Want to talk about the 2024 election? Possible candidates? Platforms? Predictions? Showing 1,401-1,450 of 1,997

[Nik]

Wouldn’t know about that, but possibly. Even then, he won’t have a teleprompter in front of him (supposedly). Rehearsing would help, and they both will have some home made punch lines, but if he’s out of it or can’t remember what he rehearsed or understand the question, it should be apparent

[J.]

I'd be very tempted to check behind Uncle Joe's ears for freshly healed incisions. It would not surprise me if they tried some type of implanted receiver to feed him answers.

[Nik]

Don't think it'll work. If he's dictated anything, we'll see a long pause and confusion in giving the answer. I rather hope we'd see his real current ability

[J.]

Wait... He already does long pauses and confusion when he's speaking. Did they already do it?

We're through the looking glass people...

[J.]

For those who think the Dems will parachute in Gavin Newsome, this is how he holds up under a logical attack which doesn't back off in the face of certain accusations.
https://youtu.be/42wbI7LxRns?si=7l-QA...

[Graeme]

Will Joe Biden compete with Trump on the podcast circuit?

If not, why not?

REF: https://x.com/theallinpod/status/1803...

[Graeme]

Looks like the penny is dropping that the lawfare against Trump might be backfiring.

REF: https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1804...

That said, I predicted they'd double down if the 'conviction,' failed to knock Trump in the polls, and stick him in jail.

So, we'll see what happens in early July at sentencing.

[Ian]

Whether it boosts Trump's coffers or not, if there were a genuine case that the law was broken, should Trump not be prosecuted? The pro-Republicans think this was a Dem attempt to hinder Trump's election, but surely the law is the law, and it would be wrong to give Trump a free pass just because he is the Republican contender.

If you assert that the trial was a political move, then equally you have to show that no crime was committed. Judge and jury disagreed, and they heard ALL the evidence. So either there was a case, OR US law has totally collapsed. Which do you choose?

[J.]

Do you mean the 34 felony charges which started out as a single misdemeanor the feds couldn't be bothered with?

I wonder if there might have been a blatant political motivation.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/politi...

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "If he really loved the country, as opposed to his own views, he would have ensure the Supreme Court was politically balanced...."

None of his judges have been reliable votes for the conservative side in cases. They side with the right in a few key cases, but there have been many that have seen one of the three break with the other conservative justices. And many on the right thought Kentaji Jackson would be a rubber stamp for the Democrats' positions, but she hasn't been afraid to join the majority on a number of cases.

In fact, of the batch dropped yesterday, she joined with Alito and Kavanaugh in dissent of Erlinger v. United States.

And of the five cases that dropped yesterday, Smith v. Arizona was a unanimous decision, and United States v. Rahimi was an 8-1 decision with Clarence Thomas providing the dissenting vote.

As an aside, the Erlinger case will have major repercussions for the Trump conviction out of New York. In that case, the government wanted to use his past criminal history to get an enhancement to the sentence for the crime he was on trial for. The particular crimes they used were rejected after the verdict, and the government sought out older crimes to replace them with. The government claimed it didn't matter if the jury didn't decide on the particular crimes needed to trigger the enhancement as long as they decided enough crimes had been committed in the past, much the way the judge in Trump's case instructed the jury they didn't need to reach a unanimous decision on the particular crimes that would trigger the upgrade in that case. But the Supreme Court ruled that Erlinger's sentencing enhancement violated his 5th and 6th Amendment rights because only a jury can decide facts in regards to a sentencing enhancement, and such decision must be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "Whether it boosts Trump's coffers or not, if there were a genuine case that the law was broken, should Trump not be prosecuted? The pro-Republicans think this was a Dem attempt to hinder Trump's el..."

That's not how the justice system works. Guilt has to be proven, not innocence. But even so, the case was so corrupt, the judge refused to allow Trump's expert witness to testify on campaign finance law so that Trump's attorney's could show no law was broken to trigger the upgrade on the misdemeanor charge. That by itself was an obvious violation of Trump's right to mount a defense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...

[Ian]

Of course guilt, not innocence, has to be proven. However, guilt does nto have to be proven to bring a case to court - merely that th4re are grounds to do so. The court then decides whether guilt is proven. If there were no reasonable proof, why was Trump convicted? What were th grounds for Trump's expert witness being not allowed to testify? Surely the jury should have taken note of that, unless what was supposed to be presented was irrelevant to the case.

At a personal level, I took little or no notice of the case, but if twelve jurors found Trump guilty, in my opinion either there was a real case to answer, or the US legal system is broken. And yes, that the jury found him guilty does not necessarily guarantee guilt, but Trump should have had good lawyers who should have been able to cnvince a jury if there were no case to answer.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "Of course guilt, not innocence, has to be proven. However, guilt does nto have to be proven to bring a case to court - merely that th4re are grounds to do so. The court then decides whether guilt i..."

How or why would the jury take note of the judge's decision to block testimony when that decision is made outside the view of the jury so as to avoid prejudicing the jury?

But then you have the judge doing this. He took issue with one Trump witness and dismissed the jury so he could scold him. That's fine and acceptable. But then he cleared the court room so he could berate him, threatening to strike his entire testimony over his attitude.

https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/starin...

Voiding the testimony over an attitude problem violates Trump's 6th Amendment rights to mount a defense. And further more, clearing the court room to address the witness in the first place violates Trump's 6th Amendment right to a public trial. The courts have previously addressed this very thing. While it is allowed, it can only happen under extraordinary circumstances. There is a legal test to apply and this instance fails that test. There was no legitimate reason to exclude the press and the public from his admonishment of the witness.

You put too much faith in a jury's decision when they can be steered to a particular decision with improper instructions, when they're prevented from hearing relevant testimony, when a judge violates the defendant's rights throughout the trial.

Let's forget about Trump for a moment. The Alex Murdaugh murder trial. High profile case where it turned out the court clerk engaged in jury tampering to get them to deliver a guilty verdict so that she could sell a book about the trial afterwards.

https://apnews.com/article/alex-murda...

And here's an incident less than two weeks ago in a case being tried out of Fanni Willis's office in Georgia. Rapper Young Thug is on trial. His lawyer found out about a secret meeting between the judge, the prosecutor, and a star witness. When the defense confronted the judge in court, the judge demanded to know how he found out. Then jailed the lawyer for not revealing his source. Secret meetings like that are not expressly prohibited, but it's another case where a strict legal test must be applied. Instead of providing justification for the meeting, the judge threw the defense attorney in jail, potentially violating the defendant's right to counsel.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/11/us-news...

So no, a good lawyer can't convince a jury of innocence if they have a tyrant judge overseeing the case, or some other court official subverting their defense.

[Ian]

In which case you are saying the US legal system is broken?

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Whether it boosts Trump's coffers or not, if there were a genuine case that the law was broken, should Trump not be prosecuted? The pro-Republicans think this was a Dem attempt to hinder Trump's el..."

Let me try it this way. Take what you know and turn it on its head. He is on appeal. When you do the law, there are rules that must be followed and these rules have been twisted into a pretzel.

You make a good point of about law being broken and if it is a genuine case. Except for Mar a Lago, none of the cases are any good. Mara a Lago is a real case, but it s not being treated like the other case just like it with Biden. This runs into the different people being treated differently. when you look at how the cases are progressing and who is involved and how, it is just nuts how different Trump gets treated as compared to others.

As I have said before, this is about Trump irritating people to the point of losing their minds. Trump derangement syndrome is real.

[J.]

What really matters:
https://youtu.be/h_yWxi8Dy30?si=dv9VX...

Do shots when you hear:
"C'mon man"
"Sad"
"Cheap fakes"
"Crack"
Gibberish

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "In which case you are saying the US legal system is broken?"

No within a larger system, there are always outliers. His cases seem to fall into this category and not all of the time either.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Of course guilt, not innocence, has to be proven. However, guilt does nto have to be proven to bring a case to court - merely that th4re are grounds to do so. The court then decides whether guilt is proven. If there were no reasonable proof, why was Trump convicted? What were th grounds for Trump's expert witness being not allowed to testify? Surely the jury should have taken note of that, unless what was supposed to be presented was irrelevant to the case...."

First: In the American system , the court proves nothing unless it is a bench trial and the judge makes the decision. In Trump's cases, these are jury trial and the jury makes all final decisions on what are the facts of the case. In our system, the judge is a referee to make sure neither side gets an unfair advantage. The judge rules on the law. Now when a judge rules in such a way that it can make the trail unfair to the defendant, that is appealable. In the American system, an appeal is nothing more than saying a mistake was made and it made the trial unfair. so a judge not letting in an expert witness for the defense is appealable, but it can be upheld saying it was good decision or at least not prejudicial against the defendant. This case is a mess on many faces and I cannot see how it stands. For me, I cannot see how this case overcomes what I think is a fatal flaw. To have a conspiracy, you have to have an underlying crime for which to have conspiracy. There was never an underlying crime ever mentioned.

[Ian]

If "There was never an underlying crime ever mentioned." then the system is at least breaking. If no law has been violated, the judge should dismiss on sight. Again, I don't know enough about the trial, and I have no doubt that Dems were keen to prosecute but if any group can get away with potentially sending someone on the basis they don't like them, then the system is broken in my view.

I realize there are appeals but I also gather no appeal is possible until the sentence is read. After all, nobody would be particularly interested in an appeal if the total sentence was a fine of 1c

[J.]

Former NY governor Cuomo weighed in on the Trump convictions. The specific comments begin at about the 6 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/eHp4DmCtjRk?si=iiire...

1.) Agreeing with Andrew Cuomo, even a little, makes me feel dirty.

2.) I love that they agree he's guilty and the trial was a mistake. They almost said that justice is a function of political utility, not guilt or innocence.
a moment ago

[Graeme]

Snopes finally (after 7 years) admits the charlottesville Trump Nazi support statement was false (/hoax).

REF: https://x.com/snopes/status/180390031...

The question: why now?

[Scout]

Why do you think it's happening now, Graeme?

[Scout]

I'm still waiting on the Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I watch the news every day looking for this decision, which is a big one that the Court will probably save for last. I'm interested in what they decide and how it will impact past, present, and future presidents. Looking at recent decisions, I'm not sure what to expect, regardless of the Democrats' belief that the Court is biased in favor of conservatives.

[Graeme]

I have no idea, Scout.

[Ian]

Scout wrote: "I'm still waiting on the Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I watch the news every day looking for this decision, which is a big one that the Court will probably save for last...."

Since Consergvsatives stopped Obama from appointing one such judge and allowed Trump to appoint three, of course the court is biased.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "In which case you are saying the US legal system is broken?"

Partially. I think the problem comes down to how judges are seated. They are either politically appointed by politicians that expect them to rule in line with their views, or they are elected by a public that will punish them if they don't rule according to public opinion.

Take the judge in the Georgia Trump case. He's up for reelection in a liberal district. If he votes the "wrong way." he's out of a job. When the time came to make a ruling over Wade and Willis's affair, he punted. He allowed Willis to stay on the case if she fired Wade. But it doesn't satisfy the conflict of interest. He knew it and gave Trump's team his blessing to appeal it. The appeals court should remove Willis from the case, and the judge looks to the voters like it wasn't his fault. That is not justice. That is playing politics with the defendants.

[J.J.]

Scout wrote: "I'm still waiting on the Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I watch the news every day looking for this decision, which is a big one that the Court will probably save for last...."

I predict they'll strike a middle ground, maybe holding a President has immunity from official acts, but not from personal acts. I don't think they'll give a definitive answer on Trump's case. They will issue a guideline and kick it back to the trial court to decide.

During the arguments, the conservative judges seemed wary about granting full immunity, but sensed the importance of presidents holding some level of immunity to prevent a never ending pattern of presidents charging their predecessors for something.

But there is an under reported aspect to this case that could blow everything out of the water. Briefs were filed in this same case arguing that Jack Smith's appointment to Special Counsel is unconstitutional. The argument is that the Constitution requires all principal officers to be nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. By its very nature, the special counsel acts independent of the Attorney General, making it a principal officer requiring confirmation. The distinction between Smith and every special counsel that has come before him is that he is the only special counsel who has never been confirmed for a prior position. The judge in Florida is hearing arguments on this right now, but it is possible the Supreme Court finds the appointment unconstitutional, avoiding the immunity question altogether.

[J.J.]

Graeme wrote: "Snopes finally (after 7 years) admits the charlottesville Trump Nazi support statement was false (/hoax).

REF: https://x.com/snopes/status/180390031...

The question: why now?"

Because Biden has been walking the same line in his vague support of the anti-Israel protest going on. If the fact checkers and media admit they were wrong about Trump then, they can split hairs with Biden's statements without having those past statements come back and bite them in the rear on this issue.

[J.]

The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers inherent in granting the president imperium. How could they not be after fighting a war to free themselves from a king.

At the same time, they had read their history and so knew full well how the loss of imperium at the end of his term as Consul drove Caesar to his governorship, raising legions, and ultimately crossing the Rubicon.

Their solution was impeachment in the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate.

[Ian]

Thus cementing in the politicizing of the legal system

[J.]

Only with regard to the executive.

The Constitutional Convention was caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Granting unimpeachable imperium would create an automatic dictatorship. Not allowing any latitude risked having any and every magistrate issue arrest warrants upon the sitting president. They chose a middle route which allowed the executive some necessary wiggle room while maintaining a way to reign him/her in if necessary. The risk they took was in trusting in the courage and fair-mindedness of their political posterity.

Of course, they left another failsafe, 2A.

[J.J.]

And the President shouldn't have absolute immunity, but some to a degree that he need not fear that his decisions and actions will be second-guessed and judged illegal later. The President needs some protection so that he's not afraid to make decisions in a time of crisis. Or even in wartime. What if Eisenhower decided dropping the atom bombs on Japan was criminal enough to charge Truman? Or Bush's decision to topple Saddam based on faulty intelligence? Or Obama's drone strikes on American citizens as part of the war on terror? We would hamstring future presidents from making some tough decisions if they had the fear of prosecution hanging over their heads after leaving office.

[Graeme]

A big week for the supreme court now.

Lots of important cases dealing with 1A rights, and Trump's cases.

[[deleted user]]

The current US Government is completely disrespecting the spirit in which the Constitution was founded. In fact, by seeking to use the legal system to jail political opponents like Trump and Bannon, it is behaving like a despotic 3rd world regime.

Like many despotic regimes, there's definitely 'something of the night' about its members - an air of sleaze, corruption and vice. This is why President Donald J Trump is absolutely correct to call for Biden to be drug tested before the debates:

https://www-hindustantimes-com.cdn.am...

[J.]

I decided on what to eat Thursday evening.
https://www.thespruceeats.com/vodka-w...

The watermelon has been inoculated and is chilling in the fridge.

I also have a bottle of Patron Silver for shots.

[Papaphilly]

Beau wrote: "The current US Government is completely disrespecting the spirit in which the Constitution was founded. In fact, by seeking to use the legal system to jail political opponents like Trump and Bannon..."

Bannon is going to jail for contempt of Congress. He was called to testify and refused to appear.

[Nik]

Because of how, J.J. mentions, politics interfere with justice, an attempt to “politicize” judges’ appointments met adamant, mass protests against a “judicial reform” in Israel. Our democracy doesn’t have enough checks and balances to weather courts being politically associated .

[J.]

CNN gave us a preview of how they will moderate the debate.
https://youtube.com/shorts/auy_5v6GAU...

[Nik]

Should’ve offered my candidacy for moderating the thing :) Wonder whether they’d bring Michael Buffer as the announcer and a couple of cut(wo)men waiting by the ringside

[J.]

Y'all might remember this genius.

Rep. Bowman charged with pulling fire alarm in House office building when there wasn’t an emergency
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politi...

So, he started agreeing with the kinds of protestors who chant, "from the river to the sea". It seems that didn't go over well in a district with several synagogues.

Jamaal Bowman loses most expensive primary race ever
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9...

[Graeme]

I've never been impressed by Bowman.

[J.]

I've got a parlor game for y'all. I find it useful to compare and contrast candidates with previous presidents.

For Trump the analog most commonly named by the Dems is Nixon. I get the comparison. To a degree, they share a mixture of narcissism and thin skin. But, to me, Nixon was smarter, especially with regard to his counselors and how he controlled the press.

To me, the better analog for Trump is Andrew Jackson. They share the exact same populist base. They both have a need for vengeance. And where Trump claims to confront the Deep State, Jackson fought and won a war against the National Bank.

I'm having trouble finding a suitable analog for Biden. The closest so far was Gerald Ford, a bumbling idiot who only got into the White House through party machinations beyond his control. It isn't a good fit. Biden is worse than Ford was.

What do y'all think? Can you improve upon my analogs?

[J.J.]

Jackson is an apt analogy for Trump. His supporters thought the election was stolen in his first match with Adams in 1824. Jackson won more electoral votes, but not enough to reach 50% +1. The election went to the House, and they chose Adams. The 1828 election was viewed in some ways as revenge. Jackson had grown more popular while Adams' presidency was a disaster. He remained popular among his supporters after he left office, with future candidates tapping into his success to win them over.

With Biden, most see him as an unlikable version of Carter. Carter inherited a stagnant economy that grew worse and his foreign policy was a disaster. He won the presidency from an electorate that wanted to get away from the scandals of the Nixon era (remember Ford was serving out the remainder of Nixon's term and hadn't been elected in his own right), but it only took Carter's single term for the public to want the Republicans back in power.

[Graeme]

There are no precedents for Biden.

[[deleted user]]

Biden is like King Theoden, in Lord of the Rings, prior to Gandalf's visit. Unfortunately, there's no awakening Biden to reality - he's long gone.

[Graeme]

I stand corrected.

Turley found Adams as a Biden precedent.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/27...

[[deleted user]]

I'd just like to wish President Trump all the best in tonight's debate against that degenerate, warmongering drug addict.

Don't grandstand and throw him a few unexpected questions, Donald, and you're sure to win.

[J.]

Biden looks and sounds like a tired old man. I feel sorry for him.

Trump is pushing the braggadocio dangerously far.

[J.J.]

I wasn't impressed with Trump's performance, but Biden was so bad Trump came out the clear winner.

I have CSPAN's stream running on youtube right now. They have 4 different phone lines for people to call in, and right now, all the Trump supporters are calling on the Biden number because the Trump number is busy and the Biden number isn't ;D

And their twitter poll currently has Trump as the winner 71% to 29% https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1806...

Every time a Democrat shows up in the spin room to face the media, they are getting peppered with questions about Biden stepping aside.

[Ian]

The real problem with Biden is he never challenged Trump's evasion of questions that would be difficult for him. Trump frequently changed the topic to what he wanted to talk about.

There have been comments on Biden's pauses. I think Biden should have had coaching. If you want to see the value of pauses, watch a speech by Hitler, especially the earlier ones. He would give a pause, and a look that almost challenged the recipients to disagree with him. Biden's pauses had him looking at the floor, or obviously struggling to think. He could still think while pausing assertively.

I think it is time for Biden to confess he is getting too old for the job and pull out. The problem then is to find a candidate quickly.