Current Affairs 2024 POTUS race

[davek]

The "existential moment" is only important in that Trump loses.

Whoever the winner is on the other side is irrelevant in this context.

Biden and the Democratic party may still believe he has the best shot at defeating Trump, due to the litany of reasons we've debated on this thread post-debate. They might be wrong on that, but they very well could be right.

...and the two are completely related.

 

[davek]

Teflon Trump.

Surely that concentrates minds even more now on Biden.

 

[verreauxi]

Yes, but you were telling me all that before Genocide Joe's meltdown last week. Since then senior Democrats and the Democratic Party commentariat have grasped the nettle on this and it's looking more of a possibility.

In short, what I've said on here has legs. Yes, you might have wanted a candidate change but your mind seems to be closed off to it now that minds are now focussed on making it a reality.

I know what you're claiming; I know what you're deflecting from too.

I'm not quite sure if I can understand you, but in any case, yes, I was telling you that I wanted a candidate change before Biden's poor performance in the debate last week. And no, my mind isn't closed off to a candidate change, I was simply posting about the complexities of a candidate change, and used evidence (e.g., post-debate polling of [insert new candidate] versus Trump, which showed that any new candidate isn't likely to fair better than Biden)...just because I pointed out these complexities and used polling data to back it up, does not mean my mind is closed off to another candidate stepping in. I just think it is highly unlikely that one will (which is not an implicit endorsement of Biden staying in the race).

You aren't really capable of having an exchange because you treat every post as a battle-to-be-won and are more concerned with being right than with understanding nuance, complexity, or reality. It's tiresome.

 

[TheFinnFan]

aaaand Trump has immunity

 

[davek]

In what way is Harris mired a lot of the culture wars?

She's not a progressive. She would never be someone described as a culture warrior

Of course she is. She was front and centre on the issue of what gets taught in US schools re the history of slavery in America; she's been in the vanguard of the abortion issue.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Of course she is. She was front and centre on the issue of what gets taught in US schools re the history of slavery in America; she's been in the vanguard of the abortion issue.

Oh the horror

 

[Ruairi77]

also means Biden has immunity and every other president.

 

[davek]

I'm not quite sure if I can understand you, but in any case, yes, I was telling you that I wanted a candidate change before Biden's poor performance in the debate last week. And no, my mind isn't closed off to a candidate change, I was simply posting about the complexities of a candidate change, and used evidence (e.g., post-debate polling of [insert new candidate] versus Trump, which showed that any new candidate isn't likely to fair better than Biden)...just because I pointed out these complexities and used polling data to back it up, does not mean my mind is closed off to another candidate stepping in. I just think it is highly unlikely that one will (which is not an implicit endorsement of Biden staying in the race).

You aren't really capable of having an exchange because you treat every post as a battle-to-be-won and are more concerned with being right than with understanding nuance, complexity, or reality. It's tiresome.

No, that's not true. You are the one adding the partisan element to this.

In fact, we're pretty much arguing for the same thing, with you just a bit more pessimistic of its outcome than I.

 

[davek]

Oh the horror

It wasn't a judgement on her. I'm merely correcting your erroneous claim she hasn't been involved in culture wars.

 

[Sean Ashley]

The Supreme Court decision says a president is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken in office. But a president is not immune from "unofficial acts".

So what is an official act?

These are the official acts we've identified so far in the Supreme Court's opinion:

1. Directing the Justice Department to discuss investigating purported election fraud with the states
2. Talking to then-Vice President Mike Pence (Trump pressed Pence to not certify the results of the 2020 election)

The Supreme Court has ruled that while a president is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken in office, he is not immune for "unofficial acts".

The justices are leaving it to a lower court to decide whether two actions taken by Donald Trump were unofficial acts:

1. Trying to convince certain state officials that alleged election fraud meant they should change the state's electoral votes for Trump
2. Creating lists of what are commonly called "false electors" for the states to send to congress to case the electoral votes for Trump

These both relate to charges Trump faces in the state of Georgia.

Trump and 18 others are being prosecuted in Georgia for conspiracy to overturn the state's 2020 election results, which they deny.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I dont see that as a negative, tbh.

As for stating personal opinions as facts: I dont. I just state my opinion as my take on matters. Others can and do disagree.

We completely disagree, to me it is absolutely a negative.

All those undecided people would a) need to get comfortable in a short time with voting for him b) could well decide they dislike him, especially if he has just done a 180 on statments like this

Gavin Newsom says Kamala Harris is 'absolutely' the best running mate for Biden, calling the Democratic ticket a 'master class in terms of performance'

In a CNN interview, Gov. Newsom said that Vice President Harris "gets to lay and claim credit to a lot of that success" of the Biden administration.

www.businessinsider.com

.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Trump really could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it.

Very dark day in US politics.

 

[Prevenger17]

also means Biden has immunity and every other president.

I reckon it will be reviewed when Trump loses and he is no longer of any use to them. It is incredibly craven, but what's to be expected

 

[davek]

We completely disagree, to me it is absolutely a negative.

All those undecided people would a) need to get comfortable in a short time with voting for him b) could well decide they dislike him, especially if he has just done a 180 on statments like this

Gavin Newsom says Kamala Harris is 'absolutely' the best running mate for Biden, calling the Democratic ticket a 'master class in terms of performance'

In a CNN interview, Gov. Newsom said that Vice President Harris "gets to lay and claim credit to a lot of that success" of the Biden administration.

www.businessinsider.com

.

That article merely states that Newsom favoured Harris as the best person to run on the ticket as VP in 2024. It's not an endorsement of her for President.

 

[LinekersLegs]