Cameroni

I was surprised as well the BBC would do such a fairly even minded article on that interview. Sadly, I can not find a single fair minded even handed article on the Trump Musk interview. They're all frothing at the mouth.

You mean like how Trump always did not want to bank fracking, and now Harris suddenly changed her mind and sees no issue with fracking? 😂 You know, because fracking is big in Pennsylvania and Harris needs the votes of that swing state?

Come on, let's be real. She's reversed her position on fracking because it's a widely used practice in Pennsylvania, and she knows that's a crucial swing state and wants the votes because she's desperate to be president. It has nothing to do with "global economic context is different". That was an environmental issue.

That's a fair point, if even the BBC focuses on the policy reversals Harris has performed this is because it was made a topic. Still, to ask "Can voters rely on you to have the same policy when you become president" is a soft question, when she could have further explored the endless u-turns Harris has engaged in. Like with banning fracking, she could have asked "So did you reverse your position on banning fracking because it is a widely used practice in Pennsylvania, which is a swing state?" At least the BBC picked up on this.

Aye, politicians and truth, it's like women's sports and ticket sales.

Well, not really, let's look at an impartial observer, the BBC. You can gauge the tenor of that article is to highlight Harris' lies and changes of position, rather than outright lauding her for a job well done. The vice-president was forced to defend the White House's economic track record, as inflation and high cost-of-living prices continue to hurt Americans. Polls have regularly suggested that voters would prefer Mr Trump's handling of the economy. But the most tense exchanges centred on the evolution of her policy positions. Ms Harris did not explain her reversal on banning fracking - a technique for recovering gas and oil from shale rock used by an industry that is particularly strong in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ejw1kd7ndo So the BBC is politely saying "Kamala Harris you lied, and we know why you reversed your position on fracking, because it's widely used in the swing state Pennsylvania". Nowhere does the BBC say Harris did a good job.

It's really a reason to pity US voters, not only do they not get a real choice, the people who they can vote for just lie through their teeth.

Of course they wanted to put Harris in the middle to make it look like she was the centre of attention. But no matter where you put her she can't command a room. She lacks charisma.

The whole interview was a lie. "I have not changed my values"...WHATT???????? Before you were for defunding the police. Now not. You wanted to ban fracking. Now not. You wanted to have single payer healthcare. Now not. You wanted to abolish ICE. Now you want to fund it. But I suppose she was right, back then she said whatever would get her into office, and now too she says anything that will get her into office. So in reality her values have not changed. In as much as her values are "Me me me me me me me".

Extremely soft questioning. "Can voters be sure your current positions will be the ones after you get elected?" instead of "Why would any voter believe anything you say after you flip-flopped on single payer health care, defunding the police, abolishing ICE and banning fracking". Or "Are you not just saying whatever will get you elected, rather than sticking to a real policy"? Instead of a Paxman style real journalist she got another Ellen de Generes softly softly ride.

Yes inflation, like in the West ,is an issue, that is the case. However, Russia is not doing well because it's a "war economy". Russia's economy is doing well because Russia had undergone years of austerity and saved gigantic cash reserves which enabled it to spend on increasing everything, from social benefits to infrastructure spending. Putin knew, that to get the support for his war he had to buy off the people, which he did superbly well. This seems to indicate that Putin had planned this war for a very long time. In fact Putin has scrupulously avoided creating a "war economy" on the home front. Things in Russia now are as they ever were, only better. Consumer spending is up. It's not "war economy" related for the most part.

Yes, indeed, the situation of the Ukraine is very unfortunate. The West is using them to fight a proxy war to weaken Russia, and Ukraine's leaders are happy to oblige, no doubt pocketing millions of the aid, like other Ukrainian leaders had done before, whilst the people of Ukraine pay the price for this madness. Russia has repeatedly indicated a willingness to neogtioate an end to the war, but rabid nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary groups on whom Zelensky relies for support don't want that.

When it comes to the heart sadly we are faced with the limits of medical knowledge, since the only way to determine if you have any blockage in an artery is for doctors to stick a needle in your arteries and see if they can find anything, also known as Cardiac catheterization. No amount of EKGs or CT scans can reliably determine if you have a blockage anywhere. Only cardiac catherization could do that, and the procedure itself is so dangerous that it's only used in very particular circumstances. Sad but true.

It's not about "fairness", it's about the West being happy to supply weapons but not willing to risk a real nuclear war with Russia becaus it knows that's suicide. You should be very happy that the Western politicians are still not too fried in the brain that they would agree to an all out war with Russia, because we would all die in that case or live in a post apocalyptic Mad Max film, best case scenario. it's bad enough Western politicians want to drag out the war in Ukraine as long as possible, knowing full well the Ukraine can never win, but it would be quite another to give the green light for missile strikes, put troops on the ground and engage Russia in a real war, when they would no doubt use nuclear weapons and billions of people would die.

She's flip flopping all over the place During a September 2019 climate crisis town hall hosted by CNN, Harris was asked if she would commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on her first day in office. “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, and starting with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands,” Harris said at the time. A few months later, "I will not ban fracking". She has all the political backbone of an amoeba. Harris’ campaign also confirmed this week that the vice president no longer supports a single-payer health care system. The vice president’s shifting stances on health care plagued her throughout her 2020 campaign. At one time she supported abolishing ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Now she wants to fund it more and portrays herself as the immigration Wyatt Earp. After the Floyd protests Harris supported defunding the police. Now? She does not support it anymore. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/harris-shifts-policy-stances/index.html This woman will say whatever she thinks will get her elected. She has no principles and no political backbone. Given the above, the interview was a farce and let off. Harris will say whatever will get her elected, and her followers are just too dumb to see that.

Of course you're the one posting nonsense, I have clearly shown that the data of the relevant authorities in the UK and the US collecting car fires does not distinguish EV and petrol car fires. The data is only going to be useful in the distant future, when that distinction has been made everywhere and good data is collected. Therefore studies purporting to show how EVs have less fire risk than ICEs are using inaccurate data, and are most likely funded by government or interest groups that have a vested interest in pushing EVs. Besides the notion that one can make this comparison now is already nonsensical, since the average EV car is newer by many years than the average ICE car. This obviously affects the fire statistics.

Hi Encore, I thought that might be the case. Have long wanted to see Cambodia. Those Bek Sloy videos really do it for me.

Oh really? Let's have a look at the United States then. "Specific numbers on EV fires are challenging to pin down. The National Fire Incident Reporting System, or NFIRS, used by fire departments, hasn't historically separated gasoline car fires from those involving electrified vehicles. " https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-fires-electric-cars-bikes-scooters-firefighters/ So looks like it was fair to say that othercountries still do not have accurate data which separates EV fires and petrol car fires, doesn't it JB? Wrong again, tssssk.

I can assure you I won't be a comrade of someone who will vote for an incompetent like Kamala Harris.

It's pretty sad when people can't make factual statements anymore without being accused of being racists. For no reason other than disagreement on politics.

The North Korean leader wrote Trump hand written love letters. It would seem he not only admired Trump but had real affection for him after meeting him. You know what would happen if he met Kamala Harris? He'd excuse himself and go watch a movie as soon as possible while asking if somebody has Trump's phone number.

He does not seem obsessed with race to me. His comments on this thread were in no way racist. Why are you playing the race card when it's totally inappropriate?

No, again, it's not that the UK "hasn't yet collected data". It has collected data on car fires, but many of the authorities do not distinguish between EV and petrol car fires. Since the UK is a highly develolped country it is fair to say that most countries around the world will have the same issue, ie of not distinguishing between EV fires and petrol car fires. Therefore studies that purport to claim that EV car fires are less likely are not reliable since they do not use accurate data. The BBC article is not spurious, it is very clear and shows the issue with recording car fires.

EV fires are indeed a concern. To such an extent that a major city will not allow EV owners to park their cars in underground garages now. "South Korea’s most populous city is set to introduce new guidelines for electric vehicle (EV) owners following highly-publicised fires in recent weeks. Korea JoongAng Daily reports the Seoul Metropolitan Government has advised EV drivers to not use underground car parks if their batteries are holding more than 90 per cent charge. It adds there will be a pilot trial of limiting rapid chargers to 80 per cent if they’re in a public space, and there are reportedly plans to expand this to private operators." https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/fully-charged-seoul-wont-let-you-park-your-ev-underground So not only will be the parking options for EV drivers be limited, the concern about fires has also affected the availability of chargers, so the charging infrastructure. A serious concern indeed.

You seem to have issues understanding sentences sometimes. Here is a quote from that article: He says Essex fire service has started recording all lithium battery fires by type so that it can better understand the issues they pose and to help plan for the future. When the BBC raised the issue of fire services not recording EV fires specifically, a Home Office spokesperson said: "We are reviewing the incident reporting system and considering the collection of data on fires involving lithium-ion batteries, electric vehicles, e-scooters and e-bikes." What exactly this means for fire services is unclear, however - not least because of the paucity of available data. In 2022-23 fire services across England recorded more than 19,000 vehicle fires in total, of which 11,252 started accidentally. When the BBC asked every fire service in the UK how many EV fires they had dealt with in the past three years, most could not provide a reliable answer because they do not distinguish them from other types of vehicle fires. Instead, some fire services, such as those in Norfolk, Essex, Surrey, Derbyshire and Kent, ran text searches for any reference to the word "electric" in their vehicle fire records. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-66866327 So the UK does compile statistics on car fires, and some authorities have begun to distinguish between EV and petrol car fires, however, most authorities still do not. Since the UK is a developed country this will be the case in most other countries. I have seen the studies you refer to which claim that EV cars have less fires than petrol cars, but since we can see above that the data collecting car fires is not reliable, those studies equally are not reliable.