Don't get me wrong here, But I LIKE Donald Trump.

[willedoo]

The question is who's going to win on November 3rd.;  Joe Biden or George Bush?

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by willedoo

[old man emu]

Do you ever get the feeling that we are counting down to Armageddon?

[Jerry_Atrick]

What was more insightful about that snippet is not that fact that Joe thinks he's the best for the job, but the least worst. "This is the most consequ[ential election] not because I am running, but because of who I am running against.".. Says it all.

[octave]

8 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

What was more insightful about that snippet is not that fact that Joe thinks he's the best for the job, but the least worst. "This is the most consequ[ential election] not because I am running, but because of who I am running against.".. Says it all.

  But is that what he actually believes or is it a pitch to undecided voters who usually vote Republican?  I think the message to those who are on the fence is "you may not like me but perhaps you hate Trump more."   Electioneering does involve sending different messages to different constituencies.    

[onetrack]

I'm wagering the result will come down to the wire, nail-bitingly close.

[Jerry_Atrick]

22 hours ago, octave said:

  But is that what he actually believes or is it a pitch to undecided voters who usually vote Republican?  I think the message to those who are on the fence is "you may not like me but perhaps you hate Trump more."   Electioneering does involve sending different messages to different constituencies.    

Obviously, he believes he is better for the job... As do many, but not that many more than believe that Trump is the best for the job - given Trump's record. My concern is that he thinks he is better for the job because Trump is so bad, not because he is so good - it may not be a conscious thought, but why else would you use that rhetoric? It is negative, and no one wants negativity.

 

It is an oft-used strategy, but more often than not, it backfires. What you are saying is that they person you ideologicallu align with is that bad that you need to betray your values and align with me, because, although I am not that great, I am better than him.

 

Within the UK, this spectauclarly failed - once with Ed Milliband as the leader of the Labour Party, who led his party to a bigger defeat than Gordon Brown against David Cameron - arguably the Conservatives second worst elected leader next to Theresa May. And the next example is Brexit - the Brexit campaign espousing all the (sometimes false) positives of leaving the EU; the EU, the US and the Remain campaign focusing on the negativity rather than extolling the virtues of the EU and staying within it (not that I am saying one outweighed the other). I am sure there are recent examples in Aus, as well.

 

The message should always be the positive.. this is what we will do and why it is miles better than our opponents.. The message to the republocan voters should be something along the lines of "despite what DT says, we are NOT socialists.. we believe in free enterprise and reward for the risks taken.. But we also believe in fairness... Not exploitation.. We will stand both for business by doing x, we will stand by true freedom.. freedom to live free of violence, free of discrimination, free from corruption, because until we achieve those ideals, we will be slaves to those controlling their interests outside our own.. blah blah blah..." A much better message to convert people than, "wow, at this point in time, the bloke who leads you is a skank.. vote for me... "

 

[Edit]

BTW, Biden mistaking Bussh for Trump, despite it probably being the effect of his stutter, has taken the Trump victory in my clacs from 60% to about 75%.... Time to find the most remote place on earth that has an elevation above sea level of quite a few hundred metres, is extre,e;y fertile and has a natural defence to gamma and beta radiation.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

The art of getting elected is to send different messages to different groups.  He does not have to worry about the rusted on democrats as long as he doesn't massively offend them. The rusted on Trump supporters are not worth pursuing.   There are swinging voters who you must convince that you are the right person for the job.    There is another group who does not know which way to go. For this group it is reasonable to put the preposition that you may have doubts about me but look at the alternative.  Election tactics have always involved positive and negative tactics.     The art I guess is knowing how and when to deploy those tactics.  A tactic often used is the small target whereby a party or politician who is expected to do well avoids going around selling themselves but instead tries to say as little as possible in order to not blow their lead.

[old man emu]

34 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The message should always be the positive.. this is what we will do and why it is miles better than our opponents.

Oh that this should be the way a politician, or any person, seeking the support of a group would seek to convince the group!

 

When was the last time a political party set down its core values and produced plans to meet those core values? Such a thing is called a "manifesto". A manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. A manifesto  promotes a new idea with prescriptive notions for carrying out changes the author believes should be made.

 

We have inheirited this cult of celebrity in our politics, where the celebrity of one person creates the impression of a Party. It has deteriorated politics so much that now, being a Minister, or Shadow Minister means that all you can do is stand to the rear of the  major Party celebrity and nod your head like a toy dog on the rear parcel shelf of a car.

 

Why don't Parties produce a manifesto? They'll tell you that governing is a fluid situation, where changing circumstances call for quick decisions, and keeping rigidly to a manifesto cannot help in making those decisions. To me that sounds like watching a run-away train and hoping that by switching the tracks it is running on, you can avoid a train wreck.

[octave]

Biden's page seems to have a comprehensive policy list https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/    Trump's page has a list of past promises delivered, although his "about" page appears to have been hacked. As far as I can see there does not appear to be much regarding future plans    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

 

 

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The message should always be the positive.. this is what we will do and why it is miles better than our opponents.. The message to the republocan voters should be something along the lines of "despite what DT says, we are NOT socialists.. we believe in free enterprise and reward for the risks taken.. But we also believe in fairness... Not exploitation.. We will stand both for business by doing x, we will stand by true freedom.. freedom to live free of violence, free of discrimination, free from corruption, because until we achieve those ideals, we will be slaves to those controlling their interests outside our own.. blah blah blah..." A much better message to convert people than, "wow, at this point in time, the bloke who leads you is a skank.. vote for me... "

 

 

Have a look at the 2013 election in Australia, where Tony Abbott won his (temporary) PM spot with a relentlessly negative campaign.  They had no coherent policy platform except "we're not them" yet they won.

 

I'm REALLY hoping that you're wrong about Trump winning.  I hope he loses, and by a big enough margin that he can't dispute it, and also hope the Republicans take a thrashing in general for their blind support of this scumbag.

It's a shame he got another judge on the supreme court, but if the Democrats gain control they could conceivably increase the bench to 11 and appoint 2 more progressive judges.  There's nothing in the constitution that says it has to be 9.

I just checked SportsBet which is offering 2.7 on a Trump win as opposed to 1.48 on Biden, so let's hope that the money is correct this time around!

[Yenn]

Biden doesn't appear in a very good light as we see him in Australia. Trump appears appalling as depicted by our media, so we make the assumption that Trump is hopeless and Biden ought to win, but we are not Yanks and we don't get to vote.

The reality as I see it and I don't have much chance of seeing it as the yanks do, is that Trump has achieved a lot of what he said he would do. He has brokered a peace deal in the Middle East, even though it completely disregarded the Palestinians and nobody else managed to do that. He has talked to the North Korean leader and made it look as if he had achieved something. He has raised the living standards of some of the Yank population. He has managed to denigrate a large number of people who are against him and the locals seem to enjoy his crudity and rudeness.

All in all he has been an achiever and that in the USA speaks a lot. He has also told some whopping lies, but that doesn't matter there because it is expected of everyone.

I reckon Trump will win on Tuesday or maybe it will be Wednesday or later. I doubt that the yanks will really worry as their President is higher in esteem than God.

What really bothers me is that our political leaders will waste absolutely no time in ass kissing.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

What really bothers me is that our political leaders will waste absolutely no time in ass kissing.

Whichever way it goes, it'll be same kissing. 

[octave]

I am tipping a  Biden for these reasons.      It is wrongly asserted that the opinion polls were wildly wrong in 2016,  This is not really correct, they were wrong by a very small percentage in a few key states.  The reason was to do with poll weighting. Poll weighting is the process by which you try to ensure that your sample includes a balance  age, gender, household income etc.  

 

"

"Pollsters weight their samples by different factors, such as age, gender, region or household income, to ensure that various demographics are properly represented.

Failing to weight by education boosted Clinton's numbers in some key swing states because pollsters weren't getting enough responses from voters without college degrees. These voters broke for Trump by a margin of seven points nationwide and by 37 points among white non-college graduates alone, according to exit polls.

Now that more pollsters are weighting for education, the chance of making the same error in 2020 should be reduced. But it's an open question whether these voters will be as decisive this time."

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uspolls-trust-1.5765695

 

I read an article today that suggests that even if opinion polls repeated these errors Biden would still win and I would expect that pollsters are being extra cautious this time.

 

It should be remembered that  around 60 million voters have already voted.

 

There has been a slide in the seniors vote partly I would suggest because of his handling of covid. He has also lost some ground with less educated white men, these are the people whos votes were crucial in 2016.

 

I do hope I am right.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by octave

[Jerry_Atrick]

Don't get me wrong.. I think Trump's public persona is dispicible.. and I do hope (sort-of) the he loses the election. But, @Yenn has a very good point in that how the rest of the world versus America  presents Trump is different; in fact, it will depend on what state one is from as to the how  press and local politics messages are being put. I have a friend in Portland, OR, who cites some very different reasons to what we have even seen as to why he would vote Trump over Biden/Harris. He hadn't voted Repulican before, either. When I cautioned him he should look beyond his front door, his repsonse was he can't leave the house unless the front door is sound..

 

The early voting is probably going to be the game changer - not because they are all voting for Democrats, but because I didn't realise that Trump/GOP has been advising their supporters to turn up in person to vote. This would seem folly in the middle of a pandemic - unless there is some nefarious plot to frustrate the mail in ballot - given the ruling of the Supreme Court that  vote counting stops at midnight - which is clearly a decision on party lines combined with destroyng the mail sorting machines - would not be suprising.  Interestingly, the electroal colleges have in the past cast their vote opposite to the voted majority of their college in the past, which I think was overturned (have to re-read to be sure what exactly happened). However, if it happens this time, with a Supreme Court bench that has already flexed its ideological rather than legal muscle, I wonder if college that voted away from its voting majority, especially where the margin is thin, will be upheld because of the reluctance to recount and therefore summarily determine the winner because of potential errors in counting... This is effectively what happened in Florida and although the bench decision limited it to the specific instance in Florida (and admittedly provided no guidance as to when it may be acceptable in the future), it yesterday was relied on by the US Supreme Court in its decision to not allow votes in Wisconsin not counted by midnight to be counted at all. A truly bizzare decision.

 

Despite the horror 4 years and, as in 2016, the continual election gaffes he makes, Biden hasn't extended the lead in the polls he has enjoyed. Admittedly, compared to 2016, it is a gulf rather than a gap, but, despite improvements in statistical analysis of the polls, the undecided voter seems to be relatively high compared to earlier years. This to me sounds like it will be made up of predominantly Republican voters who find it very hard to vote the other way.. If so, this will probably result in a reduced turnout for the Republicans, but I am sure this will be offset in the Republicans or Trump supporters deciding to vote because they can't fathom the idea of Trump losing.

 

It appears that 70m have already cast their ballot - this is almost 1/2 the registered voters in 2018 and will still be probably more than a third of all registered voters now. Many will be Trump Supporters as well as democrats, despite the urging of going to vote, because more people are waking up to the fact that the pandemic is real and they don't want to be another number. Also, whenever a party is on the ropes, more of its supporters will come out and vote for it... and when a party is that ahead in the polls, it's voters - particularly younger ones - will tend to expect the result is a foregone conclusion and think their vote matters not. However, there has been strong messagin on US media networks and shows to get out and vote, to educate about this phenomena and stress every vote counts...

 

So, it is going to be an interesting election. However, I think at this stage, looking at previous election results and the numbers leading up to them, Trump is still in a better position than he opponent despite what the polls state. The large undecided vote coupled with what can only be said as the wilful attempt to frustrate the democratic process (ironic, when we consider who has been accusing the voting system of being rigged) may tilt the scales his way. If there is a whiff of frustration of the process, I shidder to think what will happen... but will be making sure the popcorn is on as it most likely will get ugly.

 

 [Edit] On this, I am still saying 60% Trump, with a 50% chance of civil rioting and an all out 25% chance of a full blown civil war... China will inhereit the earth and we will all be eating bats while they eat our lobster 😉 (just joking for any of our Chinese friends surveilling, er, reading this).

 

Re the Arab-Israel peace deal, thinking about it, I think this (and continual peace deals which are real and sustained) is the best thing for the Palestinians.. OK, while I have now confirmed your suspicions of myself being warped, I am referring to the long-term. I don't know the whole history of the middle east, Palestine and Israel, but it seems from me, since 1948, Arabs have had wars with Israel, lost and have succumbed land, most of which had been given back. Some was kept - yes - the Golan Heights and the West Bank... Palestinians have been forced into smaller and more fragmented tracts of land over time..I agree... But, this is done against a backdrop of open hostility by Israel's Arab neighbours and Palestinians (I am not arguing righteousness here - just what has happened) to the Jewish state . So, in order for the Israelis to feel comfortable in opening up their land and possibly handing back some for an independent Palestinian state (in which they can all share their historic religious sites), surely enduring and real peace would be a more likely conduit than constant conflict... the latter which implies one winner and one loser; the former implies both are winners (in a relative sense).

Edited October 28, 2020 by Jerry_Atrick

[Yenn]

A lot of what you say is true Jerry, but have a look at the history of Arab Israeli conflict. The only difference between Hitlers Germany nad Israel is about 45 years.

The British in their usual way stuffed it all up by promising everything to both sides during WW2.

The long term aim of Israel is to do away with every last Arab and the USA is backing them all the way.

Remember Israel was founded on terrorism even though it likes to make out everyone else is terrorising them.

Have a look at The King David Hotel for Israels hand in terrorism.

[Marty_d]

More to the point, the Republican party seems to have been totally corrupted.  They are now being actively un-democratic by fighting in the courts to have postal votes which arrive after election day disallowed (these are valid votes that have been sent before election day).

 

Obviously they have long tried to suppress voting of groups that are less likely to vote for them - limiting the number of polling booths in predominantly black areas, making election day on a weekday so poorer people who have less flexible work and transport can't vote, etc - but this to my mind is the most blatant misuse of the legal system to try to influence an election.

 

Everything Jerry says about how Trump is being viewed differently from outside the country to inside may be true.  But on a truly basic level of what defines their democracy, why would the American people not care that one party is actively undermining the democratic process?

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, Yenn said:

A lot of what you say is true Jerry, but have a look at the history of Arab Israeli conflict. The only difference between Hitlers Germany nad Israel is about 45 years.

The British in their usual way stuffed it all up by promising everything to both sides during WW2.

The long term aim of Israel is to do away with every last Arab and the USA is backing them all the way.

Remember Israel was founded on terrorism even though it likes to make out everyone else is terrorising them.

Have a look at The King David Hotel for Israels hand in terrorism.

I am no expert on the middle east - in fact after working in Abu Dhabi for 2 weeks, if I end up in the middle east again - anywhere in the middle east again - with the exception of an overflying emergency diversion, I will have well and truly stuffed up and am there just for the money. So, I will defer to your better knowledge of the modern state of Israel (although it doesn't reconcile with what I have seen on my youtube feed, the algo I think having been fed by my son's interest in WWII - but I am not that interested that I would fact check or read about it).

 

But I will take umbrage with comparing Israel to the Nazir regime and Hitler. Whilst (now a smaller part of) the Arab world are enemies of Israel (with the exception of Jordan it appears), this does not translate into the state of Israel wanting every Arab dead. They want to understandably protect their people, and they will do what it takes to do so, which for them will mean, killing who they need to. But to suggest Israel wants the systematic extermination of the Arabs is a bridge too far. The 1948 war was waged on Israel a day after it declared independence and after the Jews agreed to a Palestinian and Jewish state... hardly the stuff of wanting a systematic extermination of a race/people.

 

When I was working Ralph Lauren, I worked alongside a jewish woman and I was surprised to learn that a) there was a Jewish parliamentarian in Bahrain (https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/bahrains-only-jewish-mp-attends-landmark-event-at-sephardi-shul/), but also that Arabs, while largely living in their own towns, do live in places like Tel Aviv, as well.. And they were offered citizenship. Something borne out by wikipedia, anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel). Being offered citizenship and permanent residency and there not being concentration camps or the modern day equivalent is not what I call being Hitler like at all.

 

I would not argue against Palestinians being ill-treated, sometimes brutally. But this is no different than to Australian treatment of Aborigines, which took about 200 years to normalise from Cook's landing, and only a tad short of 200 years from the 1788 landing were Aboriginals considered Australian citizens. There were massacres and it appears, though not in the Australian History HSC syllabus I was taught in 1983, slavery to boot. But did colonising Australians want all Aboriginals dead? I bet some did.. but the vast majority? And I am sure it is similar in Israel. After all, you don't offer both citizenship and permanent residency if you want people dead. Sorry, Yenn.. you statement isn't supported by the facts on that one. It could be a lot better and Israel have obviously been brutal at times.. but fro what I know, this is more a product of the threat it now constantly lives under.

 

Anyway, regardless, my point was by looking back, peace will never come.. learning the lessons of the past is not looking back.. Looking forward, if Israel is able to strike real and enduring peace with its Arab nations so that it can trust them, then this will be the best shot for both Israelis and Palestinians to have a separate Palestinian state.. otherwise, it will continue to be a blood bath...

 

(FWIW, I think the recent settling of the West Bank is both disruptive and provocative, but again, I cannot be likened to Hitler).

[Old Koreelah]

38 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

...why would the American people not care that one party is actively undermining the democratic process?

Correction, Marty: not just actively, but blatantly undermining democracy.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Let's not forget, Trump isn't the only one.. Even in Aus, where voting is mandatory, don't successive governments work the gerrymander to their advantage, with the most famous and brqazen being Joh Bjelke-Petersen (something like 30% of the vote and he wins the premiership time after time...)

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

More to the point, the Republican party seems to have been totally corrupted.  They are now being actively un-democratic by fighting in the courts to have postal votes which arrive after election day disallowed (these are valid votes that have been sent before election day).

 

Obviously they have long tried to suppress voting of groups that are less likely to vote for them - limiting the number of polling booths in predominantly black areas, making election day on a weekday so poorer people who have less flexible work and transport can't vote, etc - but this to my mind is the most blatant misuse of the legal system to try to influence an election.

 

Everything Jerry says about how Trump is being viewed differently from outside the country to inside may be true.  But on a truly basic level of what defines their democracy, why would the American people not care that one party is actively undermining the democratic process?

Agree with the above... And in addition, he is undermining the very tenets of the constitution. Montesquieu defined  a valid constitution as having an effectice legislature, judiciary and executive. Trump has undermined the latter two (appointment of justices, sacking of executve heads and replacing with cronies - the latest the cheif scientist of the EPA with climate change denying scientists). And by attempting to frustrate justice (with the help of the now rigged judiciary and executive), he is going for the legislature.

 

I do believe Trump has done some good... But the  bad outweighs the good by a mammoth margin.

 

Unf, I still think he will be relected. [edit] or more accurately, the probability of him being elected is greater than Biden (but I am not putting money on it this time).

Edited October 29, 2020 by Jerry_Atrick

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Let's not forget, Trump isn't the only one.. Even in Aus, where voting is mandatory, don't successive governments work the gerrymander to their advantage, with the most famous and brqazen being Joh Bjelke-Petersen (something like 30% of the vote and he wins the premiership time after time...)

Bearing in mind that Joh didn't invent the Queensland gerrymander. It was initially set up by a Labor government; one advantage being that in those days, Labor had a support base in the country electorates because of the high number of rural workers. When the Country Party/Liberal coalition came to power, premier Nicklin tweaked it to favour the coalition instead of Labor. After that, along came Joh, who tweaked it even more to advantage the Country Party over the Liberal Party so that the Country Party was able to maintain status as senior coalition party with the most seats. In the first election after Joh's tweak of the gerrymander, the coalition won 42% of the vote which translated to 56% of the seats.

 

A lot of people used to say that Joh was only there because of the gerrymander, but part of the problem was that not enough people were voting Labor. After the National/Liberal coalition blotted their copy book, Labor's Wayne Goss won government on the gerrymandered boundaries because finally enough people voted Labor.

Edited October 29, 2020 by willedoo

[Jerry_Atrick]

For the record, I wasn't inferring using a gerrymander was limited to conservative leaning parties... That was the one I recalled the most stark...

 

Blimey - I forgot about Wayne Goss... All I remember is one Day Joh as premier and now it's Anna... 😉

 

[willedoo]

12 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Blimey - I forgot about Wayne Goss... All I remember is one Day Joh as premier and now it's Anna... 😉

There were a few others in between as well. Joh's own party gave him the boot and installed Mike Ahern as Premier who was followed by Russell Cooper. Russell Cooper's Nationals lost to Labor's Wayne Goss. Goss won two elections but then lost their majority in a by-election and the Nationals were back with Rob Borbidge as Premier for two years. Borbidge lost to Labor's Peter Beatty who was followed by Anna Bligh as Premier.

 

Interesting that this election sees Queensland transition to four year terms. If Labor get back in, the LNP would have only been in government five out of thirty five years by the end of the next term.

Edited October 30, 2020 by willedoo

[Yenn]

Don't both parties in the USA have the ability to stack high positions with their own appointees?

Regarding Israel. It is big of them to allow some Arabs to live there as Israelies, especially when you consider that they took over the Arabs properties. A real look at their history shows that Israel is similar to Nazi Germany. A lot of what keeps them afloat is the disgust that everyone had for how they were treated in WW2, but it has gone too far.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

Regarding Israel

This is another area of the world where the US lacks the historical background to understand the political complexity that goes back hundreds of years. That's not a condemnation of the US, just a comment indicating its naivete. 

 

That area of the Eastern Mediterranean is referred to as The Levant.  The Levant is bounded by the Taurus Mountains to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the northern Arabian Desert to the south and Upper Mesopotamia to the east, and  includes the historic areas of Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel and Syria.

 

The Levant was included in the Ottoman Empire's territory. Since its rise, the Ottoman Empire had been in conflict with Russia and Central Europe. From the later 19th Century, the Ottoman Empire was in decline, having lost ground in Central Europe. The Germans and Austro-Hungarians saw the Ottoman Empire as a useful ally against Russia and so provided it with military advice and weaponry. When WWI started, the Ottoman Empire declared itself on the side of the Central Powers, which put it in opposition with Britain and France. We know what that lead to.

 

In 1916 a secret agreement, The Sykes–Picot Agreement,  was made between Britain and France  with assent from the Russian Empire and Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire. The agreement was based on the premise that the Triple Entente would succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire and formed part of a series of secret agreements contemplating its partition. The agreement effectively divided the Ottoman provinces outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence. The British and French-controlled countries were divided by the Sykes–Picot line. The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK's promises to Arabs (The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence),  regarding a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire. Remember Lawrence of Arabia?

 

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the United Kingdom government agreed to recognize Arab independence after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire. Following the publication of the November 1917 Balfour Declaration, which was a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild, a wealthy and prominent leader in the British Jewish community, which promised a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and the subsequent leaking of the secret 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement in which Britain and France proposed to split and occupy parts of the territory, the Sharif and other Arab leaders considered the agreements made in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence had been violated.

 

So, in a nutshell, that's the root of the troubles in Palestine and Israel at present. The British and French sought to destroy the Ottoman Empire to protect Russia. Britain had to throw a bone to the thousands of Indian Muslims serving in the British Imperial Forces. (The Indians were a big force in the Dardanelles Campaign.) By promising an Arab homeland, the British appeased the Indians and prevented the Arabs from going over to the Ottoman side. Then, not giving consideration to those thieving wogs, the Brits and French reneged on the McMahon-Hussein promise. 

 

So now the US tries to step in after the fact to settle the arguments. Not having been party to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, or the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, it probably has no knowledge of the background, and has there been a US President since 1918 who would have studied the basis of Middle-Eastern politics to the degree needed to bring both sides to consensus? The US also has the problem of having a large Jewish population which does its best to get the US to support their co-religionists in the Jewish State. The Arab/Muslim population of the USA is not a significantly large group to have as much political punch as the Jewish population. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.