Caught Fiddling

About that “foreign interference in U.S. elections” thing:  not Russia, this time, but… Britain’s Labour Party?  Even the Brits are appalled:

There are some basic rules in foreign policy obvious even to the most half-witted politician.

One is that you can never be seen to interfere in any way in the elections of a democratic country. You don’t state preferences about any of the candidates, and you don’t try to influence the outcome.

This cardinal rule has been spectacularly broken by the Labour Party, which has enraged Donald Trump by apparently lending support to his rival, Kamala Harris, in the presidential campaign.

Of course, having fucked around and been found out, the denials quickly followed:

Labour denies it has done any such thing, pointing out that its activists have often travelled at their own expense to help Democratic Party candidates in previous elections.

Uh huh.

Maybe. But the Trump camp has unearthed a LinkedIn post from Sofia Patel, Labour’s head of operations, encouraging ‘party staff’ to ‘help our friends across the pond elect their first female President’. Activists were invited to send Ms Patel an email. She added that she would be going to America for the final two weeks of the campaign.

What is this if not a call to Labour activists to roll up their sleeves on behalf of Kamala Harris? It would matter less if the post – which has been deleted as Labour desperately tries to cover its tracks – had come from an obscure underling.

But the head of operations is an important figure. She represents Labour. Ms Patel’s message is that activists should do whatever they can to defeat Donald Trump. This looks like a blatant attempt by the governing party to influence the election.

And it is.  Glover points out:

Donald Trump won’t be [forgiving]. He is vengeful, and likes to bear a grudge. He also has a low opinion of Labour, which his aides describe in a formal complaint to the U.S. Federal Election Commission as being ‘far-Left’. This is a characteristic exaggeration.

Except, of course, that it’s no exaggeration.  Compared to the U.S. political spectrum — which is the milieu in which Trump is active — Labour IS about as far Left as any Socialist party could be.

Doesn’t matter, one way or the other.  As Glover points out:

Of course, if Trump isn’t elected on November 5, Labour’s injudicious meddling won’t matter. But if he becomes America’s next President – an increasingly likely eventuality, which I regard with foreboding – he could bear a grievance against the British Government. That would affect us all.

Trump already knows that the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has variously described him in the past as a ‘neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath’, a ‘dangerous clown’, and ‘a tyrant in a toupee’.

And then Glover panders to his readers by adding:

At least partly true.

Which part, Stephen?  The “neo-Nazi”, “sociopath”, “dangerous”, “clown” or “tyrant”?

Lest we forget, Trump has already been President once before, during which time he exhibited none of those traits that the Left tried to smear him with (and continues, like Glover, to do so).  And I hate to spoil your fun, you Lefty assholes, but he’s not going to do it during his next term, either.

Just don’t expect any special favors from him, Britishland — Trump’s not the only one who bears a grudge, and if nothing else, he’s keenly aware of what his supporters expect from him.

 

Oh Stop It

I just can’t:

Donald Trump said he would enlist Elon Musk to run a “government efficiency commission” if he wins a second term as US president.  Speaking to the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, Trump said the X owner had agreed to head a task force to conduct a “complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government” and make “recommendations for drastic reforms.”

Could it be?

Or, if we’re going to be more traditional about it:

What Price Political Endorsements?

I genuinely do not know the answer to this question.

Much play has been given to the fact that a Muzzie mayor in Michigan has endorsed Trump for President in 2024 and not, as one would expect, Her Junior Filthiness.  Also the Teamsters, for so long a Democrat lock:

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the non-endorsement that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters issued last week. The union’s internal polling showed that its members strongly favor Trump over Harris, but leadership issued a statement saying that it was declining to endorse either. The statement also shared the polling data, which prompted me to write that it was tantamount to a “soft endorsement” of Trump when I first reported it. Matt wrote last Friday that the move by the Teamsters is causing some agita among the Dems. 

Does this matter?  I mean, in terms of actual votes?  I mean, yeah, symbolism etc.  But does his endorsement mean that x number of these constituents are going to suddenly vote for Trump instead of Harris?

I know that if, say, the mayor of Plano decided to endorse a specific candidate or party, that would have absolutely no bearing on how I’d cast my vote.  But then I take my political cues from nobody else, so maybe I’m not representative of the average voter.

I’m still interested when, for example, the head honcho of the Fraternal Order of Police announces his endorsement — will rank-and-file cops follow his lead, or make up their own minds?  One might hope that the latter would be the case, but perhaps this is giving too much respect to the average cop.

Or maybe an endorsement simply sways the “undecideds” — although how any voter in these United States can still be uncommitted at this stage is quite beyond me.