To hope that Donald Trump doesn’t win the election

[RosaMoline]

….it’s getting closer.
I was hoping that Kamala would be a shoo-in for the presidency, but looking at the betting odds, I’m feeling quite pessimistic.
It’s incomprehensible to me that a convicted felon, racist, rapist, liar and misogynist who spurred on an insurrection - after everything that’s happened - is running for office again and may very well win.
It’s comforting to read though that fellow Brits DON’T support him.
Apart from Reform. Obviously.
yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

He is now flirting with the ultimate tax cut, no taxes at all.....

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1849499975119499514

No taxes?! That's a good one. Well... he does have 'no cognitive' (his words)

I presume that you think the BBC is biased towards the left? Right wingers generally think that and left wingers think it's biased towards the right.

Everyone complains about the BBC, but unlike you, I don't believe its days are numbered and I'm glad about that.

I don’t think you’ve been in a history lesson in your entire life.

Germans carried out the holocaust. Or as we call them, people. Like you and me.

the causes of the holocaust are far and wide.

the primary one though is that in 1930~ everyone hated jews. It was less than a hundred years ago.

after that you have the treaty of Versailles
economic instability
Political instability
the international rose of nationalism
nazi propaganda and the need for an internal enemy (that of course is them)
international antisemitism
pseudoscientific racism and eugenics

it was not the Nazis in a vacuum. They did it. They and their actions cannot be seen in a vacuum

Sorry if this is already posted and I've missed it upthread, but interesting development. Reilly was reelected by Waukesha in 2022 after speaking out against Jan 6.

www.fox6now.com/news/waukesha-mayor-endorses-kamala-harris

As you admit yourself, there really are no versions of the truth. Truth is not subjective. There's objective fact, which can be established with evidence, and there's subjective opinion, which could be based on fact (or at least objective observation and reasoning) but it could also be based on fantasy and ignorance.
Trumpers do not rely on facts at all, quite the opposite. They simply deny them. They are motivated by emotion, not reason.
That is my subjective opinion, but it is based on objective observation, not emotion, fantasy or delusion. I have no dog in this fight. It's not my country. But I can't unsee what I've seen just because it sounds rude or intolerant to some people.

It's one thing to not like vaccines. I get that. I can't even get them myself since I'm immunocompromised. It's quite another thing to make up crazy conspiracy stories about Covid and to think eating bleach will cure it just because Trump said so. That's the sign of an unsound mind and yes, low intelligence and/or massive ignorance.

So while all opinions are subjective, they are not all equally well informed or well reasoned, therefore they are not all equally deserving of respect. That's why bothsidesisms are not useful as arguments. Sometimes, one side really is more moronic than the other, and this is just such a case.
Here's an article which explains the psychological
forces behind Trumpism.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-supporters-dunning-kruger-effect-213904

That's mostly semantics. I'm fully aware of the politics post WW1 - but ultimately the Nazi regime were the only regime in our part of the world which enacted a full scale genocide based on their ideology. Cause - effect.

So essentially you can claim that 'everyone hated Jews', but what matters is what they did with that - and what they did not do with that. The Nazis and their ideology are the direct cause of the Holocaust - they enacted it after all. In the same way that if I were to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, I would be the direct cause of that person's death. What came before would be utterly irrelevant under the law, unless it was a self defence situation - which one cannot claim for Nazi Germany.

😆
He is dumber than a fence post. It's certainly not a stretch to think anyone voting for somebody who spews such laughable nonsense has to be extremely ignorant and irrational.

I don't think BBC is exactly left @thepariscrimefiles . I have alot of time for old style left but think they're more "progressive" middle class/wealthy. They swallow every trendy idea going eg transwomen, critical race theory/identity politics and so don't represent the country as they used to. I have fond memories of the BBC growing up (I'm 56) when their politics was very intelligent and they didn't try to catch people out and stigmatise them - you just have to look at old YouTube videos of question times from the 80s and 90s to see how dumb and idiotic they've become and they now divide people rather than unite them (eg their reporting if Chris Kaba verdict) and absolutely do not educate.

Predicted response to your excellent question from Trump supporters; 🦗

@Menopausalsourpuss Out of interest, how do you feel about Trumps support for IVF (I think he floated the idea of treatments being paid for by the government at one point). Do you feel the same way about IVF as you do about abortion, or is it different? Cards on the table I actually have more ethical issues with IVF than I do abortion, but I feel like its the opposite way in America which is interesting.

I'm curious why you have more issues with IVF compared to abortion

"They swallow every trendy idea going eg transwomen, critical race theory/identity politics and so don't represent the country as they used to."

There have always been transgender people. It's not 'trendy'. What's 'trendy' is the idea that we should accommodate transgender people in society on their own terms and not treat them like they're dangerous subhuman freaks.

Ditto critical race theory. My sociology A-level in the 1980's covered this. As an academic theory it's over 40 years old - the idea that racism isn't just the product of individual bias but is embedded in our legal and political system. If you didn't base everything you know about these two topics on what you read in the Daily Mail/The Telegraph/some crap you just read on Facebook, you'd know this.

I'm not in favour of IVF either, as often involves destroying embryos. And I would like some of the unwanted children in the world to be adopted first. That is just the orthodox Christian position (and probably most other religions too) , Trump is not a Christian (although may call himself one!), JD Vance is.

You are a very rude person @izimbra , there is no need to abuse people if you're confident in your arguments is my advice. I am probably older than you so know those ideas have been around for a long time, but were held by academics and left wing politicians only, they are now mainstream in middle class wealthy circles and people who hold all the power although probably not by the majority and certainly not working class people.

This is long but...
I'm not against it, in the sense that I think it should be illegal, or that I judge people who have it morally. I feel squeamish about things like sex-selective IVF or genetic testing on embryos that are about selecting desired traits (rather than just screening out very serious disorders). I don't think embryo's are equivalent to human life, I just don't, but I don't think they are absolutely nothing at all so I guess I feel uncomfortable with creating large numbers of potential human life and then discarding them for purely commercial purposes. Abortion is different since it almost always happens as a result of unfortunate circumstances - either an unplanned pregnancy or a planned pregnancy where there is something wrong with the embryo or the mothers health. I don't think its common for women to get pregnant just to have an abortion. Whereas IVF usually creates several embryos with the intention, right from the point of creation, that some of those embryos will be destroyed. As I said, I don't think embryo's are "a human life" in the way that pro-lifers do so its less of an issue. But if I did, I would probably be against IVF much more than I was against abortion for those reasons (and I would still think abortion should be legal because of bodily autonomy even if I wouldn't have one myself). But pro-lifers don't seem to have the same issues with IVF a lot of the time. And I have never heard an actual explanation for this.

That is a good explanation @biscuitsandcake I think alot if women are coerced into abortions by men btw so is not always about autonomy. I would rather support women financially and emotionally in a bad situation to have their baby but our society always puts profit first (and of course abortion is a multi million pound industry so alot of vested interests).

I think the way the UK system works is quite good in that there is a measure of oversight to pick up on abuse. And of course, all American health care is monetised/a profit making industry so its impossible to escape.
But would you, if you could, make abortion and IVF illegal (or just one/the other) or leave it up to the individual? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. Its just you made me think because you gave being against abortion as a reason for women to support Trump. But of course he is Pro IVF and Elon Musk himself has had a lot of children through (sex selective) IVF and surrogacy but comes in for much less criticism from the pro-life crowd from what I've seen. Of course you aren't answerable for what American's think/do. But its a conundrum...

So you love the thought of voting for a liar, tax dodger, rapist so on so forth, Trump is as much use as a chocolate fire guard, not fit for purpose. Well maybe as a counter assistant at McDonald's.

Abortion is a multi million industry in the UK too @biscuits not just US. I had an unplanned pregnancy at almost 50 and faced coercion to consider abortion (by NHS and people making money from it). Of course I would ban if possible but democracy is not on my side.

Huh? You have somehow misunderstood me. My comment was that Trump supporters would not answer that question, because they cannot do so truthfully and they know a lie would be spotted and called out. To answer truthfully, they would have to admit to double standards. To lie, they would have to say that they would accept any candidate with multiple criminal charges as being fit for the Presidency, which obviously they would not.
So that's why the answer is crickets.

Banning abortions is absured, women have the right to choose , and have access to the morning after pill,

And IVF?

IVF helped my friends have their first child, nhs funded. Why can't women have that choice, regardless .