If Biden ran against Trump right now, who would win? (I'm not asking who you want - I'm asking what you think most voters want)

@butterflybaby75 The thing is that you aren't an American and you get slanted news. No offense but your opinion just doesn't matter here

@butterflybaby75 spoken like a real CNN MSNBC watcher. Biden has got America running lovely hasn’t he,

@ididntknow I'm in Australia so I have the benefit of no alignment to any US political party. I watch no US news channels because they are ALL SHIT! We've got out own psuedo-GOP tv channel here called Sky News.

@butterflybaby75 so you’re a leftist

@ididntknow worse - she's Australian. They don't even have a counterpoint to their anti Trump news. 100% of their media tells her what to think about this. I'm not saying I'm pro Trump. But there's not a lot of nuance when you've only been exposed to one side of a debate and suddenly you're a self proclaimed expert

@marciamom she’s a muppet,

@marciamom
Glad you specified what you're looking for "I'm not asking who you want - I'm asking what you think most voters want", but then you reject a comment that does not support YOUR slanted political view.

@marciamom Surely the President of the US can affect anyone in the world by his policies, and so anyone has a right to an opinion, even though they don’t have a vote and aren’t directly affected by domestic US policies. You are right, though, that many of us get pretty slanted news.

@MartinII I agree, Martin, but we foreigners have to be careful to differentiate between the USA's internal and international politics, and not become trapped in the former. After all, we wouldn't want Americans telling us how to vote, which Party and policy to support, how to live our lives; save only to offer their views on matters that genuinely concern both nations.

I don't think the news we see are (is?) slanted, unless given by an outlet that is both American owned and deeply American-partisan - including supposed news on "social-media" of which most is owned in the USA.

Certainly the News I hear is not does try to report both sides of that country's lively debates.

What we do need be aware of is the semi-anonymous "news magazine", very professionally published, usually American in spellings and US party-politics, etc. (that may be its main target); but reveals no contact and location details, and could be published anywhere in the world. Careful reading usually shows its bias and that might hint at the glorified blog's origin.

@ArishMell I think the mainstream media in the UK were heavily biased against Trump partly because he is such an objectionable and foul-mouthed man. They often failed to look at his administration’s policies objectively. Conversely, Biden gets a relatively easy time of it partly because he is nice, old, and not Trump!

@MartinII I think they were fair when reporting his domestic politics, but Trump was his own worst enemy with international diplomacy - probably from utter inexperience. Previously he was known here widely only as some rich American property-speculator who'd somehow gained planning-permission to ruin an SSSI in Scotland merely to build a golf-course.

Once elected, he threw away a lot of respect with his self-invited "State Visit" and what sounded like a hint that he wanted the NHS given to Wall Street.

He also annoyed Denmark by suggesting the USA buy Greenland - probably hoping for mineral resources and shipping routes opened up by the loss of ice through the climate-change he basically called a lie.

Much more serious was his unilateral wrecking of the international nuclear-power agreement with Iran, leaving Britain, Germany (and I think France) and others?) trying to repair the damage.

He could hardly expect a fan-club among many European countries!

@Northwest Not so - I don't object to the opinion. I just don't think Australians have anything useful to add to this poll

@ArishMell I am interested in hearing how anyone can support making any sort of nuclear deal with Iran, who was very obviously dealing dishonestly with the parties and inspectors. What is to be gained by making a deal of any sort with them>?

@marciamom I think it was a less-worse option, and it seemed to be working. The USA pulling out as it did undermined the whole thing and made the Iranians trust the USA even less, and to be even more anti-"West" generally than they were.

The Iranians may or may not have been dishonest, but that does not excuse a sudden withdrawal that had not even been discussed with any of the other nations involved.

Unfortunately there are many unpleasant regimes around the world - Iran, China, Saudi Arabia to name but three - but we need get along with them as best all sides can.

@marciamom
It's worth a try, but it's not going to work. The Iranians are not stupid, but Blinken has to least give it to try, to see if the world can be spared an international crisis.

The original deal accomplished what we wanted. Delay Iran's entry in to the nuke club, by at least 10-15 years, in the hope of an organic move to a secular regime in Iran, and everything indicated that the latter was likely.

What happened, is that Cheeto Benito, cancelled the agreement and that pushed Iran to accelerate its nuke program.

They now have what they need to produce a bomb.

@marciamom You called it slanted news, which has nothing to do with where the commenter came from. It just did not meet your standards for non-slanted news.

@Northwest Read what Martin said.

@marciamom
Huh? Martin??

@ArishMell On the contrary, his repudiation of the so-called agreement with (actually capitulation to) Iran was the best and most important thing he did as President.

@marciamom The actual “deal” was completely one-sided, giving Iran wholly unjustified concessions with nothing in return