US Election results

[IwantToRetire]

Kamala Harris 27
45.2% popular vote
12,768,875 votes

Donald Trump 99
53.8% popular vote
15,275,564 votes

270 to win

U.S. election results 2024 | CBC News

6/11/2024 @ 01:25 GMT

I do know a handful of people who voted for Trump, range from millionaire landowner to poor as anything and struggling to feed their families. They do seem to have one thing in common they've never left the states (except military duty). There's a certain ignorance about the rest of the world so how they are impacted by the war in Ukraine passes them by aside from giving them a lot of money.

They all think that money would be better spent on Americans. Food prices have risen and still are. I've seen comments about the government lying about inflation coming down because prices are still rising.

It's almost a special kind of ignorance that can't see how the outside world affects them, they just come to everyone else's aid. Benevolent overlords.

Abortion rights - Bible belt, strong Christian areas do not agree with Abortion it's abhorrent and shouldn't happen. Yes women just shouldn't have sex if they don't want children. It shocks me how much that view is prevalent even from non practicing Christians.

It's not being thick or a bigot in the people I know it's just ignorance of the wider world. I should probably mention a few didn't want trump but he was the republican so they voted for a republican not for Trump as such

Thanks!
I guess I don't want to debate the law as such (and we might agree anyway). But if the argument is "the rest of the EU is getting hardline, we need to as well or we will be an outlier", you need to know what hardline is and have a definition that covers the actions of all the other countries. By your example, I suspect that Italy might well be the outlier itself, because of where it is (Switzerland can say it will sink boats coming to Switzerland but that won't mean much). Either you have a unified EU policy (eg to get tough on criminal gangs) in which case its a question of whether the UK should join. Or you have individual countries doing their own thing (in which case the UK by definition isn't an outlier. And the definition of hardline becomes much vaguer).

I agree that the UK can't successfully tackle the criminal gangs on its own. That's why it would need to work at least with the rest of the EU. If they aren't willing to do that, as you suggest they wouldn't be, then I would argue they aren't actually that hardline on immigration. In which case, being an outlier and at least trying to tackle gangs within our own borders won't be as successful but is still worth doing.

Italy can introduce the law as it applies to their vessels. It won't apply to eg Germany.

That and illegal push backs, which are likely a result of EU wide policy are what has contributed to a 60% drop in numbers.

I'm not really getting your post which seems a bit circular in reasoning. It seems a game changer now that Trump is in the US and the EU is approaching migration differently, Aus has for a while

It really does leave the UK as alone in implementing the policy Starmer is focusing on. Do you see the issue with jurisdiction from the immigration chief in the pp?

The EU will do what it can to stop people arriving across their borders, and I have given you examples of that, they are tough measures. Once people are in there's not much incentive to stop those people moving on to the UK

You honestly think people’s main immediate concern in March/April 2020 was Brexit, not Covid? Lockdown drove the largest GDP fall on record at nearly 20% in the quarter April-June 2020 (though subsequently recovered) and Covid plus the Ukrainian War cutting off Russian oil, pushed up cost of living globally. Brexit might have subsequently made itself felt, but in the months after Brexit it was Covid that was the main political issue.

Can you point to a government that is not corrupt?

You said that other countries were taking a hardline approach so the UK had to do the same or it would be an "outlier". Your example of a hardline approach was something only Italy was doing that didn't apply to other European countries. So then don't know what the hardline approach other EU countries are taking that will leave the UK as an outlier is, or why being an outlier in that situation would be an untenable position.

I would also argue that the immigration chief hasn't been doing a great job so far, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. He might be correct, but it doesn't automatically follow (other experts e.g. in organised crime, Europol might have other angles).

Kevin Saunders is the former chief not current but anyone can only work with the policy in place. Putting in 'smash the gangs' is like giving someone a teaspoon to stop a tide.

There has been more current criticism too on this policy from current border security placement

Do you really believe Starmer can work outside UK jurisdiction to arrest and stop people profiting from this? Why?

If other countries have experts trying to tackle the problem why is no one else solely using the same approach?

@EasternStandard
Do you really believe Starmer can work outside UK jurisdiction to arrest and stop people profiting from this? Why? No. I don't really believe that. That's why I specifically said it would require working with the EU. The EU already has Europol to work on cross border issues. The UK is no longer part of that, that's why it would require the UK asking to cooperate with the EU on this issue. It might well be that the EU just decides it doesn't want to cooperate/focus on these gangs. But that would be short sighted - criminal networks can smuggle people, drugs, weapons etc. Ignoring them and letting them grow is a bad idea. I know in the Netherlands at least there is a genuine public desire and a stated desire by politicians to do more about cross border criminal gangs. Its not just the UK thinking about this at the moment. There are examples of cross border approaches working and examples of cross border approaches not working. But shrugging and saying "what can we do" isn't a good plan. And cooperating with other countries to address crime that crosses borders is not some crazy new idea Starmer dreamed up.

If other countries have experts trying to tackle the problem why is no one else solely using the same approach? I wasn't saying the UK should use solely that approach. I listed 3 other things they could be doing. Conversely, the fact that other countries are using other approaches doesn't mean they wouldn't want to cooperate on the gangs issue. Its not either; or.

You said that the UK needed a "hardline" approach but the only example of a hardline approach, Italy's, was one you said we probably wouldn't want to do in the UK anyway. So again, we are back to "take immigration seriously" on repeat.

You asked for an example for Italy I gave you two

There are others

Re Starmer's plan no suggestion he 'dreamed it up', as it's already happening, but he's the the only one solely relying on it.

That's the outlier part

@biscuitandcake

Starmer might think that, I don't.

Even on-line it is possible to execute your self in a reasoned manner without having to resort to personal invective. Unfortunately many seem unable. This hostility is also observed in 'real life' too. I've been at meeting and events with other women and have been confronted with raging, screaming trans activists. Really toxic stuff!

I can make such judgements because that is my experience of having been around the Left for a long time. So many Left activists seem permanently angry people who seem to need hate figures to re-assure themselves of their righteousness.

You don’t think what?

If you mean the U.K. is not an outlier can you name a comparable country that solely relies on the equivalent policy to ‘smash the gangs’?

i know someone who voted for Trump - and your descrption doesn't fit her at all. She's a native New Yorker, but moved back to the U.S about 12 years ago, after 30 years of living in England and Scotland. She's now living Florida in Bradenton - in the village of the arts.

She really didn't take kindly to the covid lockdown and all of the moralising about the vaccinations; the attempts to shame people. She's always been very meticulous in her approach to her body and her health.....and she didn't enjoy being told what she should and shouldn't do to it. She liked the way Ron De Santis handled the lockdown in Florida. She's become very anti establishment.

She liked Vivek Ramiswarmy? ( spelling?) and she also liked Robert Kennedy, and if he hadn't stood down she'd have voted for him. She really dislikes the moralising of the 'progressive Left' and she wants to stick two fingers up to it.
She was married to a Lefty in Britain, but she's never associated with that sort of political certainty herself. Her parents originally came to the U.S from Cuba - and like many immigrants from such regimes she not too keen on them.

If he gets gender ideology out of schools and men out of women's sports and single sex facilities I'm good with that.

😔

Unfortunately this is the reality of a lot of the summary headlines and spreading of fear. It reminds me of Georgia Tennant telling children via Twitter that she's there to listen etc because there is so much hate around.

Sadly online communities will whip themselves up (some of which is undoubtedly orchestrated) to believe that the world is against them.

I hope you were able to cut through the panic layer.

ASD children and young adults are so vulnerable to believing this damaging messaging. So far I've been able to stay one step ahead of my (ASD) daughter on that front, partly to do with her age and partly the sheer luck of having found this forum to help me get my head around gender identity stuff so that I can tap in to her critical thinking. As far as I'm aware, she's not in online forums.... yet. I'm hoping that there will continue to be an awakening on the impact of gender identity belief before she gets dragged in to these things. She's 15 now so that's not a given.

I tried to speak to her late last night telling her that her and her friends should take things a day at a time and not to listen to the rumours. Omg it's hard work!

This sounds like a good approach. Hopefully she is open to seeing that it's not as simple as "Trump is evil and wants to harm people".

Just to answer some points made earlier but not in context because it isn't worth it.

But seriously, this is a feminist forum. It exists to discuss issues within that concept and specficically as the the forum title says sex and gender.

A gender critical analysis / sex based right analysis of issues is totally different to someone who may for wishy washy human rights reasons, or women's health issues are not framed by that analsysis.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with dismissing other women, it is being able (or at least I thought that was the point of this forum) to discuss within that framework politics etc., the same as if for instance i was part of a forum that saw everything through the lens of class or race.

So to repeat I do not think that the Republican position on trans issues is anything to do with feminism or women's rights. It is about traditional values, women's roles etc..

Why would anyone on a feminist forum think it was contentious to say this.

Additionally, Republicans, like many others have just accepted that women's sex based right and the rights of same sex attracted people are part of the queer TRA agenda.

So thinking that Trump is going to save women from trans ideology is worth celebrating is of course an insult and disregard for those of us who are lesbian and could be equally damaged.

I couldn't care less if others have arrived at their concerns from another political view point.

But just to repeat I would have hoped that being on a feminist forum would mean having a feminist analysis based on women as an oppressed sex class wasn't contentious, nor that worrying about lesbian and gay rights.

But also, which is really disparaging of having a feminist belief, is that somehow it shouldn't be expressed because it means you aren't supportive of all women.

I dont doubt Christian women or women who subscribe to queer politics are sincere in their beliefs.

But I dont have to be obliged to constantly say, other views may differ.

Just a reminder, that for those who dont want to discuss feminism through the lens of sex and gender, mumsnet have thoughtfully provided a feminism chat forum.

@mrshoho I think that being online makes all of this so much worse. Its completely immersive and can drive adults a bit potty, so the effect on young people is even worse (I know 19 is technically adult but its still very young).
If it helps though - its not that new for teenagers to engage with politics in a much more emotional way than adults do. I can remember being a teenager at the time of the Iraq war and being viscerally upset by the feeling that it was going to happen and it was going to be a complete disaster. Thinking that you know for certain that a decision is going to have terrible outcomes but being completely powerless to stop it is a horrible feeling. Like Cassandra. Yes, you can go on marches etc but they didn't make a difference which just increases the feeling of powerlessness. Its a combination I think of being in a heightened emotional state as a teenager and having comparatively little power/choices in your daily life (because teenager) that makes it so bad.

The thing about the Iraq war was it was a complete disaster so technically I was right. But 15 year old me was generally anti-war so I don't think it was that I was actually good at predicting the future. What can maybe help her is finding her ways in which she can have power/autonomy (not just political protests, also hobbies etc) and encouraging any activities that make her think about something other than the state of the world. And the circles of control thing where you draw a small circle of things you have complete control over, a larger circle around it of things you have some control over, and a larger circle round that filled with things you have no control over at all. And put down all the things that worry you in different parts of the circle. Its cheesy, but the act of physically writing it out genuinely helps. Or you talk to her about things that worried you as a teenager and whether you were right/wrong.

Trump and Covid are blips compared to Brexit.

Can you point to a government that is not corrupt?

This is Putinspeak. "They are all the same. They are all liars. It's everyone for themselves. It doesn't matter who you vote for, one party or the other, it's all the same. What good are elections? What good is this so called democracy if you can't get a job? I will give you a job. People only understand strength. I can protect you. Remember the good old days? I can give you that sense of pride again". It's the way disillusioned Russians used to speak after the fall of the Soviet Union. And then Putin came along. You know the rest.

@mrshoho Sorry if all of the above sounded patronising! I am sue you are doing a good job already. But the bit about the dad trying to make light of the situation and the storming of was so familiar!

What has Trump got to do with the Tories running out of steam several years ago?

You're doing it again...trying to suggest you understand women's issues more than others. And that your framing device for discussing women's issues is the inevitable or natural one. The whole idea of women as a an "oppressed class" is just so dated and hackneyed. Banging on about 'the patriarchy' actually turrns lots of women off - and is part of the reason that Kamala just didn't do it for most people.

I was talking about the patriarchy when I was 16 years old and setting up a women's group at my college, but at 59, with three adult children and now a granddaughter and after a life time of varied experiences......I've moved on from that now. Men, as a group, are not my oppressors. Though I do recognise there is such a thing as a female stand-point and perspective, and that it has dignity, worth and value; and I think many Republican voters do too.

How can you subliminally suggest that family and motherhood are not women's issues? Most women are mothers, and most will at some point be in a long term partnership or marriage. They are very much women's issues.Personally, think you are painting far too broad brush strokes and stereotyping what you consider to be a Republican voter, or what motivates them.

How patronising! Issues around Sex and Gender can be discussed in any way people choose. There is no one right way.

I find it strange that people talk about Women voting one way or another, and feel the same about the supposed Black or Hispanic vote.
In each of those groups, people's experiences are totally different. Why try to create pigeon holes when they are essentially meaningless.
I consider myself a gc feminist, but none of the women of my acquaintance feel the same way as I do because, yes, we are all different.