Want to talk about the 2024 election? Possible candidates? Platforms? Predictions? Showing 1,651-1,700 of 1,997

[J.]

Has he mentioned Set Theory?

[Ian]

No, but he wouldn't if he hadn't heard of it. When they come to debate, that will be his opportunity to show his mastery.

Of course, there is the question of how many Americans have? Another explanation for that clip on the link is that Kamala had realized going there was not a good idea, and she was in risk of losing her audience. Getting out of that would not be easy unless yiu were going to simply bluff.

[Scout]

Thanks for that video, J. It's been a long, hard day and I needed a laugh.

[Scout]

Okay, Ian. Watch this and decide if this woman is capable of being president, negotiating with Putin and Xi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlZRO...

[Ian]

Again, context. If someone fired a question at you out of the blue and asked you what is culture, is it totally unfair to have a minute or so trying to form an answer? I notice that link ran on to another one which was simply rabid anti-Kamala - someone who would not even question Trump and his ability to lie. Politics is deeply engaged in opinion.

As for your question, is she capable of negotiating with Putin or Xi, the clips we have seen above are not significant. I can't tell. The real question is, what does she want from such negotiations because how she will go depends on how much she wants? For example, I doubt she is capable of persuading Zelenskyy to give up his demands for all of what he thinks is Ukraine to be returned to him, short of simply telling him he is on his own, and don't count too much on Europe. That will be Trump's solution, I think. Is that what you want? If she demands that Putin leave Ukraine, or Xi bends the knee to Washington she will be out of luck, as will anyone else. The question really is, will she be able to get a better deal than the "middle deal", which is the one fair to all? I don't know. Can she get a fair deal? Maybe we shall see.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Again, context. If someone fired a question at you out of the blue and asked you what is culture, is it totally unfair to have a minute or so trying to form an answer? ..."

Yes you are correct, it is about context. Yet this is the game she signed up for and she knows to be ready for these kind of questions.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "For example, I doubt she is capable of persuading Zelenskyy to give up his demands for all of what he thinks is Ukraine to be returned to him, short of simply telling him he is on his own, and don't count too much on Europe. That will be Trump's solution,..."

You want to know what Trump's solution is going to be? He will take of the handcuffs and let Ukraine run its war. Trump plays a game with everyone. He is not saying what you think he is saying and that is what he does. He will not turn his back on Ukraine.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "The question really is, will she be able to get a better deal than the "middle deal", which is the one fair to all? I don't know. Can she get a fair deal? Maybe we shall see...."

The answer is no. Yet from me there is no criticism as this is the strategy right now. I have no idea of why they keep the cuffs on Ukraine. Maybe once Russia exhausts itself, then the cuffs come off. For both sides, there is lots of comments about this war. As it is a tightly contested Congress and Senate, everything is tough to get done.

[Ian]

Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "For example, I doubt she is capable of persuading Zelenskyy to give up his demands for all of what he thinks is Ukraine to be returned to him, short of simply telling him he is on his o..."

He said he was going to end the war before mid January. I am not sure what you mean by "taking the cuffs off" means but until mid January Trump has no say in the running of US aid, and even simp-ly negotiating with anybody violates the Logan Act.

Of course Trump may have no intention of doing anything like that. May be Trump will light up the war, but that won't end it.

[J.]

There is the nightmare scenario in which Trump sends in the Mormons. It would be horrifying to inflict that upon those poor, illiterate, Russian conscripts. But it would be kinder than allowing the Canadians to teach them how to invent war crimes (plural).

[Scout]

If Trump is elected - a big if because he may not survive the campaign and even if he does, I have no confidence in the integrity of the election when voters don't have to show I.D., the voter rolls are outdated, and ballot harvesting and mail-in ballots are allowed - but if he's elected, allowing us to use our oil and natural gas resources more effectively would give us more negotiation power and improve our economy. Wouldn't that have an effect on Russia and Iran? I'm no expert on this. What do you guys think?

[Ian]

I don't think it will affect Russia much because most of its production goes to China and China is having big tariffs imposed by the US. It would lower the price, though. Similarly, I don't think it would affect Iran because Iran is so heavily embargoed it probably doesn't sell much anyway.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "For example, I doubt she is capable of persuading Zelenskyy to give up his demands for all of what he thinks is Ukraine to be returned to him, short of simply telling..."

Taking the cuffs off is literally letting Ukraine run its war without restriction on U.S. arms. If Ukraine can hit deep inside Russia, that would push back their supply depots even further until they cannot supply their troops. The Kerch Bridge is gone and the railway Russia is building for when that happens is under target.

There has to be a strategy because it makes no sense otherwise.

As for Trump and his rhetoric, you always have to keep in mind he says lots of things that contradict each other. It is a strategy he uses quite effectively to confuse and aggravate his opposition into making mistakes.

[Nik]

Scout wrote: "...Wouldn't that have an effect on Russia and Iran?..."

Iran is clearly rogue with its nuclear program, warned by IAEA and Europeans. Trump might want to think whether he does anything about that. In the end of his last term, it seemed he was considering an action.
As of russia - his previous meeting with putler in Helsinki as US president wasn't particularly impressive, but maybe he'd have a chance to improve. If he admires putler and/or purtler has a dossier on him like some assert - nothing good for Ukraine, but if he'd look into a bigger picture, he'd want a solution that wouldn't encourage use of force for territorial gains.

[Ian]

Ukraine is already hitting deep inside Russia. Recently a drone attack took out a strategic bomber hundreds of km north of St Petrersburg. How it got there is interesting - the airfield was not that far from the Finnish border so it may be that Ukraine sent its drones across NATO countries' airspace. That could provide problems when the Ukraine conflict is over. An example would be trade, which Russia will shut Europe out. Then with Trump adding tariffs to European exports to the US, Europe has to start wondering where it will sell its goods.

I don't understand what you mean by strategy. I don't consider Ukraine's attacks on supply lines to be a strategy - it s merely something basically obvious. But apart from F 16s, Ukraine has weapons that can reach that bridge but they haven't managed it.

As for Trump, you may be right as to what he is doing is to confuse his political opponents, but it will also confuse his overseas allies, unless of course he doesn't care about them.

[Scout]

Oh, hell, Ian. Please go back to the Ukraine/Russia thread to defend Russia. I avoid reading that thread. I know I started this, my bad, but take this back to where it belongs please. This thread is about the 2024 election.

[Ian]

I agree that should not have been there, but you started it.

Let's stick to the 2024 election

[J.]

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper withdraws from consideration to be Harris VP
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roy-coop...

Do you think he knows something? 🤔

[J.]

This should help everyone be a bit less trusting.
https://youtu.be/SKwU8Pq_xy4?si=iueoj...

[Scout]

Yes, I think MSM has proved itself untrustworthy and will continue to lie to protect Democrats. Right now, they're giving Kamala free campaign ads on national networks. They're helping her rewrite her history of being an extreme liberal. After all, Democrats voted for Biden because they thought he was a moderate and would unite the country (something he claimed time and time again that he would do when he was campaigning from his basement). After he was elected, turned out he was a left-wing liberal. So the media want to erase everything Kamala said that was extreme and tout her as a moderate. They're making her look more like the Democratic Trump because they know his ideas make sense, unlike the platform she ran on in 2020 -- and miserably failed.

[Ian]

You won't like this, but the Democrats are not left-wing, if by that you mean socialist. Ask anyone from Denmark, or Sweden. The policies of the Democrats are not that different from those of the Republicans, and maybe that suits Americans, and if it does, that is fine.

I also think it is not unreasonable for someone to change their mind and abandon something that did not work previously. It shows flexibility. The real question is, is she fit to be President, or fitter than Trump?

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "You won't like this, but the Democrats are not left-wing, if by that you mean socialist. Ask anyone from Denmark, or Sweden. The policies of the Democrats are not that different from those of the R..."

It is all relative. Most Democrats are not "left wing" as you describe, but there is a real divide in how Americans see the world and how things should be run. Unfortunately for us, it is not an ala carte menu and we have to take the good with the bad. It is a general look at life and not polices per se. The problem is tha the wing nuts are the loudest and push the pile for now.

As for changing ones mind, it is fine if it is a true change of mind. Most politicians change their mind for political gain and we call that a flip flop.

[Ian]

I doubt it is possible to have an a la carte menu ina representative republic. It is the same everywhere. Most people vote on one major issue, often what happened to the wallet last term. We say here that elections are not won, they are lost by the incumbent.

Personally, I have no idea whether Kamala would make a good President, but I do think she should be given some time campaigning before she is written off.

[J.]

That's the thing. We got to see her campaigning in 2019. Then we were treated to four years of of her vice presidency.

[Graeme]

Next major event is the Democratic Convention on the 19th of August.

Just over two weeks away.

With the rapid-fire pace of events enough to spin anyone's head 180 degrees, I have no idea what might happen.

Will Kamala become 'the One,' or will she be replaced?

[J.]

No, they began the process of electing their candidate yesterday, out of the public view.
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-democrat...

The Chicago Convention is a mere pantomime. A bit of dark humor designed to make the plebs feel like their opinions matter to their betters.

[Ian]

In my opinion, they really had little choice. Nobody else had the time to make even a modest run for it. The VP replacing a President who is quitting does have a certain logic.

[Graeme]

J. wrote: "No, they began the process of electing their candidate yesterday, out of the public view.
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-democrat......"

I wonder how Hillary C feels about this?

Could she still make a run?

[Graeme]

Who thinks there will be a 2nd assassination attempt against Trump?

I think it likely.

[J.]

HRC burned most of her favors in 2016. Nobody would back her as a candidate for assistant dog catcher. Even fewer would push her to run for President.

The rhetoric which the Dems have pushed seems intended to inspire lone gunmen. Will those so inspired be able to get into range? We shall see.

In the past, I have noted that the closest presidential analog I can think of for Trump is Andrew Jackson. The events of the previous couple of months (the assassination attempt and how Trump ran a public race for the nomination as opposed to his competition) have reinforced that opinion. I suspect something in American politics is about to break.

[Scout]

Kamala has been annointed as the Dem candidate without having debated anyone, without having to declare or defend her position on anything, and without having faced questions from the liberal and conservative press. She's leaked that she's changed her position on just about everything without having to explain her thought process or reasons for the change. She's hiding just like Biden hid in his basement. I haven't heard from her lips any explanation for the 180 on her positions. She'll run, just like Biden did, as a moderate Democrat -- and then she'll support the extreme liberal policies she supported in the past. It's a bait and switch. Doesn't matter to the Democrats if she lies to get into office, they'll do anything to defeat Trump -- moral scruples be damned.

[J.J.]

J. wrote: "HRC burned most of her favors in 2016. Nobody would back her as a candidate for assistant dog catcher. Even fewer would push her to run for President.

The rhetoric which the Dems have pushed seems..."

Maybe an accurate comparison for Harris is Gerald Ford, the President no one voted for. :D

A history lesson for the non Americans. Traditionally when the VP position became vacant, it remained vacant until the next election. There have been quite a few times when the President did not have a VP when he ascends to the Presidency on the death of his boss, or the VP dies in office, leaving the office vacant.

An amendment was added to the Constitution following the JFK assassination allowing the President to nominate a new VP who would take the office after confirmation by Congress. This was put into practice for the first time when Spiro Agnew resigned. Nixon nominated Ford as his VP who then became President when Nixon resigned. Ford became the first and only president so far who was not elected, whether as a presidential or vice presidential candidate. Though there have been Presidents chosen by The House when the elections failed to deliver a majority of the electoral votes to a candidate.

Funny enough Andrew Jackson lost in his first bid to Adams because he did not win a majority of the electoral votes and the House decided to give the election to his opponent despite Jackson winning a plurality of electoral and popular votes.

[J.]

Comparing the cackling queen of the Karens to Gerry Ford scares me. I keep hearing LBJ and thinking about the Warren Commission.

For those who don't know, LBJ was a blue quote machine. The man was unfiltered to the point that he interrupted meetings to call his tailor and explain, in detail, why he needed certain alterations to the front of his trousers. His quotes about Ford included, "He's a nice guy, but you get the feeling he played too much football without a helmet..." And, "The boy's so dumb he can't sit and chew gum at the same time."

Of course, LBJ knew Ford personally. Meaning, when he described him as a moron, he would know. So... why did LBJ name Ford to the Warren Commission? Yeah, he appointed "the dumbest man alive" to find who killed JFK. He also appointed Allen Dulles, the CIA head who JFK had fired over the Bay of Pigs.

I wonder what they want the new idiot to do for them.

[J.]

And starting with Japan, the markets have s*** the bed. I guarantee that the White House has been screaming at the Fed to cut rates all day long.

[J.J.]

We're headed for a recession for sure, and no amount of redefining is going to hide it. That was a key factor in costing HW Bush the 92 election. A small recession that year cost people their jobs. And in his debate with Clinton, he kept checking his watch as if he didn't want to be there. It came across as out of touch at a time when people were hurting. Even though the recession ended before the election, it didn't come soon enough to change sentiment.

[J.]

Harris taps Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as Democratic running mate
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/06/harri...

[Ian]

Currently, the reports here have indicated a significant stock market fall. There have been major falls in 1987, 1997 and 2008, or thereabouts, but nothing since then. One could argue Trump avoided a similar one and Covid delayed it, but does Kamala, through Biden, wear the consequences of this one, assuming it continues? Also, what could anyone do about an overheated market? Trump avoided the consequences of the overheating, partly through Covid, and partly by "printing" another 7 trillion $, but surely that can't be done again?

[J.]

The actual third rail of American politics:

Rep. Cori Bush loses Democratic primary after campaign onslaught from pro-Israel groups
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024...

[Ian]

The ability to put huge amounts of money into that single issue is why Israel can do what it likes with Palestinians.

[J.]

Walz's dirty laundry is starting to be aired, and it stinks.
https://x.com/AlphaNewsMN/status/1821...

[Nik]

Any country in the world, unless totally spineless and willing to surrender, would hunt perpetrators down and attempt to liquidate a threat for good. That’s what Israel does, nothing more.
However, Ian, some people here complained that you were hijacking threads into irrelevant to their topic directions.

[[deleted user]]

Just when you thought politics couldn't get any worse...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...

Harris is opening up a lead over Trump in the polls.

Americans, I'm lost for words.

[Ian]

Nik wrote: "Any country in the world, unless totally spineless and willing to surrender, would hunt perpetrators down and attempt to liquidate a threat for good. That’s what Israel does, nothing more.
However,..."

J introduced the Israeli comment. My comment reflected that nobody can win a US election by not taking a pro-Israeli stance because of the funding applied. How to win the election is surely part of this topic.

[Ian]

Beau wrote: "Just when you thought politics couldn't get any worse...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...

Harris is opening up a lead over Trump in the polls.

Americans, I'm lost fo..."

No, you are not. You merely don't want to see Trump lose :-)

I am in a rather odd position here. Much earlier I was unhappy with both candidates so I said I would prefer anybody else. As a consequence, I gather some individual has changed his name to Mr Anybody Else and aims to have his name of the voting papers. I would imagine that would be a rather expensive joke, and he has yet to go through with it, but . . .

[[deleted user]]

Ian, RFK Jr has always been my preferred candidate, but his campaign seems to have fizzled out, so as somebody who sees the dangers of 'progressive' ideology, it's only natural for me to back Saint Donald in a 2-horse race with Harris.

[Ian]

Beau's comment reminds me of the importance of spelling, which thanks to typos I often get wrong :-(

Anyway, Beau wants to canonize Trump. Others want to cannonize him :-)

[Ian]

According to an article in our paper, Trump has claimed the President should have a say in the actions of the Fed, with Trump claiming to know more about money. Given his bankruptcies, the US could be in for an interesting ride, and the rest of the world a rather turbulent one.

[J.]

I want to believe the Fed is fair, professional, and competent. But I've read over the histories of several of their chairmen.

[J.]

This video does a fair job of explaining how the Walz CSM stuff smells funny.
https://youtu.be/sVMkvv8PQhk?si=M_-OW...

[Papaphilly]

J. wrote: "I want to believe the Fed is fair, professional, and competent. But I've read over the histories of several of their chairmen."

Ian wrote: "According to an article in our paper, Trump has claimed the President should have a say in the actions of the Fed, with Trump claiming to know more about money. Given his bankruptcies, the US could..."

Jerome Powell is the adult in the room and is an excellent chair. He will do what is necessary to keep the economy in good shape. he is about as non political as one gets and will not hurt the economy to help Democrats.

Just so everyone understands Trump is doing what Trump does, but he appointed Powell. He was and is an excellent choice.