frankPodmore

Several people here have mentioned the genocide in Palestine, which I accept is a major issue and one no one should be dismissive of. Biden himself acknowledged the validity of the issue in his speech to the DNC.

I honestly find Biden's decision to keep spending so much money arming Israel baffling, but there is at least some chance Harris will change that policy.

But if Harris doesn't win the White House, Trump's policies will intensify the perescution of the Palestinians and also lead to pogroms, if not actual genocide, in the US and elsewhere.

I agree this is not a happy choice to have to make. But it's also quite clear which is the right choice.

Tear it all down and start fresh or GTFO.

Okay.

Now what?

Is that the one that 'Trump campaign officials acknowledge aligns well' with Project 2025? Loads of the policies are identical, not just well-aligned. It's fair game to point up the links between the guy and the document when his ex-staffers wrote the document and his current staffers acknowledge the similarity of the document.

He (or his staff) needs to tell people the actual differences, rather than vague disavowals.

Try to learn Russian really quickly.

Little bit shocked that Bernie Sanders was responsible for two of the misleading claims. Fully half of the, uh, four headings in the article: a 'day of lies', producing four (4) lies? Guess they weren't working too fast.

The Project 2025 stuff IMO is fair game till Trump explains what he'd do differently. As far as I can see, it's at least consistent with his plans. If he wants Dems to shut up about it, he should say which parts and which authors he rejects. He can't just vaguely say, 'That document that says I should be a dictator? Nothing to do with my plans to be a dictator' and expect people to go: okay, cool.

Yes, I see the 'few false or misleading claims'. I'd be happier with no lies, I suppose, but the relevant contrast is not with the fantasy land where everyone lives by radical honesty, but with the Republicans, who lie constantly about almost everything.

when your own turns on you, it’s a pretty clear sign

Out of curiosity, would you agree this also applies to the numerous Republicans, former allies and employees who have turned on Trump?

'Don't make the mistakes I did'?

I'm hoping the reforms they're talking about here, which include more joined-up thinking, basically, will have that effect even if they don't invest that much money. But they should also invest the money!

So funny that he started this insane rightwing pivot to try and win over conservatives to his over-priced electric cars and he's instead alienated his core market and also conservatives. What a genius.

This sounds very promising and it's clearly in step with the government's overall policy programme, which suggests it will happen in some form.

I especially like the hint that they'd redirect some of the capital funding earmarked for new roads to walking and cycling, ('Asked about the £16bn of trunk road projects, [...] Haigh said: "We're looking at all capital projects, and where that money should be best spent."').

Ultimately, we'll have to wait for the outcome of the transport infrastructure spending review before we know whether this is anything to get excited about.

I would hope the government could come to this conclusion through the review it's already conducting, without the courts forcing it to act. This seems good to keep the pressure on, though.