Harris V Trump - The US Election - The Results

[steve]

The house elections are still on a knife edge with enough seats still too close to call for either party to get to 218.

Interestingly one of the seats with the Republicans  ahead is California's 22nd District: GOP Rep. David Valadao, the incumbent is leading his democratic rival.

However if Valadao does win he will be one of just two republican congressmen left who voted to impeach the rapist traitor in 2021.

It's difficult to see how his support for wrecking the constitution could be guaranteed.

[Danny]

Nov 9, 2024 11:54:53 GMT alberto said:

I thought this graph was interesting. It probably needs to be overlaid with gender and class too but I suspect simplistic early analysis will be better at establishing a narrative than really explaining things.

Yes it is. Just the same as the fate of the lab and con vote in the UK. Basically fewer people supporting either.

[pjw1961]

Nov 9, 2024 1:42:08 GMT eor said:

RAF - nah, Lake is the absolute liability of this cycle. She's the reason no-one was factoring Arizona into the Senate calculations despite it usually being the most Republican of the swing states in this year's Presidential polling.

I think Mark Robinson running for Governor of North Carolina has got even Lake beaten for the prize of "absolute liability". Mr "I'm a black Nazi" duly lost. 

[colin]

"A senior adviser to president-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in the war in Ukraine rather than winning back territory.

Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace".

"And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said."

BBC

[colin]

Nov 9, 2024 11:07:20 GMT steve said:

pete


Being the type of person I am I tracked down Brittany Bennett on line.
It wasn't difficult as she worked as a special adviser to speaker of the Georgia Assembly maga extremist republican Jon Burns!

And Anna Rollins voted for Harris :-


slate.com/life/2024/11/election-2024-results-presidential-trump-harris-women.html

[johntel]

Nov 9, 2024 13:10:20 GMT colin said:

"A senior adviser to president-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in the war in Ukraine rather than winning back territory.

Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace".

"And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said."

BBC

Don't think Zelenskiy will have any problems with that - he's much more concerned about the security guarantees that will follow the peace settlement.

[pete]

Found his opinion on why people voted Trump interesting.
Seems (imo) reading his piece a lack of critical thinking is the main reason Trump is now President, again.


www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/09/us-voters-kamala-harris-donald-trump-republican

[colin]

Nov 9, 2024 13:24:43 GMT johntel said:

Nov 9, 2024 13:10:20 GMT colin said:

"A senior adviser to president-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in the war in Ukraine rather than winning back territory.

Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace".

"And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said."

BBC

Don't think Zelenskiy will have any problems with that - he's much more concerned about the security guarantees that will follow the peace settlement.

You could be right-though he will have no choice.

I couldnt agree more with you that the status of a post conflict Ukraine is the key issue. And what Putin's red lines are for it.

If he demands -lets say- removal of all foreign supplied weapons , neutrality & no membership of NATO -what then ?

Putin knows that he can have a good shot at subverting the next election .

Zelensky must surely know that if he doesn't get  democratic &  territorial  integrity  guaranteed by military intervention , its all over.

I just cant see Trump's USA or the EU signing up to that.

[RAF]

Nov 9, 2024 13:51:30 GMT colin said:

Nov 9, 2024 13:24:43 GMT johntel said:

Don't think Zelenskiy will have any problems with that - he's much more concerned about the security guarantees that will follow the peace settlement.

You could be right-though he will have no choice.

I couldnt agree more with you that the status of a post conflict Ukraine is the key issue. And what Putin's red lines are for it.

If he demands -lets say- removal of all foreign supplied weapons , neutrality & no membership of NATO -what then ?

Putin knows that he can have a good shot at subverting the next election .

Zelensky must surely know that if he doesn't get  democratic &  territorial  integrity  guaranteed by military intervention , its all over.

I just cant see Trump's USA or the EU signing up to that.

There is also one of the key drovers for the war to be addressed. Who gets control over the mineral reserves under the Sea of Azov?

[mercian]

Nov 9, 2024 9:10:57 GMT steve said:

...

It's the U.S. I doubt that the white supremacist cult will have too much difficulty finding sufficient thugs both within and outside of law enforcement to carry out their instructions but as with the U.S. armed forces and incidentally the U.K. police services you are legally and morally obliged to refuse unlawful orders.
I truly hope enough remember their oaths of office.

Agreed, but who judges what is unlawful? If Trump puts his people in charge of Defence and they issue an order wouldn't that be lawful unless it obviously contradicts something in the constitution? Plus knowing the US (and Trump's) propensity to tie things up in the courts for years could it end up going to the Supreme Court which Trump has stuffed with his supporters?  

[jib]

Nov 9, 2024 14:03:15 GMT mercian said:

Nov 9, 2024 9:10:57 GMT steve said:

...

It's the U.S. I doubt that the white supremacist cult will have too much difficulty finding sufficient thugs both within and outside of law enforcement to carry out their instructions but as with the U.S. armed forces and incidentally the U.K. police services you are legally and morally obliged to refuse unlawful orders.
I truly hope enough remember their oaths of office.

Agreed, but who judges what is unlawful? If Trump puts his people in charge of Defence and they issue an order wouldn't that be lawful unless it obviously contradicts something in the constitution? Plus knowing the US (and Trump's) propensity to tie things up in the courts for years could it end up going to the Supreme Court which Trump has stuffed with his supporters?  

At least the Dems sorted their s**t out this time and replaced Stephen Gerald Breyer with Ketanji Brown Jackson and didn't make the Ruth Bader Ginsburg mistake again when it went from 5-4 to the current 6-3 supermajority.

[mercian]

Nov 9, 2024 9:21:30 GMT Danny said:

Nov 9, 2024 8:05:49 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

I’m not sure, but I took it to suggest that just as one might expect bad things from voting for Brexit, one ought not to be surprised at bad things from voting Trump? (In any event, whatever it means it’s unlikely it is something of which jib would wholeheartedly approve!…)

Good morning btw

Morning.

Globexit for the US makes a lot more sense to me than brexit to the UK. There is no way the UK can be self sufficient and divorce itself from world trade, but that isnt true of the US beause its basically a whole continent. Seems to me quite likely the world is going to divide into major trade blocks which have strong internal trade but more limited external trade. Reasons for this include that China has got its act together, the EU has real trade power acting as one block, and presumably India is also working on it. Its perhaps more like the 19th century again with a few major players each controlling chunks of the world and operating internal markets.

Difficulties will come for any country isolated outside one of these blocks.

Of course not.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-trade-in-numbers/uk-trade-in-numbers-web-version#import-statistics

Look at sections 3 and 4: They show that exports rose from £575bn in 2016 to £861bn in 2023. Imports rose from £613bn to £876bn in the same period.

Hardly divorcing ourselves from world trade.
 

[steve]

"At least the Dems sorted their s**t out this time and replaced Stephen Gerald Breyer with Ketanji Brown Jackson and didn't make the Ruth Bader Ginsburg mistake again"

Are you referring to age Ginsburg was 59 when she was appointed 3 years younger than Keir Starmer  and served for 27 years.Jackson was 6 years younger when she assumed office.
U.S. Supreme court judges should like U.K. High court judges be required to retire at 70, appointment for life on a wildly partisan court is yet another affront to judicial independence.

[jib]

RE: Ginsberg

"Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Refused to Step Down....She could have had President Obama nominate her successor. But she didn’t get to the Supreme Court by letting other people tell her what she could do."

"Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times in March 2014 urging Ginsburg to step down. “I feared the Republicans would retake the Senate in November 2014, and it seemed so unknown what would happen with the presidential election in 2016,” he told me recently. “If she wanted someone with her values to fill her seat, the best assurance was to leave when there was a Democratic president and Senate. Obama could have gotten anyone he wanted confirmed at that point.” Ginsburg’s decision to stay “was a gamble.”

Source: The New York Times

#avoidable

[wb61]

Nov 9, 2024 14:20:31 GMT steve said:

"
U.S. Supreme court judges should like U.K. High court judges be required to retire at 70, appointment for life on a wildly partisan court is yet another affront to judicial independence.

sorry steve but the UK retirement age for the judiciary in England and Wales was raised to 75 a year or so ago!

[steve]

wb61

At least there is an upper age limit

[alberto]

Here's two more graphs that speak a bit about the class aspect of the US election result.

I don't know about the last ten years on the income one but I'll be surprised if things have got significantly better.  I also doubt Trump will fix things for these people but it's easy to see why they don't have faith in the establishment.

Okay, I found the next bit.  Twitter doesn't work well on my laptop.

Looks like he did actually help them. 

[birdseye]

Nov 9, 2024 13:51:30 GMT colin said:

Nov 9, 2024 13:24:43 GMT johntel said:

Don't think Zelenskiy will have any problems with that - he's much more concerned about the security guarantees that will follow the peace settlement.

You could be right-though he will have no choice.

I couldnt agree more with you that the status of a post conflict Ukraine is the key issue. And what Putin's red lines are for it.

If he demands -lets say- removal of all foreign supplied weapons , neutrality & no membership of NATO -what then ?

Putin knows that he can have a good shot at subverting the next election .

Zelensky must surely know that if he doesn't get  democratic &  territorial  integrity  guaranteed by military intervention , its all over.

I just cant see Trump's USA or the EU signing up to that.

The EU is split on the war and not in a position to take a strong view either way - foreign policy is still very much a national issue for the members and trade with Russia is important to both FRance and Germany. The US has no great concern over Ukraine and will likely be quite happy to see it end up as a buffer between NATO and the reborn USSR that Putin seems hellbent on creating. So my guess would be that Putin absorbs the ethnic Russian areas and is happy with a gelded disarmed Ukraine that is not allowed into NATO or the EU. Realpolitik

[colin]

Nov 9, 2024 15:58:26 GMT birdseye said:

Nov 9, 2024 13:51:30 GMT colin said:

You could be right-though he will have no choice.

I couldnt agree more with you that the status of a post conflict Ukraine is the key issue. And what Putin's red lines are for it.

If he demands -lets say- removal of all foreign supplied weapons , neutrality & no membership of NATO -what then ?

Putin knows that he can have a good shot at subverting the next election .

Zelensky must surely know that if he doesn't get  democratic &  territorial  integrity  guaranteed by military intervention , its all over.

I just cant see Trump's USA or the EU signing up to that.

The EU is split on the war and not in a position to take a strong view either way - foreign policy is still very much a national issue for the members and trade with Russia is important to both FRance and Germany. The US has no great concern over Ukraine and will likely be quite happy to see it end up as a buffer between NATO and the reborn USSR that Putin seems hellbent on creating. So my guess would be that Putin absorbs the ethnic Russian areas and is happy with a gelded disarmed Ukraine that is not allowed into NATO or the EU. Realpolitik

Absent a military guarantee I wouldnt put it past him to have another go -unless he can rig the election and instal a stooge.

[shevii]

I have JLP/James Johnson on my twitter feed so I have had to put up with the bragging for the last two days but I guess they have a right to as they predicted Trump would win the popular vote. The scores on the doors here:

x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1855020008591835293

To be honest, even with the other pollsters, I would regard the polling as reasonably accurate with only a 2.5 margin of error difference in the top 10. Most other pollsters predicted the majority of swing states right and the "herding" I think was mostly correct. It's a bit like the brexit vote where all pollsters were close really- there was just a narrative that they were pretty certain about remain when it was again margin of error stuff and that was with missing the fact (or downplaying) that voters who don't normally vote were going to this that time.

JJ of course believes he has the perfect methodology but I don't believe in this as such, rather that it turned out correct for this election in the same way ICM did for many years until they tanked when the voter behaviour changed.

[neilj]

Nov 9, 2024 16:06:52 GMT shevii said:

I have JLP/James Johnson on my twitter feed so I have had to put up with the bragging for the last two days but I guess they have a right to as they predicted Trump would win the popular vote. The scores on the doors here:

x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1855020008591835293

To be honest, even with the other pollsters, I would regard the polling as reasonably accurate with only a 2.5 margin of error difference in the top 10. Most other pollsters predicted the majority of swing states right and the "herding" I think was mostly correct. It's a bit like the brexit vote where all pollsters were close really- there was just a narrative that they were pretty certain about remain when it was again margin of error stuff and that was with missing the fact (or downplaying) that voters who don't normally vote were going to this that time.

JJ of course believes he has the perfect methodology but I don't believe in this as such, rather that it turned out correct for this election in the same way ICM did for many years until they tanked when the voter behaviour changed.

Also votes are still being counted, likely to be nearer a 1.5% lead than 3% when all votes are counted
A little disingenuous of Johnson to stop the count when it fitted his prediction

[pete]

Nov 9, 2024 15:50:16 GMT alberto said:

Here's two more graphs that speak a bit about the class aspect of the US election result.

I don't know about the last ten years on the income one but I'll be surprised if things have got significantly better.  I also doubt Trump will fix things for these people but it's easy to see why they don't have faith in the establishment.

Okay, I found the next bit.  Twitter doesn't work well on my laptop.

Looks like he did actually help them. 

Hmm, or was it a case of "i'll help you a little but help them more?" I mean, those tax cuts for the rich meant what for American public services? Any tax cut for the poor goes back into the economy.

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/05/sherrod-brown/do-70-benefits-trumps-tax-law-benefit-wealthiest-1/

[turk]

Colin

I think it highly unlikely Trump would withdraw military support for the Ukraine completely especially the amount of arms exports going to Ukraine estimated to be some 38 billion dollars so far. American defence firms are making a fortune from the war with companies like Raytheon making billions . Of course the American tax payer is indirectly funding those companies but in the Capitalist bastion of America reducing company profits and jobs some times Trumps taxes with some Politicians.

As to what territory Ukraine would give up for peace I’m not sure ,but a lot of Ukrainian blood has been spilt including thousands of civilians killed and huge damage to property as well as lose of about 18% of Ukraine territory about 42,000 square miles bigger than the size of Scotland and Wales combined. Even if Trump pulls the plug Ukraine with the help of Europe and its own growing arms industry could carry on . Hoping that sooner or later Putin will fail and mounting Russian casualties will at last expose him .

.I think it would be foolish to underestimate the hatred of Russia and Putin within the Ukrainian people and there resolve . It maybe that Zelenskyy does want peace as any sensible person would but it is not easy to make peace with a tyrant and secure your countries future, to carry on the struggle may well be the only alternative left to Zelenskyy .

[pete]

Yeah, definitely not fascist

www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/donald-trump-ag-letitia-james-b2644045.html

[steve]

pete
And the fascists want to deport millions of LEGAL migrants!
If you have any American friends here best say bye bye now because this isn't going to end well for U.S. Migrants either.The

youtu.be/lJ8voZ6RmOI?si=86cim0Mq44QZwbf9

[lens]

Nov 9, 2024 7:53:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Nov 9, 2024 1:15:11 GMT lens said:

I'm amused when you say "don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it" and then suggest doing it "on the coast, or even offshore". Errr, yes - technically possible. But..... then you need a power connection for your otherwise curtailed electricity to "the coast, or even offshore", so more cost to add to the cost of electrolysis plant and that for ammonia or whatever production. All of it destined to only be occasionally used during periods of otherwise curtailment! For heaven's sake!

You might find it amusing to state the obvious that no one was contesting - others might find it amusing that you don’t seem to realise that you would have to build a power connection to the shore anyway when you put the leccy into the grid instead of making hydrogen or something else!

Well, for everybody else's sake I wasn't going to say anymore on this, but I can't let such nonsense go unchallenged.

Firstly, you're putting up your straw men again. I was referring to Alwen Forest as example - but you cant over to talking about offshore windfarms without saying!? That's why it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with you. But I will try one last time.

The whole premise of "shall we go for electrolysis?" in respect to Alwen Forest looks at scenarios of differing turbine numbers and sizes on site, differing sizes of grid connections (in MW), as well as use cases for the end product. In general, the size of grid connection has always been a compromise. Big enough to be adequate most of the time - but not so big (and expensive) that it's highly underutilised a large percentage of the time. Agreed so far?

It follows that optimal is almost certain to be of a level that is below estimated peak output from the turbines in optimum conditions. Which is why the whole discussion of curtailment was discussed. Periods when possible actual output would be more than the grid connection could manage - hence curtailment. So what to do? There are three fundamental options. 1] Curtailment. 2] Upgrade the grid connection 3] Use or store **on site**  (battery or such as electrolysis)

So c-a-r-f-r-e-w - do you begin to see what's wrong with your idea? If you still don't, it's that it would be necessary to upgrade the size of grid connection to make the hydrogen elsewhere!! Lose, lose!! If you're upgrading the grid connection, you're doing away with the necessity for curtailment anyway!

(And in practice, the real life chosen scenario is as previously stated - store on site via battery.  Electricity which would otherwise be curtailed will be stored and "time shifted" down the connection when actual generation is lower than connection capacity. Win, win!!)

Nov 9, 2024 7:53:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

It currently costs to connect offshore wind turbines to the shore at the moment you know! The leccy doesn’t just float into the grid over the waves! You seem incapable of considering the cost of your own arguments

Oh really! If we have now moved on to talking about offshore wind, then yes - of course, the cost of cabling to connect has to be factored in. So what is your alternative? Offshore hydrogen and/or ammonia production with no cable connection to shore? Leaving aside the capital plant cost for electrolysis, compression etc, then wind turbines (and cables) largely operate unattended except for occasional maintenance. That simply will not be the case for what you seem to be proposing. Such would need to be permanently manned - offshore. And when you've made the hydrogen/ammonia and stored it, what then? Are you proposing the hydrogen/ammonia will just "float to shore over the waves!" ??  Have you even started to consider the implications (cost, safety and environmental) of any such approach?

And you think I'm the one " incapable of considering the cost of your own arguments" ?!! A pot calling the kettle black?

[colin]

Nov 9, 2024 17:59:00 GMT turk said:

Colin

I think it highly unlikely Trump would withdraw military support for the Ukraine completely especially the amount of arms exports going to Ukraine estimated to be some 38 billion dollars so far. American defence firms are making a fortune from the war with companies like Raytheon making billions . Of course the American tax payer is indirectly funding those companies but in the Capitalist bastion of America reducing company profits and jobs some times Trumps taxes with some Politicians.

As to what territory Ukraine would give up for peace I’m not sure ,but a lot of Ukrainian blood has been spilt including thousands of civilians killed and huge damage to property as well as lose of about 18% of Ukraine territory about 42,000 square miles bigger than the size of Scotland and Wales combined. Even if Trump pulls the plug Ukraine with the help of Europe and its own growing arms industry could carry on . Hoping that sooner or later Putin will fail and mounting Russian casualties will at last expose him .

.I think it would be foolish to underestimate the hatred of Russia and Putin within the Ukrainian people and there resolve . It maybe that Zelenskyy does want peace as any sensible person would but it is not easy to make peace with a tyrant and secure your countries future, to carry on the struggle may well be the only alternative left to Zelenskyy .

Thats an encouraging thought on the military equipment.

From what I have read Europe couldnt compensate if Trump ceases all supply-and I think the political will isnt there, Why in Gods name are we not giving him more Storm Shadows to hit the awful missile/drone sites. They are getting pounded every night.

I just can't see a post partition guarantee for Ukraine which will mean anything being on offer. And Putin wont recognise a neutral Ukraine for long before he tries again to absorb it.

I certainly cant see Putin accepting a post partition Ukraine armed to the teeth by USA.

I hope i'm wrong.

[mercian]

Nov 9, 2024 19:22:13 GMT colin said:

Nov 9, 2024 17:59:00 GMT turk said:

Thats an encouraging thought on the military equipment.

From what I have read Europe couldnt compensate if Trump ceases all supply-and I think the political will isnt there, Why in Gods name are we not giving him more Storm Shadows to hit the awful missile/drone sites. They are getting pounded every night.

I just can't see a post partition guarantee for Ukraine which will mean anything being on offer. And Putin wont recognise a neutral Ukraine for long before he tries again to absorb it.

I hope i'm wrong.

Perhaps we haven't got any spare? I haven't heard anything about new orders being placed either, but I suppose it wouldn't be advertised. 

[eor]

Nov 9, 2024 12:49:23 GMT pjw1961 said:

Nov 9, 2024 1:42:08 GMT eor said:

RAF - nah, Lake is the absolute liability of this cycle. She's the reason no-one was factoring Arizona into the Senate calculations despite it usually being the most Republican of the swing states in this year's Presidential polling.

I think Mark Robinson running for Governor of North Carolina has got even Lake beaten for the prize of "absolute liability". Mr "I'm a black Nazi" duly lost. 

Fair! I was thinking just about the Senate, Lake being an absurdity in the realm of the TV Doctor from New Jersey they ran in Pennsylvania last time, or the one in Georgia who was defended by his own side from accusations of duplicity by citing how brain-damaged he probably was.  

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 9, 2024 18:37:16 GMT lens said:

Nov 9, 2024 7:53:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

You might find it amusing to state the obvious that no one was contesting - others might find it amusing that you don’t seem to realise that you would have to build a power connection to the shore anyway when you put the leccy into the grid instead of making hydrogen or something else!

Well, for everybody else's sake I wasn't going to say anymore on this, but I can't let such nonsense go unchallenged.

Firstly, you're putting up your straw men again. I was referring to Alwen Forest as example - but you cant over to talking about offshore windfarms without saying!? That's why it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with you. But I will try one last time.

The whole premise of "shall we go for electrolysis?" in respect to Alwen Forest looks at scenarios of differing turbine numbers and sizes on site, differing sizes of grid connections (in MW), as well as use cases for the end product. In general, the size of grid connection has always been a compromise. Big enough to be adequate most of the time - but not so big (and expensive) that it's highly underutilised a large percentage of the time. Agreed so far?

It follows that optimal is almost certain to be of a level that is below estimated peak output from the turbines in optimum conditions. Which is why the whole discussion of curtailment was discussed. Periods when possible actual output would be more than the grid connection could manage - hence curtailment. So what to do? There are three fundamental options. 1] Curtailment. 2] Upgrade the grid connection 3] Use or store **on site**  (battery or such as electrolysis)

So c-a-r-f-r-e-w - do you begin to see what's wrong with your idea? If you still don't, it's that it would be necessary to upgrade the size of grid connection to make the hydrogen elsewhere!! Lose, lose!! If you're upgrading the grid connection, you're doing away with the necessity for curtailment anyway!

(And in practice, the real life chosen scenario is as previously stated - store on site via battery.  Electricity which would otherwise be curtailed will be stored and "time shifted" down the connection when actual generation is lower than connection capacity. Win, win!!)

Wasting time some more lens!

That’s lot to write to try and gloss over that you’re changing the argument. Originally you talked of needing a power connection. Now that I’ve pointed out you’d need one anyway for the grid, you have changed it to upgrading the connection. And of course you can avoid upgrading it if you produce hydrogen or ammonia etc. offshore

Nov 9, 2024 18:37:16 GMT lens said:

Nov 9, 2024 7:53:16 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

It currently costs to connect offshore wind turbines to the shore at the moment you know! The leccy doesn’t just float into the grid over the waves! You seem incapable of considering the cost of your own arguments

Oh really! If we have now moved on to talking about offshore wind, then yes - of course, the cost of cabling to connect has to be factored in. So what is your alternative? Offshore hydrogen and/or ammonia production with no cable connection to shore? Leaving aside the capital plant cost for electrolysis, compression etc, then wind turbines (and cables) largely operate unattended except for occasional maintenance. That simply will not be the case for what you seem to be proposing. Such would need to be permanently manned - offshore. And when you've made the hydrogen/ammonia and stored it, what then? Are you proposing the hydrogen/ammonia will just "float to shore over the waves!" ??  Have you even started to consider the implications (cost, safety and environmental) of any such approach?

And you think I'm the one " incapable of considering the cost of your own arguments" ?!! A pot calling the kettle black?

Crikey lens, that’s a lot more to write to miss that they simply propose to pipe the hydrogen etc. ashore. Through a pipe. You seem determined to contest almost anything. Is this your last word now or are you going to have to come to terms with the radical concept of a pipe. (Or maybe you think they don’t realise they might have to pay for a pipe or something).