• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Atheist said:
Now HuffPo is suggesting there's a considerable push to vote uncommitted in Michigan due to the Gaza genocide:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mich...democratic-primary_n_65dd66c2e4b005b858317b1a

The irony if supporting Israel causes Biden to lose to an outright islamophobe would be pretty strong.
Click to expand...

what would be the difference on this issue?

Netanyahu is (and always has been) walking all over Biden, whereas when Trump was in Power, Bibi was scared that he would start a total war in the Middle East that Israel would have to fight for him.
Under Biden, Israel has no brakes, because they can trust America to bail them out no matter what.
But Trump would ask: what's in it for me?
And the answer is: the support of the Evangelicals who want him to start Armageddon by killing 2/3 of all Jews.
 
Last edited:
Biden had an excellent intact brain interview on Seth Meyers yesterday.

Here's one segment. There is another plus a visit to the ice cream store on the firsst floor of the building.



He might have some questionable sound-bite moments but there is no way this guy is too old.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Reasonable minds can disagree about whether or not Trump should be removed from the ballot under the 14th amendment. Calling that an attempt to “steal the election away from Trump” is cultist talk.

What happened on January 6th was an illegal and violent coup. The actions being taken to potentially remove Trump from the ballot are nothing of the kind.

No matter how much certain conservatives claim they despise Trump and do not support him, they can’t seem to stop themselves from making false equivalencies that serve to downplay the severity of his actions.
Click to expand...

I don't think reasonable people can actually disagree about whether T****y should be on the ballot, given that he commited numerous acts of treason in office and then lead a violent putsch to overthrow the legally elected government in 2021.
 
This year is absolutely not going to be fun. I took some vacation last year, forgetting about America for 3 weeks. Not going to happen this year. Trump IS the news every single day.

The possible 4 years of Trump will be the same. He will use the executive department for revenge. He will never take over the military. But still, the threat is there. (My prediction on the trump term: he will last one year. We will be over it then.)

I'll be 70 soon. I did not want ANY of this for my remaining years. My kids are rather calm about it. One is safely on the East coast. the other one over here in the middle...she is pregnant. And I don't even get to talk politics with her. She refuses to think about it all.
 
Trump must not win because of Ukraine alone.
The damage he can do to the US is limited IMO, given that there won't be anymore SC judges to appoint.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Right wingers often don't understand the difference between using the law and abusing the law.
Click to expand...

So what is the difference between using and abusing the law? I agree with those contending #Resistance Liberalism seems like a rehash of Cold War Liberalism. There's a pretzeling illogic to using anti-democratic mechanisms to protect democracy. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, or even charged. Manichean tribalists (like Johnny Karate here) resort to shady legal maneuvering based on a constitutional dead letter (and one that almost certainly won't be upheld by the current Supreme Court). Governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the people. The demented twist is that if Trump were to win the election, then it would not be because he had the most votes but because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College... it can't even be described as "antiquated" because it was always stupid, as evidenced by the turd-polishing 12th Amendment.

So, yes, there is some both-sidising. Both sides want to resort to undemocratic means to promote supposedly democratic ends. Between five unelected Justices ruling Trump can't run vs. the Electoral College selecting him, which do you think is more acceptable to the public? The Justices on the Court are substantially more savvy and attuned to public sentiment than Democrats who inhale cable news.

There are other anti-democratic elements in the Constitution that are not rationally defensible: Candidates must be 35, natural-born citizens, and residents for 14 years. Silly stuff. A constitution is vital to upholding democracy when it comes to protecting minority rights (i.e., ensuring people are free and equal). Another defensible limitation on the vote of the people is making it so that a president cannot have more than two full terms. That takes a vote out of the hands of citizens, but it became an amendment because of broad buy-in from citizens (and supported by an informal tradition going back to the first president). It's also a relatively well-known provision, whereas Americans are not familiar with section 3 of the 14th Amendment, or even insurrectionism. A term limit on the president also fosters strong institutions as opposed to strong leaders.

I recall some NeverTrumper "life-long Republican" proudly saying that he would not vote for a convicted felon. All other things being equal, I'd be less inclined to vote for a felon, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's disqualifying. When McCain ran, Democrats said he was a bit too old. And he was! Polling shows Democrats are not thrilled about Biden's age, but they'd still vote for him over Trump. I'd vote for a tuxedo cat over Trump.

Imagine... the Court delays the trials so there's no conviction before the election, which allows Trump to narrowly win in the Electoral College. Alito and Thomas take cash from their billionaire benefactors and agree they should be replaced with thirty-year-olds, not that it matters because the Trump Wars will mean the 2028 Election needs to be called off. I hope to be placed in one of the nicer internment camps.
 
Brainster said:
Justice Sotomayor has been traveling with a medic (or medical baggage, the article is not sure which).
Click to expand...

This is just nonsense.

Sotomayor was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 7 years old. She carries her insulin with her as any diabetic would as she needs to inject herself
3 or 4 times every day. It's highly likely that's what "baggage/medic(al)" is referring to, not an actual medic.
 
Cain said:
So what is the difference between using and abusing the law? I agree with those contending #Resistance Liberalism seems like a rehash of Cold War Liberalism. There's a pretzeling illogic to using anti-democratic mechanisms to protect democracy. Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, or even charged. Manichean tribalists (like Johnny Karate here) resort to shady legal maneuvering based on a constitutional dead letter (and one that almost certainly won't be upheld by the current Supreme Court). Governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the people. The demented twist is that if Trump were to win the election, then it would not be because he had the most votes but because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College... it can't even be described as "antiquated" because it was always stupid, as evidenced by the turd-polishing 12th Amendment.

So, yes, there is some both-sidising. Both sides want to resort to undemocratic means to promote supposedly democratic ends. Between five unelected Justices ruling Trump can't run vs. the Electoral College selecting him, which do you think is more acceptable to the public? The Justices on the Court are substantially more savvy and attuned to public sentiment than Democrats who inhale cable news.

There are other anti-democratic elements in the Constitution that are not rationally defensible: Candidates must be 35, natural-born citizens, and residents for 14 years. Silly stuff. A constitution is vital to upholding democracy when it comes to protecting minority rights (i.e., ensuring people are free and equal). Another defensible limitation on the vote of the people is making it so that a president cannot have more than two full terms. That takes a vote out of the hands of citizens, but it became an amendment because of broad buy-in from citizens (and supported by an informal tradition going back to the first president). It's also a relatively well-known provision, whereas Americans are not familiar with section 3 of the 14th Amendment, or even insurrectionism. A term limit on the president also fosters strong institutions as opposed to strong leaders.

I recall some NeverTrumper "life-long Republican" proudly saying that he would not vote for a convicted felon. All other things being equal, I'd be less inclined to vote for a felon, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's disqualifying. When McCain ran, Democrats said he was a bit too old. And he was! Polling shows Democrats are not thrilled about Biden's age, but they'd still vote for him over Trump. I'd vote for a tuxedo cat over Trump.

Imagine... the Court delays the trials so there's no conviction before the election, which allows Trump to narrowly win in the Electoral College. Alito and Thomas take cash from their billionaire benefactors and agree they should be replaced with thirty-year-olds, not that it matters because the Trump Wars will mean the 2028 Election needs to be called off. I hope to be placed in one of the nicer internment camps.
Click to expand...

just to try and give some context, do you think he hasn’t been charged for insurrection because he didn’t do it?
 
dirtywick said:
just to try and give some context, do you think he hasn’t been charged for insurrection because he didn’t do it?
Click to expand...

I think charges were not brought because it was a tougher case to make and prosecutors hate to lose. January 6th has always been messy because the mob was not essential to the scheme to steal the election, so it muddies things up. That's why articles of impeachment should have included dereliction of duty (Trump's failure to swiftly address Y'all Qaeda).
 
Cain said:
I think charges were not brought because it was a tougher case to make and prosecutors hate to lose. January 6th has always been messy because the mob was not essential to the scheme to steal the election, so it muddies things up. That's why articles of impeachment should have included dereliction of duty (Trump's failure to swiftly address Y'all Qaeda).
Click to expand...

in that context, i don't think it's particularly anti-democratic and at least as defensible as anything else you brought up that a guy who tried to overthrow the democracy and take power from the people for himself isn't eligible to lead the democracy if we aren't even disputing that he did it.
 
dirtywick said:
in that context, i don't think it's particularly anti-democratic and at least as defensible as anything else you brought up that a guy who tried to overthrow the democracy and take power from the people for himself isn't eligible to lead the democracy if we aren't even disputing that he did it.
Click to expand...

This is just mind-boggling. How difficult is it to bite the bullet? You just have to admit the ends justify the means. Or that in this case, something is more important in your hierarchy of values than democracy.

A person can be a disastrous candidate but still be eligible for office. Who are you or I to say he isn't? Have a jury convict Trump of insurrection. Or should we spare ourselves of the formality of a trial? After all, we know he did it. I think I'm starting to understand the difference between using and abusing the law. Planting evidence on a person is abusing the law. Planting evidence on someone you know to be guilty is using the law.
 
nobody is planting evidence. we all saw it happen live

that's why i asked you if he did it. if you're not going to dispute it then what's this song and dance all about? it's fraudulent
 
The analog to planting evidence is shady legal maneuvering, or what you might call the "song and dance" of a jury trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom