make that cat-ladies statement as a one-off comment that got latched upon. He has spent many years promoting his convictions that women ought to stay at home, respect the man of the house, and breed.
He’s also a complete fake with his Yale/tech-bro Hillbilly BS, a christianist fanatic with all the far-right control freakery that such zealots usually bring
.
I don’t believe for one second that Trump didn’t rehearse.
That reminds me of 2016 when people were saying ha ha, we’ve seen how the campaign is being run from Trump Tower, nobody knows what they’re meant to be doing, there are cardboard boxes all over the place, haha, shoestring, threadbare, shambles.
Great bit of psyops there from the Trump campaign.
“They’re eating the dogs” was probably a prepared line too.
For those of us who want Trump to lose this election, it’s a terrible idea to laugh at him. See for example what he says about “the weave”. It’s nowhere near as stupid as many in the dinner-party middle class believe. He’s not trying to appeal to them. Trump is actually a skilled speaker, past his prime but still skilled.
Nobody [+] gives a fscking shit about
* rules,
* legitmate arguments,
* climate change, or
* self-contradiction on issue X having become blatant once proper consideration is given to a candidate’s sentences 3 and 11.
Politics is about stab stab, lie lie, bags of money, contracts.
(+) Except some who suffer from post-student debating society OCPD and who probably enjoy the emotions they experience when sending and reading tweets.
@Brian Red, except you’ve just indulged in amateur debating society overblown rhetoric that undermines and detonates your entire argument. Politics is how we arrange to live in groups large enough to contain strangers. This theatre is a relatively recent abnormal growth on the political body claiming to be its public face. Elections can be won by putting voters off as well as by turning them on, while elections themselves are often hardly more than squalid squabbles between factions of ruling elites. Elites in fear of tipping points they cannot see and hardly predict (unless they precipitate them themselves). If political theatre seems to be just going through the motions, this tells the audience something. We heard the way the US military was being verbally pitched against paramilitaries, or local police seconded to border guards, for example. But these pitches are undermined by contradictions, which confuse those trying to read calls to arms in these messages.
Hierarchs impose order through rules, rulers tend to expend considerable effort on establishing legitimacy (hence the theatre of coronation and courts). You offer no evidence that nobody except wonks care about climate change because you have none.
So… Obama was giving Kamala her lines, like he did Biden? Maybe. Biden just rattled through in a monotone bypassing cognitive steering. Kamala kept the cheerful, upbeat, best friend reassuring tone.
Kamala is business as usual, following through the plans made in Congress in 2013. Sacrifice Ukraine to get Russia’s oil and gas. Sacrifice the Palestinian people to get Gaza’s monopoly on gas for Europe. Victoria Nuland is the ruthless driver of this agenda, with Iran as the biggest prize, harking back to Bush happily singing the Beach Boys Barbara Ann with the words bomb Iran instead.
Trump does not care about brown people, women, or internal affairs of other countries. He has Kushner to keep AIPAC onside. Kamala’s husband is fervently pro Israel and vocal in his support, whatever happens. Trump is the wild card though, and did not start any wars during his presidency. Afghan women suffered most from him ending the war there more abruptly than anyone expected, and he likes to talk straight to strong leaders, and do business. If elected he will be commander in chief of NATO. General Petraeus is currently out on his tour of duty putting the pieces in readiness across Europe. Trump may have a different view.
Keep-America-laughing is perhaps the party we need to enjoy just now, during this hiatus while nations across the world meet and plan for different scenarios.
I have no idea who might be worse for the world, probably whichever one wins….
“Trump is the wild card though, and did not start any wars during his presidency.”
From Caitlin Johnstone https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2024/09/12/the-debate-was-two-assholes-bragging-about-what-murderous-empire-sluts-they-are/
«“If you’re anti-war than why don’t you support Trump?”
Because I fucking paid attention when he was president.
I watched the warmongering and militarism rolled out by his administration instead of mindlessly ingesting right wing media like a drooling idiot.
I watched the evil things he did in nations like Yemen, Venezuela, Iran and Syria.
I watched him ramp up cold war aggressions against Russia and pave the way to the war in Ukraine.
I watched him assassinate Soleimani and shred the Iran deal.
I watched him lock up Assange.
I watched him veto attempts to save Yemen.
I listened to him say he’s keeping troops in Syria “to keep the oil”.
I watched him starve Venezuelans to death while staging the most transparent foreign coup attempt in history.
I watched him appoint bloodthirsty PNAC neocons like Elliott Abrams and John motherfucking Bolton to high positions within the US murder machine.
I listened to Mike Pompeo say they’re squeezing Iranian civilians with starvation sanctions in the hope that it will spark a civil war.
I listened to Rex Tillerson brag about boats full of dead North Koreans washing up on Japan’s shores because US sanctions had successfully starved them to death.
I watched him shamelessly facilitate agendas that had long been promoted by the worst neocons and war whores in Washington while you dopes who are now asking me “why don’t you support Trump?” were letting Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson tell you how to think.
I don’t support Trump because I spent four years of my life staring right at the administration he was running and writing about what I saw unfiltered by the lens of party politics instead of letting a bunch of asshole pundits confirm my biases for me like you did. That’s the one and only reason we see him differently.»
Let’s not have any delusions about how “anti-war” Trump is or has been.
Blame Trump for not caring for any people unless they serve his profit, but Ukraine is Victoria Nuland’s plan, detailed to Congress in 2013, and supporting the Azov shelling Eastern Ukraine from 2014-2018 when Trump removed the financial backing.
Kushner and Emhoff are both chums with Chabad.
For Emhoff:
https://x.com/Chabad/status/1734601205244961247
Was I dreaming or did Harris really answer the big “what are you going to do about climate change” debate question with a pledge to expand fracking, extract “historic” amounts of fossil fuels & build way more combustion-engine cars?
What is the distinction now supposed to be between these two parties?
She’s not entirely stupid then !
There is no distinction Dom, not inside Kamala or inside Starmer. It is same as it ever was, an economically unsustainable drive, wars and lack of jaw-jaw until the bitter end, boasting about what they have done whilst trillions in debts.
Their fake representations of our needs and that of the planet is obvious to exploit forever; they do not have it in them to do different. Their past colonial addictions mean slavery for us all. We are either their willing bitches, or castigated as democracy-destroying terrorists.
We are on a downward curve and unless we are all to come together for international human rights – this tangible slippery thing so ignored and easily dropped by the ICC and our law masters in the ministry of untruth – we will perish under their whips and malice.
They don’t understand that you cannot bomb human rights once people understand what they mean for us.
We must dig up lawns and grow food for us and our communities, to feed ourselves like millenia of our foremothers and fathers have done.
And shun mammon’s advance, the pitfalls and their grimaced politicians who gang up against us.
We, the people, must mean something again before our children can have happy futures.
America does not intend to allow Europe to buy clean gas from Russia. They have to have dirty fracking gas delivered by ship.
Fracking is the worst for the atmosphere, water table and soil, in addition to earthquakes, and tar sands are worst for the ocean. The gas under Gaza is the shallow point access to vast reserves under Israel.
In May 2024 Russian LNG supplies to Europe overtook those of the USA. One of the pipelines supplying Russian gas is through Ukraine who is being paid transit fees by Russian gas companies.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Reclaims-Its-Position-as-Europes-Top-Gas-Supplier.html
Things are not all as clear cut as they appear to be.
Alyson
Yes, I don’t doubt the hegemonic intentions behind extracting record quantities of gas and oil. What baffles me is why she would proudly boast about it in a presidential debate.
Four years ago Chomsky claimed Americans had an existential duty to vote Democrat because Trump was pledging to do just that. The climate emergency is the biggest flag that most supporters of the party wave to justify voting for these people.
To commit to unprecedented environmental destruction seems incredibly counterintuitive, especially at a time when large sections of the Democrats’ base are already disgusted and alienated by what the party has done to the Palestinians. And is continuing to do.
I do think that those like Trump who advocate a ceasefire and negotiation with Putin are naive.
The Russian media give airspace to propagandists like Solovyev who (perhaps tongue in cheek?) advocates for the Atlantic as Russia’s Western border.
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1834202496488648710?t=6ASN-SOpf0CPAFJG2cJFJw&s=09
Even if a rhetorical flight of fancy it shows the distance that the Russian elite need to travel before negotiations are possible.
Much of the US-based part of the ruling class doesn’t want a psycho in the Oval Office, especially when it looks as though a major war is coming.
But “much” isn’t all. And some players aren’t especially stuck in being US-based anyway.
The debate hasn’t affected much.
The “weird” line from the Harris campaign is as weak as hell. It may have a very small effect, mostly inducing a few intending Trump voters to stay at home, but that’s it. One’s response is to wonder “Is that all you’ve got?”
Trump’s not weird. He’s psychotic.
Harris going “tee hee hee, fnarr fnarr, chortle chortle, watch me put my hand on my chin and use my eyes”, is probably already having diminishing returns which may soon turn negative.
One card the Dems can play and probably will at the right time in the next eight weeks is to put Harris in as president and let her be in charge of killing some people, and introducing some other tough stuff. No more Mrs Nice Gal.
All western politicians who want to be successful scream when the Zionists are committing crimes against humanity that Israel has the right to defend itself against “terrorists”, that one of the last ethnic-supremacist regimes in the world is the only “democracy” in the region, that it’s constantly under attack by barbarians’ “rockets” as it tries to mind its own business and seek peace, and that all right-thinking people must obviously take the Israeli point of view. I.e. what do you do about the Palestinians. It’s never what do you do about Israeli terror or about the very existence of a terrorist ethnic-supremacist fascist regime that’s committing genocide and has its agents of influence all over the place. Harris is no exception. But the fact that she has made whimpering sounds regarding the Palestinians that haven’t quite been equivalent to “Kill them all” is REMEMBERED.
I am not at all sure that the person inaugurated as US president in January will be either Trump or Harris. I won’t be surprised if Trump is removed and someone like Nikki “Finish them” Haley is inserted in his place.
Trump was lucky on 13 July.
In the debate Harris said: without U.S. and European support, Putin would already be sitting in Kiev, with Poland next on his list. For the 800,000 Polish-Americans in Pennsylvania, this should hit home.
Idiotic nonsense, of course it could be just electioneering, Pennsylvania being a key battleground state; but if she really believes what’s she’s saying and she wins, we’re doomed.
There is no evidence, at all, that Russia have any designs on forcing themselves on Poland, Czechia, Romania et al. Why would they? Nobody in Russia would want such a thing either. The Russians probably don’t even wish to run Ukraine’s govt in the longer term; they’d like a return to a friendlier leadership in Kyiv, no doubt, and no NATO membership, inevitably followed by build-up of offensive capability on their sensitive Eastern border with Ukraine, i.e. the situation they had previously – hence the strategically important desire to incorporate parts of Eastern Ukraine – to physically prevent that possibility ever arising again. But no one, except the dimmest bulbs in foreign affairs field believes the ‘Putin wishes to recreate the USSR’ by force. It’s total nonsense, and even Putin has completely dismissed it as such.
Goose.
Lammy and Blinkin – were in Kiev recently, I’d imagine – that they were giving Zelensky the thumbs up, to using long range missiles against Russia.
Putin – has said that this would mean that Nato is at war with Russia, and Russia would act accordingly.
Westminster, Washington and Brussels – are determined to escalate hostilities with Russia. A US carrier is being pulled from the Med – and sent East.
The British regime’s media are currently running the story that if brave Britain and the brave USA give long-distance missiles to the Kiev government allowing it to increase its capacity to strike deep inside Russian territory, “Putin” will say it’s “war”.
Funny this isn’t being covered as a big story in the Russian media.
It seems to me that the timing of the story is a distraction from Russia expelling six British diplomats for spying.
Another observation is that the main mass market for the British regime’s media seem to be being hit with increased mind befuddlement to a point where they don’t know what “war” means. Here’s a clue: if country A declares that it will consider an intended action by country B as an act of war, that is what is generally called an ultimatum. (If anyone doesn’t understand this, consider that if country A thought country B was definitely going to carry out the act no matter what, there would be no “if” about it, and country A would say OK, this is war right now. That’s not an ultimatum. An ultimatum requires apparent uncertainty: the apparent view in country A that country B may or may not carry out the act. JFC, how simple is this?)
Which isn’t to say a Russia-NATO war isn’t coming. It is.
‘The British regime’s media are currently running the story that if brave Britain and the brave USA give long-distance missiles to the Kiev government allowing it to increase its capacity to strike deep inside Russian territory, “Putin” will say it’s “war”’.
He has just done exactly that.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/12/europe/putin-warns-nato-missiles-hnk-latam-intl/index.html
Republicofscotland
I don’t actually believe Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, basically because, it’s too big a step and they simply don’t need to. Storm Shadows aren’t a game-changer, especially if Russia simply moves their military assets out of range. The UK only has a limited inventory and we need to hold back a credible number for our own defence purposes. When Lammy says he wants to give Ukraine “What they need to win, before the winter sets in” you wonder who’s advising him? Lammy is so incompetent, he makes Starmer look competent by contrast. When quizzed recently by Corbyn in the HOC, over any possible UK military role in Gaza, instead of denying it, or simply saying ‘no comment,’ he said we don’t talk about ‘ongoing operations’ – giving away the fact we are playing a role in possible war crimes?
If Russia really want to upset the US, they could offer Iran the same nuclear protection Belarus has accepted. The Zionists who dominate the US govt would find such a move near intolerable, given it’d make attacking Iran’s nuclear sites moot and a wider attack impossible. The US ‘weak spot’ is Israel. Jordan is also potentially at risk of being destabilised with a population that’s 80% Palestinian and a king who is doing the bidding of the US and Israel. Russia has many options.
Storm Shadows have a stated range of 250km. Shorter than I’d thought, but Russia aren’t about to move assets back by that distance, e.g. from Rostov-on-Don.
In WW2 the Soviets moved enormous factories back over 1,000 miles – behind the Urals. Don’t underestimate their determination or their abilities.
Goose.
For me – Ukraine has lost the war with Russia – even with strong Nato help – not to lose face, with the rest of the world that’s watching from the sidelines – Nato will have two choices – one is to force Zelensky to make a peace deal with Putin – or escalate the conflict – there hasn’t been much talk coming out of Washington, Westminster and Brussels on the former – but there has been talk of supplying long range missiles to Ukraine from them.
If Ukraine – is allowed to use long range missiles to strike deep inside Russia – this would be a huge escalation in hostilities – and, it would only be natural for Putin to give the orders – to strike countries where these missiles are coming from – to stop severe damage, and possibly heavy casualties occurring on Russian soil.
From there on in – I expect things to spiral out of control – as strikes go from military targets to infrastructure – energy, and government areas of the countries involved.
One frightening scenario of this possible escalation is – that Russia is losing and Putin – orders any nukes left that haven’t been destroyed to be launched – I can’t recall a scenario, where a nuclear country on the verge of collapse due to war – has to make that final decision – of whether or not to launch its remaining nukes, I guess – we would only know what Putin’s final decision would be at the time.
The same scenario applies to other nuclear nations, I hope we never find out – maybe it up to the citizens of the world – to stop this folly from ever happening afterall – its will be those folk – that are left to pick up the pieces, if there’s no peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.
Pride /vanity can be a dangerous thing, especially for the US and UK elites.
Many are now asking online, just why Ukraine is so very important to the UK and US security establishment, that they’re prepared to risk pushing things to the brink? And tbh, I don’t really know the answer to that question. There’s the Biden family’s financial involvement in Ukraine which is sketchy as hell. Beyond that though, maybe there’s truth in the online rumours that Ukraine special forces conducted false flag ops in Syria, and provided snipers in the Maidan coup, and thus they are a potential liability, should they turn on the US/UK if Ukraine is defeated?
I think the public mood is now turning. The Kursk invasion was a terrible misstep by Ukraine imho, as they’ve lost the important moral argument that they are the sole victims of an illegal invasion. It’s unlikely to be successful and the images of Russians being evacuated from their homes has allowed Putin to reinvigorate support for the war in Russia. Netanyahu has similarly exploited the evacuation of citizens from Northern Israel for propaganda purposes.
People sense our leaderships, including the awful current EU Commission’s leadership, have become dangerously obsessed with Ukraine, Putin and Russia. To a degree that’s detrimental to European interests’ prosperity and wellbeing. Look how Germany’s economy has suffered, in part, due to loss of cheap Russian energy.
And this notion, being put about by EU govts, that the military hardware and missiles become Ukrainian once delivered, and thus the provider is somehow free of all responsibility for how it’s used, is ridiculous. In the catastrophic, hypothetical event. of terrorists detonating a nuclear device in the West, the only concern would be which country actually supplied said device, because they’d have no means of manufacturing such a sophisticated piece of kit on their own. With Storm Shadow and ATACMS using cutting edge tech, and costing millions per unit, it’s not like providing basic artillery shells and bullets.
Yes Brian – I agree that the expelling of the British diplomats for spying – is playing a part in the hype from the Western media – on what was said, with regards to deploying long range missiles in Ukraine – however bluff or not – this is what Putin said about the missiles – and it explains why, if its not a bluff, to irk Putin, because of the expulsion of the six – then it shows that Ukraine cannot effectively use the long range missiles without Nato’s help, and why Putin, will see it as Nato openly attacking Russia, in an act of war.
“President Putin explained Russia’s understanding that what is at issue goes far beyond mere permission for Ukraine to use Western supplied long-range offensive weapons as it sees fit. Per Russian military evaluation, Ukraine by itself does not possess the satellite reconnaissance capability necessary to program the NATO-supplied missiles to target. For this it is totally dependent on NATO countries. More important still, Ukraine does not have the training, the skills to maintain and launch these missiles on its own. Two or three weeks training is utterly inadequate to manage these highly sophisticated weapons systems. Accordingly all of those functions must necessarily be carried out by technical people from the NATO country manufacturers of the weapons. For these reasons, Russia concludes that the missiles effectively represent NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict. The status of the conflict moves on from a proxy war to a full-blown war by NATO countries on Russia. That change in the nature of the war requires a change in the way Russia conducts itself. As Putin said, Russia will calibrate its response to any attack to the level of threat it perceives.”
https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/09/13/putin-to-reporter-pavel-zarubin-nato-will-then-be-at-war-with-us/
We need to be very careful here. Putin said “NATO – the USA, the European countries – ” would “be fighting with” (“воюют”, from the verb “воевать”) Russia. It’s the bit at the end of the clip here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2024/sep/12/putin-warns-that-lifting-ukraine-missile-restrictions-will-put-nato-at-war-with-russia-video
That verb is cognate with the noun for “war” (“война”) , but the normal way of saying “at war with” in Russian is “в состоянии войны с”. Putin doesn’t say that. The correct translation of what he does say, which is perfectly good English, is “be fighting with”.
I think there have been other statements by Russian leaders saying that countries arming Ukraine are already “at war” with Russia, but I’m focusing only on what’s in the British media right now, for which the main market is British people. We are talking regime media, which can only be taking its orders from the Foreign Office.
They are painting relations between Britain and Russia as further down the road to physical war than they actually are. (By “physical” I mean actual fighting between the two states’ armed forces. Psychological warfare has already begun.) There are four main possible reasons why they are doing this:
1. They want Russia to back down, and towards that aim they want Russia’s Britain specialists, having analysed British news reports, to advise the Russian cabinet that they’re really serious and are getting their own population ready. And when Putin realises this, he’ll say okay, okay boss, I see your point – can we negotiate timing and stuff for when you sail your navy into Sevastopol.
2. They believe Putin to be all fart and no follow-through, and that he’ll back down anyway – i.e. they can arm their puppets in Kiev to bomb the hell out of Russian territory as far as 250km behind the current front lines, and Putin will wee himself and not act against the powers that have escalated the conflict in any way. So they’re taking the opportunity of looking good in the eyes of their own population, whom they’re priming to believe that Russian quiescence will be a result of Genocide Keir Starmer’s being really hard, especially against foreigners. In this scenario, they couldn’t care less what Russia’s Britain specialists think.
3. They don’t want Russia to back down. They are getting their population ready because they intend Britain and the USA soon to be fighting Russia.
4. Clickbait – or sensationalism as it used to be called.
Taking Starmer’s recent travels into account, I reckon 3 is the most likely.
Brian.
Are we – in the West being prepped for war with Russia – I don’t think its the case anymore of manufacturing consent from the public – they just go ahead and push their agendas via the complicit media – regardless of what the public thinks about them.
Meanwhile the Mad Dogs at the Pentagon – have ordered a simulation study report, on what would become of agriculture in the East – in the event of nuclear strikes – Western Russia has been charted as the epicentre of the hypothetical strikes.
Agreed. Russia is not the USSR. It is not expansionist, and countries that used to be in the USSR are independently democratic in various diverse models of government. The regions in Eastern Ukraine voted to secede from Ukraine after 5 years of relentless shelling by the US installed government in Kyiv, and cutting off funding for pensions, schools and infrastructure..The US had expected Russia to intervene much earlier but Putin used diplomatic channels until they were invited.
The USSR was not expansionist – at least not after Stalin took over. The main substance of his falling-out with Trotsky was that Trotsky wanted to go straight for global revolution, but Stalin wanted to do a thorough job in the USSR first. The USSR occupied much of eastern Europe after 1945 to obtain exactly the same kind of buffer zone that Mr Putin is talking about establishing in Ukraine. “Next time the West launches a sneak attack,” they reasoned, “at least we’ll have 1,000 km of extra space to slow them down”.
Even today Russia (much reduced from the USSR) is the largest country in the world, with about twice the area of the USA, China, or Canada. It also has generous amounts of every natural resource it could need. There isn’t the slightest reason for it to expand.
The US and UK probably know Russia’s intentions are limited to those regions in the East and NATO guarantees and thus the expansion is containable, but admitting that would destroy the whole ‘Putin must be stopped from marching across Europe’ narrative that’s being used to maintain relatively modest public support for the war. Adding to the problems of trying to find a negotiated way out of this, is the fact any territorial concessions are terminal for Zelensky’s regime, because of their human sacrifice to date. Ukraine will never be stable and peaceful again however, if Kyiv insists on its 1991 borders, but nobody in the West wants to admit it.
Czechoslovakia was a country which was expanded into by the USSR. It is 2 countries now. Tanks streaming across the country crushed the idealists dreaming a democratic freedom in 1968. The Iron Curtain came down hard during that time when the Beatles were the global cultural revolution.
It is interesting that Kamala Harris attacked Trump over his vilification of the ‘Central Park 5’ whose guilt was far from certain and who were subsequently exonerated.
However, let us not forget her role as Attorney General in California where she helped block the release of Sirhan Sirhan who was framed for the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy back in 1968.
Sirhan probably fired blanks at Kennedy who was not hit by any bullets from the front. All his wounds were from behind and at very close range.
If released, it would be possible to hypnotise Sirhan again and thus to discover who originally hypnotised him after his fall from a horse back in September 1966.
@craig
Mr. Murray, I’m sorry for the off-topic, I thought it might ne interesting for you. The news about Directorate for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of Great Britain
https://ria.ru/20240913/britaniya-1972427295.html
The accreditation of six employees of the political department of the British embassy has been terminated, the article contains their photos and names:
1. Jessica Davenport;
2. Callum Andrew Duff;
3. Grace Elwyn;
4. Catherine McDonnell;
5. Blake Patel;
6. Thomas John Hickson Stevinet.
(the names I got via Google Translate tool, they are originally published in Russian and might be spelled differently in English)
Also in the article:
The FSB also accused the British Council of intelligence in the Kherson region for Kiev.
The British Council is sponsored by the government, but has the status of a non-departmental public body. According to the Council’s employees, its activities involve British intelligence agents whose names were published in the “Tomlinson list” in 1999:
Raymond Benedict Bartol Asquith, Viscount, born in 1952: since 1983 in Moscow, since 1992 in Kiev
Carrie Charles Bagshawe, born in 1943, Knight of the Order of the British Empire: since 1982 in Geneva, since 1988 in Moscow.
Richard Philip Bridge, born in 1959: since 1986 in Warsaw, since 1988 in Moscow.
Stuart Armitage Brooks, born in 1943, Commander of the Order of the British Empire: since 1972 in Rio de Janeiro, since 1975 in Lisbon, since 1979 in Moscow, since 1987 in Stockholm, since 1993 again in Moscow.
Michael Hayward Davenport, born in 1961: since 1989 in Warsaw, since 1996 in Moscow.
Herbert William York, born in 1966: since 1985 in Prague, since 1998 in Moscow.
Catherine Sarah-Julia Horner, born in 1952: in 1985 in Moscow, since 1997 again in Moscow.
Norman James MacSween, born 1948: since 1972 in Nairobi, since 1977 in Tehran, since 1983 in Bonn, since 1991 in Stockholm, since 1995 in Moscow.
Justin James MacKenzie Smith, born 1969: since 1996 in Moscow.
Martin Eric Penton-Voake, born 1965: since 1995 in Moscow.
John MacLeod Scarlett, born 1948, Commander of the Order of the British Empire: since 1973 in Nairobi, since 1976 in Moscow, since 1984 in Paris, since 1991 again in Moscow.
Guy David St. John Kelso Spindler, born 1962: since 1987 in Moscow, since 1997 in Pretoria.
Christopher David Steel, born in 1964: since 1990 in Moscow.
And it seems to me that I have come across the name Christopher Steel several times in your publications.
omg
Steele of all people.
As a kid I took a few courses at the BC.
thanks for this thorough research
lets hope Craig finds the time to comment
p.s. In other news: Putin´s statement yesterday on NATO a war party
(even though we know RU territory was targetted before for some time)
http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75092
Tatyana.
Interesting comment.
Steele – has/had close ties with Pablo Miller, and Sergei Skripal – going as far back as the 1990’s.
Steele is a director of Orbis Business Intelligence, a private intelligence agency.
Mr. Steele, his Linkedin page says he also is the Founder of Magic Strand Limited
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11738505/officers
Also if you trace this gov.uk companies register, you’ll find him as an active director in Chawton Holdings Limited
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10834237/officers
where he worked with Christopher Parker Burrows, who resigned in one day from 2 companies, and then resigned from Orbis twice, in 2023 and 2024, looks like he prefers to resigne in July 🙂
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/SSNpD2miVfuarqQvOtcxBn6oAj8/appointments
People in Hapshire may meet them in the streets sometime.
Mr. Burrows spoke on Trump dossier
https://www.itv.com/news/update/2017-01-12/ex-spys-partner-refuses-to-confirm-link-to-trump-dossier/
Actually, Linkedin is a curious place. That girl #1 in the expelled British diplomats list, Jessica Davenport, got a personal page there. In the Interests section stands Goldman Sachs and Boston Consulting Group. Makes me wonder if she really is a British Diplomat?
Also, if you visit Chris Steele’s linkedin page, you’ll see his skills and a list of persons who verified his skills.
Like Dave Watson, ex-cousellor in Foreign and Commonwealth Office, now the director in Rintel, who is interested in general Petraeus of US Army and Keir Starmer.
Or, Johnatan M. Winer, with several awards from the US State Depaartment
Or, Gita Mooljee, who’s got recommendations from Peter Millett, ex-ambassador of Britain to Lybia, Jordan and Cyprus, and another recommendation from the Press Officer at European Parliament.
Photos of the six loyal and brave democratic activists who are being so terribly maligned and would never spy on anyone:
https://smotrim.ru/article/4140770
https://www.vesti.ru/article/4141390
Interesting that, so far as I am aware, the UK media has not named or shown photographs of these diplomatic martyrs.
It’s almost as if they were actually spies.
Not spies at all, just diplomats!!
That’s why the BBC had to blur out all their faces on the Six O’Clock news tonight lol.
Tbh, it’d be very strange if the majority weren’t (MI6) ‘spies’ given current tensions.
Starmer’s trip to Washington to discuss Ukraine, and possibly more worryingly, the Middle East, has echoes of Blair being summoned to Crawford, Texas in 2002. Back then, in public, Blair continued to insist throughout 2002 that he had taken no decision on whether to support the Iraq invasion that eventually began in March 2003. Leaks from officials working for Dick Cheney, Bush’s vice-president revealed that the prime minister had indeed committed to backing a war despite public statements in Britain to the contrary.
And Blair’s revered by the current political class as a senior statesman. Lying seems to be the default when it comes to foreign policy. And then they wonder why politicians are held in such low esteem.
See also Starmer in Berlin, meeting Scholz to discuss a “trade deal”, when Germany isn’t allowed to negotiate or sign trade deals on its own account because it’s in the EU. Far more likely, they were preparing for war.
Ukraine and Israel are of a piece. The plans have been in place for over a decade.
1) Putin and Netanyahu and Iran are signed to an agreement which protects the borders of Israel and Iran. Netanyahu has renegotiated from time to time to allow for The Golan Heights occupation for example.
2) America wants global dollar hegemony for all oil and gas. Pipelines across Syria are held by Russia and by the US.
3) Europe is the market. It must buy only from OPEC nations. The pipeline across Ukraine is controlled by US interests. Gas under Gaza was originally under British control with agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Israel said No. Then a Dutch company bought the rights to extract the gas and much of the pipeline was laid to Cyprus. Again Israel said it would not allow the profit to come to the Palestinian Authority.
4) Nordstream was clean gas direct from the Arctic Circle. America said No.
5) Iran has huge oil reserves and Saudi is running low. Saudi is a key player intent on serving Saudi’s interests in line with acceding to US controls. It is getting the advanced weaponry it wants in return for its assistance.
6) Remove Russia and the border controls between Israel and Iran cease to exist. Netanyahu is very careful with his wording where this agreement serves Israel’s safety from Iran.
7) Russia has massive oil and gas reserves. US companies swung a fast one on Kazakh oil a couple of years back, and had to be forced back, with orders not to try and impose OPEC pricing on Kazakh citizens for Kazakh oil. Citizens took to the streets to protest, and Muslims from neighbouring countries arrived and attacked police with machetes. They were simply bussed back to the border after being processed, with Western observers to ensure all was done fairly.
8) All sorts of influencer online encouragement is directed at driving social unrest in Iran to try and weaken from within. Iran has been the ultimate objective since Bush identified seven countries he intended to topple, on the basis that removing one strong leader ought to be enough to collapse their governments. Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran, think, were targeted by the Arab Spring and financial support for Opposition Parties. See the books by Gene Sharp on peaceful revolution….
At the end of the day, the Donald has declined the offer to face Kamala again in a second debate. Said he “I don’t need to. I won the first one brilliantly, even though it was biased against me. People love me, that’s the only thing that matters”.