The cognitive dissonance is going to be so extreme when Trump wins. Even for the government itself. — Shawn

Well I can't wait for the cognitive dissonance freakout here on this thread when Harris-Walz wins (possibly declared as soon as next Wednesday night). :wink:

>>> Roevember 4

Don’t see what the controversy is: Trump supporters ARE garbage. One of Biden’s few truthful statements. Too bad he walked it back.

You can find first-hand accounts by a member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Istanbul negotiations online. They gave an interview and confirmed that it was the West who blocked the deal.

This was already reported on earlier by Israeli mediator Naftali Bennett, but the Ukrainian diplomat confirmed it.

This was already reported on earlier by Israeli mediator Naftali Bennett, but the Ukrainian diplomat confirmed it. — Tzeentch

You mean this?

Former Israeli prime minister rebuts claim, boosted by Russia, that the US blocked a Ukraine peace agreement: 'It's unsure there was any deal to be made'

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett discussed his efforts to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Pro-Russia commentators have focused on his saying that a peace deal was "blocked" by the West.

But Bennett has clarified that no such deal existed — and said talks broke down because of apparent Russian war crimes.

...

The next exchange is what went viral. The interview, conducted in Hebrew, includes English subtitles on YouTube. According to that translation, the interviewer asked Bennett: "So they blocked it?"

"Basically, yes, they blocked [it] and I thought they were wrong," Bennett responded.

The English subtitles are flawed, however. In the exchange, Bennett and the interviewer do not use the word "blocked" but rather "stopped," referring to ongoing peace talks, not an agreement.

"I can't say if they were wrong," Bennett added.

...

In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.

I wish I had your confidence. I've been stuck waiting with time to kill all day and been feeling an increasing sense of doom looking at the analysis. Nate Silver's op-ed in particular.

Bizarrely, polling suggests Democrats will do better where they need to do good to win if turnout is low.

Swimming with neocons in anti-Trumpistan. You’re in good company!

Some love being lied to, for whatever reason. Those who tasked themselves with informing Americans are pretending Trump said Cheney should be in front of a firing squad.

Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle

Did he say she should be fired upon? Of course not. But Headline-readers have fallen for it, of course.

So, a guy asks you to imagine having sex with a porn star. But he becomes appalled that you thought he was thinking of ejaculating upon her.

But wait!

He meant to say that the porn star would not be so saucy if she had gone to Vietnam.

Well I can't wait for the cognitive dissonance freakout here on this thread when Harris-Walz wins (possibly declared as soon as next Wednesday night). — 180 Proof

Why would there be a freakout? Almost everyone here and elsewhere has said the race is at best about 60/40 in favour of Trump. A 40% probability coming true isn't going to cause anyone to freak out or even bat an eyelid.

There would only be a freakout if your prediction of Harris winning the popular vote by nine points or so and a blue tsunami carrying her to a landslide victory is correct. That's not going to happen though.

My analysis FWIW is that Harris (now) will probably carry Pennsylvania and the election will come down to Michigan and Wisconsin which are toss ups (I expect Trump to take Arizona, Georgia and NC). If Harris loses either MI or WI, I think Trump wins. But Trump can afford to lose one of either and still win, giving him some advantage (as things stand).

It will be close with Harris carrying the popular vote by between 1 and 2.5 %. Trump will get at least 46%. @180 Proof's prediction of Trump at about 42% is way off in my view. Not long to go and things could still change, but it will take something dramatic to reset the race now.

I think you are betting too heavily on women. It may be more conducive to appeal to independent voters, yet I haven't seen VP doing it yet.

If only she would vow to do away with student loans, which seems like a rallying point... :chin:

:up: An odd kind of blindness or tunnel vision or something



The Ukrainian situation might have started in some (out of sight) way between 1991 and 2009.

Certain people wouldn't accept a wholly independent Ukraine. That independence itself meant that Crimea wasn't for the Kremlin to control, and their empowering influence over Ukraine would diminish. Loss. "Must regain."

The sentiment might be older, but sometime after the cold war it apparently came into focus, became important to a number of (let's say) "concerned citizens", important enough to solidify the collision course of which we're seeing the results.

Operatives deployed, people friendly/susceptible to "the cause" rallied + more hired, "little green men" sent, Ukrainian "red lines" crossed, takeover, invasion, bombing, grab, all the while utilizing that suppress-rinse-revise machine (including domestically). Hostilities (+ elsewhere).

As far as I can tell anyway, the "root cause" was that seemingly inevitable collision set in motion by a number of "entitled", influential people asserting ownership, and rejecting a friendlier course, or democratic course for that matter. The Ukrainians (and most of the world) said "No".

Might be worth noting that the Kremlin's course of action hasn't resolved (maybe can't resolve) their supposed fear of NATO. To keep NATO at bay, are they going to make Donbas a minefield with anti-missile installations or something?

^{↑ there's plenty more evidence to this story (which is what it is) — coherent, plausible, straightforward enough}

No, I'm talking about this:



Bennett's comments were obviously highly controversial, which is probably why he was pressured to backtrack on them.

However, Ukrainian diplomat Alexander Chaly who was part of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul gave a first-hand account that confirmed Bennett's initial statements.

However, Ukrainian diplomat Alexander Chaly who was part of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul gave a first-hand account that confirmed Bennett's initial statements. — Tzeentch

All I can find about him is this:

ALEXANDER CHALY: We negotiate with Russian delegation practically two months, in March and April the possible peaceful settlement agreement ... between Ukraine and Russia. And we, as you remember, concluded so called Istanbul communique. And we were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement. For some reasons it was postponed.

He doesn't seem to know what happened. But the above is consistent with what I posted earlier:

To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.

With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”

Bennett's comments were obviously highly controversial, which is probably why he was pressured to backtrack on them. — Tzeentch

Or, as explained above, the original remarks were badly translated and misrepresented, and he wasn't being pressured to backtrack at all.

I think you're falling for Russian propaganda. The very notion that "the West" wants the war to continue is simply ridiculous.

The point of contention was whether a diplomatic solution was possible with the Russians.

Answer: yes, it was possible, and this is confirmed to us first-hand by a Ukrainian account no less.

It is clear as day.

If you want to believe my views, based on neutral, Western and Ukrainian sources are a product of propaganda, I think that says more about your own biases than mine.

That “diplomatic solution” was giving in to absurd Russian demands.

All you really seem to be saying is that surrender is possible. And yes, it is, but Ukraine shouldn’t surrender. They’ve been unjustly invaded by a foreign nation. The best “diplomatic solution” is Russia fucking off and paying reparations.

That “diplomatic solution” was giving into absurd Russian demands. — Michael

Nope. The Ukrainians put their signature under the draft, so unfortunately this narrative doesn't work.

Nope. The Ukrainians put their signature under the draft, so unfortunately this narrative doesn't work. — Tzeentch

They agreed to an initial deal but then Russia unilaterally changed the deal to include ridiculous terms that Ukraine was right to object.

Nonsense. If that had been the case, I'm sure the initial accounts would have mentioned it. None of them do.

Instead, they mention a certain British clown traveling to Kiev, after which the negotiations are mysteriously aborted even though all signs were that an agreement was close.

Details of Ukraine war are off-topic here.

What timeline is this? Perhaps I should have voted…

There would only be a freakout if your prediction of Harris winning the popular vote by nine points or so and a blue tsunami carrying her to a landslide [blowout] victory is correct. That's not going to happen though. — Baden

:smirk:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/934008 :victory:

>>> Roevember 2

Either Trump or Harris could easily win 300 plus electors. Every single swing state is within the margin of error. I will only strongly disagree that Texas, Florida and Ohio are in play.

And I'l stick to my prediction that Harris will lose unless she wins MI and WI, though I think she'll win Pennsylvania.

Anyhow, we are---thankfully---running out of time to argue about it.

It's going to be fascinating to see what all these super tight polls got wrong after the winner is known.

So many margin calls on either side. Selzer's poll was bold if anything, let's see how she stacks up this time. Quite nerve racking honestly...

3Roevember24

:smirk:

Consider these 'more grounded' (re: historical-social context) guesstimates:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/11/why-this-highly-accurate-market-based-election-indicator-seems-to-be-predicting-a-kamala-harris-win/

https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/america-votes/historian-allan-lichtman-standing-by-harris-victory-prediction-despite-polling

https://fortune.com/2024/11/03/presidential-poll-iowa-selzer-donald-trump-warning-kamala-harris-surge-midwest-blue-wall/

addenda to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/934008

nota bene:

Consider this recent article on how easily "betting markets" are manipulated ...
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/dont-trust-the-political-prediction-markets — 180 Proof

Roevember is here! :victory: :smile:

@Mikie @Wayfarer @Benkei @Shawn @Count Timothy von Icarus

Quite nerve racking honestly... — Manuel

It reminds me of that time in High School when I was an unwarned participant of a game of chicken on a street out West as a passenger in a rusty Impala...

What I liked about Selzer is that she refused to speculate how her method would work in other States. Her groove was "try it and see what you find."

:up:

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Aside from the truth US elections are there for Democrats to lose, we can probably add the GOP doesn't understand women.

. :up: :up: