World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Want to talk about the 2024 election? Possible candidates? Platforms? Predictions?
Rep. Adam Schiff calls on Biden to drop out of election contest, warns of losing Congresshttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/17/rep-a...
DNC delays Biden nomination at Schumer’s urging as prez faces fresh calls to step asidehttps://nypost.com/2024/07/17/us-news...
At this point, there may be more MAGA Republicans supporting Uncle Joe's candidacy than Dems.
Ian wrote: "Strictly speaking, it does not mean he did not break the law. It had nothing to do with what Trump did, and seemingly relied on the fact that the Special Prosecutor was not appointed properly. What it means is the whole trial was a farce and had nothing to do with Trump. Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt but this decision should not be a verdict. All the judge has done is to have managed to delay the issue until after the election, when Trump, assuming he wins, can declassify everything retrospectively. It shouldn't be a matter for appeal, except procedurally that judge, instead of finding whether Smith was properly appointed and dismissing Smith if not, simply continued to give Trump the maximum chance of getting away with it...."And what you keep ignoring is that Garland himself not only violated the law with Smith's appointment, he violated the Constitution. And you seem to think that's somehow OK because you believe Trump broke the law. But the difference between Garland and Trump is that this decision still allows Garland to follow the law and the Constitution, and appoint a special counsel who can legitimately investigate and file charges.
Just as the Constitution lays out the the appointment of officers such as the special counsel, it also guarantees everyone in this country the right to a fair trial. It doesn't matter how guilty you think they are, it does not justify violating a defendant's rights in order to prosecute it.
Papaphilly wrote: "This will be appealed...."He has to. If Smith doesn't appeal it, he concedes the conclusion and the judge in the DC case must toss that as well. Personally, I think the judge made this ruling in order to force the Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling instead of punting on the question like they did in the Immunity case.
J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Strictly speaking, it does not mean he did not break the law. It had nothing to do with what Trump did, and seemingly relied on the fact that the Special Prosecutor was not appointed pr..."I never said what Garland did was OK. I said the status of the prosecutor is logically disjoint from the issue of whether Trump took classified documents, and since the case was against Trump, such problems as whether the prosecutor was not properly appointed should have been dealt with before the trial started.
The charge was, did Trump take documents he was not entitled to and by so doing he broke the law? For the charges to disappear through an irrelevancy looks bad.
Ian wrote: "The charge was, did Trump take documents he was not entitled to and by so doing he broke the law? For the charges to disappear through an irrelevancy looks bad. ..."It is not an irrelevancy. It actually matters the rules are followed and if they are not, then the case gets kicked. You cannot break the rules to get a guy no matter how bad he may be in the end. Garland had plenty of good Federal Prosecutors to choose from and he did an end run.
J.J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "This will be appealed...."He has to. If Smith doesn't appeal it, he concedes the conclusion and the judge in the DC case must toss that as well. Personally, I think the judge m..."
I think the Judge was looking for an off ramp and found it.
It was irrelevant to the issue of whether Trump committed a crime. Of course there is the further issue of whether Smith was properly appointed and apparently he was not, but that is irrelevant to whether Trump was guilty. Quite simply, a properly appointed prosecutor should have been substituted.
J. wrote: "Rep. Adam Schiff calls on Biden to drop out of election contest, warns of losing Congresshttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/17/rep-a......"
I wonder if the Democrats even realize they are hurting themselves even worse. They are badly fractured and I cannot see how they fix this one. They spent the better part of a year making sure no one else can win the nomination and now they want to dump the very guy they cleared the field for the nomination. There are too many Democrats saying outright he needs to go and when he does not, what then? Kiss and make up?
Ian wrote: "It was irrelevant to the issue of whether Trump committed a crime. Of course there is the further issue of whether Smith was properly appointed and apparently he was not, but that is irrelevant to ..."There was a reason this one was chosen. This is the very definition of law fare. This not a question of whether he had the documents, but was he allowed to have them. Garland did not follow the rules and the case is dismissed. You do not even get to to a question about any chance of guilt because the case was dismissed. There is no guilt or even broken rules. Saying otherwise right now is irrelevant.
Part of what you have to understand this is really a political case and not a law case. Both guys have documents and one is charged and one is not. Using your logic, it is irrelevant that Biden does not get charged by his Special Prosecutor because he determined that Biden is losing his memory. Biden had no right to the documents at all because he was not President when he took them. However, the Prosecutor chose not to charge him as is his right. No charge, no broken law. Get it?
No charge does not mean no law broken. It merely means what it says - so far, he is not charged. Again, the law was either broken or it was not, but because the case was dismissed for a reason unconnected to the charge, the case was dismissed. I would imagine it could be brought back with a different prosecutor, but my guess is it won't because after the election who will prosecute?
Papaphilly wrote: "J. wrote: "Rep. Adam Schiff calls on Biden to drop out of election contest, warns of losing Congresshttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/17/rep-a......"
In my opinion, the real problem for the Dems is Biden's performance is such that he is very unlikely to win, but if they replace him, after the mess clears the replacement will not have the time to make a sufficient impression on Trump.
The deeper problem is that the GOP will probably sweep through Congress too, and there will be no restraint on Trump, and worse, with such a thrashing, the Dems may have trouble mounting a real challenge in 2028. The one point where this may not follow is if the US has a real problem and Trump flubs it, but I doubt anyone, even the most ardent Dem, wants that.
The Dems are trying to make Joe drop out of the race, and it looks like he might. He has Covid (that's what they say), and he looked feeble walking up the steps to the plane today. If he drops out, will they go with Kamala, the word salad queen? Will they go against every identity politics position they've been championing and skip over her for a more popular candidate? Deny the the first black female Vice President her shot?
I don't think it matters. Whoever stands is almost certain to lose because they don't have the time to match the momentum Trump has already built up. Kamala may be the best available since she at least has some sort of platform and she has the excuse for not being more prominent that she was a loyal VP and avoided anything that would outshine Biden, and with Joe's performance that gives her a good excuse for not being prominent. It would be a titanic effort for her to beat Trump, but she might hold back the deluge, so to speak.
Ian, you're assuming that it would be the candidate doing the campaigning. That is incorrect. It is the media doing the campaigning. That's how Biden won his current term from his basement.
Old video and photos recirculate, falsely claiming Trump wasn't injured in shootinghttps://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trum...
J. wrote: "Ian, you're assuming that it would be the candidate doing the campaigning. That is incorrect. It is the media doing the campaigning. That's how Biden won his current term from his basement."I was more thinking that the campaign has to be based around a person, and the person has to be known. The media certainly help but the name has to be imprinted on voters' minds and I think the only Dem imprint now is a bumbling Joe. I doubt there is time to change that, especially since Trump is hogging media time now.
The problem with Biden dropping out is not just scrambling to put together a new ticket, but how to handle the $250 million dollars in their campaign donations. If it was money raised for and donated to a Biden/Harris campaign, I don't think it can be moved to another ticket like Newsome or Whitmer.
What is it with politicians craving poison this year?'We're close to the end': Biden world braces for the possibility that the president will step aside
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024...
This is a poison pill. The DNC and the MSM are complicit in concealing Uncle Joe's state and rigging the primary process in his favor. They undermined the choices of regular registered Democrats while screaming that the evil orange man is THE threat to Democracy. And now, they want to throw that illusory choice of the people in the garbage. If this happens, the Chicago Convention will flashback to 1968.
They're almost on the same level as Sunak playing Russian Roulette with a cocked & locked 1911.
J. wrote: "Ian, you're assuming that it would be the candidate doing the campaigning. That is incorrect. It is the media doing the campaigning. That's how Biden won his current term from his basement."I'd say the idea is not to win the White House, but to put forward a candidate that would give the people more confidence in the down ballot Senate and House races, but I think the Democrats genuinely believe the polls are wrong, that anyone else could beat Trump at this point.
It's worth noting that 270towin.com has moved Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada out of the tossup category and into the leans Republican column on their map based on polls. For reference, a candidate has to be leading by 5 points to be considered leans. Toss up is any state where the margin is under 5 points. And those three states are read as of the time of the post. Since this updates frequently based on the polls, it may be different if you refer to it later on.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/biden-t...
And within the last day or two, they started tracking Harris vs. Trump on the national presidential polls page.
https://www.270towin.com/2024-preside...
If Harris is competitive vs Trump next debate ....
Ian wrote: "No charge does not mean no law broken. It merely means what it says - so far, he is not charged. Again, the law was either broken or it was not, but because the case was dismissed for a reason unco..."Does New Zealand have presumed innocence?
Ian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "J. wrote: "Rep. Adam Schiff calls on Biden to drop out of election contest, warns of losing Congresshttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/17/rep-a......"
While I agree with what you wrote, the Democrats problem is that they created the mess to start. They should have run a primary as did the Republicans and chose not to and cleared the board for Biden. Now it is apparent he is not the savior they thought and they have no one else.
Part of the problem is that Democrats and Republicans have different internal structure. The Republicans tend to be only a few wings, but are pretty uncompromising. The Democrats have lots of little groups and they tend to work together very well. So when the Republicans need to unite, it takes a strong man to lead if not unite because Republicans tend not to want to compromise. The Democrats do not need a strong man because they tend to work well together.
Right now, both house of Congress are virtually tied and every vote counts and those that tend to not compromise tend to have outsized power. This is bad for both parties because leading becomes a mess. The fringe wings tend to push matters and that makes things worse because it pushes moderates either away or worse to the other side. This is both groups and it is part of the process and problematic too.
Nik wrote: "If Harris is competitive vs Trump next debate ...."She is not debating Trump.
But she will be, if she substitutes Bidie
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "No charge does not mean no law broken. It merely means what it says - so far, he is not charged. Again, the law was either broken or it was not, but because the case was dismissed for a..."I agree with your first paragraph. As for the rest, I am unaware of that, but I found it enlightening.
Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "No charge does not mean no law broken. It merely means what it says - so far, he is not charged. Again, the law was either broken or it was not, but because the case was dismissed for a..."Yes. In principle you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I say "In principle" because we have had a few cases where subsequently it has been shown that juries came to the wrong conclusion and falsely convicted.
Potential Harris running mates:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/a...
Americans, what's the feeling out on the street? Are the Dems almost now resigned to losing?
And is RFK Jr benefitting in any way from the seeming turmoil?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/a...
Americans, what's the feeling out on the street? Are the Dems almost now resigned to losing?
And is RFK Jr benefitting in any way from the seeming turmoil?
At this point, Harris' VP pick is anyone's guess. The MSM is working hard to limit RFK Junior's air.
I don't think the party elite Dems are resigned to defeat. Last time, they beat Trump with a dementia patient in a basement and the queen of the Karens. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
Of the potential running mates, the top three on that Guardian link seem to be sensible options.Aws for RFK, he is just a pest that will probably ensure the election goes to Trump because he won't take votes from Trump supporters.
This is how things stand:President Joe Biden had already locked up nearly 3,900 delegates, but they may now vote for whomever they want.
More than 700 pledged delegates have told the Associated Press or announced that they plan to support Harris — but if she does not lock down the remaining delegates by a virtual roll call vote expected on Aug. 1, then the nomination could be decided by an open convention.
In the case of an open convention, a series of ballots would be taken until a candidate manages to win the required number of votes.
It’s unclear whether any other Democrats will toss their names into the ring. Several party leaders who had been seen as potential candidates have already thrown their support behind Harris, including Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...
The single most convincing reason I have ever seen to vote anything but Democrat:Democrat megadonor George Soros and his millennial son Alex are throwing their billions behind Kamala Harris as VP’s potential rivals back out
https://fortune.com/2024/07/22/kamala...
Secret Service director resigns in wake of Trump assassination attempthttps://www.npr.org/2024/07/23/g-s1-1...
I wonder. If some idiot showed up at a Kamala Harris rally with an AR-15 and a ladder, how long would the Secret Service just stand there watching him?
J. wrote: "....I wonder. If some idiot showed up at a Kamala Harris rally with an AR-15 and a ladder, how long would the Secret Service just stand there watching him?..."Why, do you think inaction might be intentional?
Nik wrote: "Why, do you think inaction might be intentional?..."Yes.
No,It just looks really bad. If this was anyone but Trump, we would be saying what a shame and thank god. But Trump, it is just another coincidence. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot...
Chuck Schumer was one of the top Dems who pushed Biden out the door and ordained the cackling witch as the Dems' new candidate without a single vote cast by regular registered Democrats. Check out that s*** eating grin.https://youtu.be/Z4HO-4z1hdo?si=Sd_5b...
How do you know when a politician is lying?
Ian wrote: "Of the potential running mates, the top three on that Guardian link seem to be sensible options.Aws for RFK, he is just a pest that will probably ensure the election goes to Trump because he won'..."
I don't think Beshear is even in the running. I think he's just a name pushed by the media, but she needs someone who helps with swing states, and Kentucky isn't in play for her.
Mark Kelly would be huge for the likeability factor, but he's been nothing but a rubber stamp for the Democrats and Biden. It should be easy to hammer him on being equally responsible for everything wrong with the last 4 years.
Shapiro might be a good choice if he can help her with Pennsylvania. Maybe he helps her with the rest of the Rust Belt states, I don't know.
Roy Cooper, I've been saying for years, he would have been a good choice for the Democrats to run as president. Largely unknown on the national stage, he's avoided press on the craziest things Democrats have done. He's won the governor's race twice in the same races Trump carried the state twice. North Carolina isn't in play for Kamala no mater how much she wants to pretend, but that might change if she chooses Cooper. He might also help her in Georgia being more of an old school Southern Democrat.
I have not heard Wes Moore ever tossed around before. Like Beshear, I'm not sure what value the governor of Maryland brings to the ticket.
Gretchen Whitmer. It sure sounded like her covid polices were wildly unpopular in Michigan, yet she won re-election. She might strengthen the ticket in the Rust Belt.
Pete Buttigieg. He has been an unmitigated disaster as transportation secretary. It feels like he just wanted the job without wanting to do the work. He'd be a disaster on the ticket, but I could see Kamala throwing out all common sense and choosing him as a DEI pick, thinking making history is more important than actually trying to win.
IMO, her choice needs to be a governor. If she chooses anyone from Washington, it signals to Independents that she's going to double down on the failed policies of the current administration. And it needs to be a governor that can boost her popularity in either the Rust Belt of the South. If Trump takes the southern swing states like it seems will happen, she needs to sweep the Rust Belt. But if she can reverse Trump's leads in the south, then she can afford to lose a Rust Belt state or two. She needs to be thinking strategically, and she doesn't have the time to vet her choices that candidates usually have.
J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Of the potential running mates, the top three on that Guardian link seem to be sensible options.Aws for RFK, he is just a pest that will probably ensure the election goes to Trump bec..."
Thanks, J.J. That puts a good focus on what is available.
Previously, Kamala was speaking spontaneously and not making much sense. Now she has a teleprompter to read from, so she'll look like she has some sense and will say whatever they tell her to say. That only makes her look smart. Imagine her off the cuff talking to other world leaders. And she's so far left that - well, hell -she'll finish off what's left of this country.
Scout wrote: "Previously, Kamala was speaking spontaneously and not making much sense. Now she has a teleprompter to read from, so she'll look like she has some sense and will say whatever they tell her to say. ..."Imagine Biden mumbling malarky at all the lying dog-faced pony soldiers occupying foreign leadership positions...
They know there is no difference between puppet 1.0 and puppet 2.0.
I have yet to see Kamala not making sense, although in fairness i haven't seen much of her. The question is, is this lack of sense an opinion on the content of what she said, or was it related to word order and choice of words?
Ian wrote: "I have yet to see Kamala not making sense, although in fairness i haven't seen much of her. The question is, is this lack of sense an opinion on the content of what she said, or was it related to w..."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6qzY...
Interesting link. Knowing that Ukraine is in Europe next to Russia is not a great achievement, but mentioning set theory is probably a step up from most politicians. Taking short clips out of context can always make someone look bad
Do you think she has any idea who Bertrand Russell was or why a set of all sets not including itself is a paradox?
I have no idea. Up until a week ago I really knew little about her other than that she had previously been a prosecutor, stood momentarily in the primaries and ended up VPThe again, do you think Trump has any idea of why a set of all sets not including itself is a paradox? Could he explain why it is not a paradox, but is merely not self-consistent?
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (other topics)The Federalist Papers (other topics)
The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (other topics)
Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (other topics)
Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
J.D. Vance (other topics)Tulsi Gabbard (other topics)
Smedley D. Butler (other topics)
Robert Iger (other topics)
Larry Elder (other topics)
More...
The second case was just dismissed. Not sure if it stands, but I think it has a very good chance. I think the Justices will lean toward the President because they do not want to see political cases every year. They themselves have said the President has implied immunity and part of the reason is to prevent political witch hunts.
Much of Supreme Court cases are not about the actual case, but the bigger picture. This is that type of case. It is not really about Trump but all that follow later. This year is a an interesting take. Two cases of documents by two Presidents with two different outcomes. Very close to the same case. They both have their quirks, but close enough for comparisons. Two different Presidents, different outcomes and the one not charged is the party in power. Now I am not saying that is the cause, but a reasonable person can question the motives and outcomes.