Thanks for your thoughtful response. As you say, it's all in the eye of the beholder. One other responder said that my analysis of Harris was spot on (and he is appalled by the election of Trump as much as anyone, perhaps more). Another said that he agreed with everything, thus my comments about Harris, until the section about free speech and the Spiked article.

I think 'brat' (not my word, but a responder) referred to Trump, not Harris.

How was what I described as “vacuous soundbites” not vacuous soundbites?

If every presidential candidate has celebrities in tow, and has also gone on Saturday Night Live, isn't that a sad reflection on the American psyche? Shouldn't politics be more serious than that?

I am aware of the religious/Christian Nationalist fervour that still exists in the United States, and I do know that in the US to go against Israel for anything is a death sentence for that candidate with more than half the electorate. It's also obvious that Israel will get Trump's full backing; he's said as much. I was merely pointing out her hypocrisy in suggesting that she would be able to do anything about it, a cheap attempt to get votes from the pro-Palestinian faction, given that Biden and Blinken have achieved nothing in that area, whatever they say in public. When you say “Harris would not do that”, what exactly do you think she would have done? Stop sending weapons to Israel?

Despite our differences on this issue, let's both focus on the raising of consciousness that is necessary and which we both want. My article was an attempt to move in that direction.

By the way, are you a fan of Marianne Williamson ?