[Lady Bliss]

We are basically fucked

[Abyss]

You kind of are. I'm really, really sad for (most of) you, cuz... yeah.

I mean u here in Canuckland our Trump-lite guy is just shutting up and watching the current PM sink himself and his party, so we're about to get our own dose, but it's just not close to what you're looking at.

[Mezla PigDog]

It's quite extraordinary how this has played out over the years. You could cast it as Trump being an evil genius and plotting this kind of outcome but he isn't even nearly smart enough. Simply the result of a long Republican campaign (Republican donors campaign?) to pack SCOTUS with right wingers in the hope that when the time comes the results will fall in their favour. Boy are they reaping the rewards now.

I often find historically you look back and they actually play out in a way nobody expected. Like one day we will hear Republicans howling over the way Dems will use the ruling. The USA has to survive to that point first.

Reminds me I still haven't seen the recent movie Civil War.

[Tsundoku]

Mezla PigDog, on 02 July 2024 - 05:24 AM, said:

It's quite extraordinary how this has played out over the years. You could cast it as Trump being an evil genius and plotting this kind of outcome but he isn't even nearly smart enough. Simply the result of a long Republican campaign (Republican donors campaign?) to pack SCOTUS with right wingers in the hope that when the time comes the results will fall in their favour. Boy are they reaping the rewards now.

Not just SCOTUS but all levels of judicial and govt service, plus their equivalent of the electoral commission, school boards, you name it.
Be interesting to see the promotion lists of the supposedly non-partisan US military over the last 8 years as well.
Putting all the pieces of Gilead in place.

[Tsundoku]

Dooblay-postay:

This is a pretty light article originally from the NY Post, but I'm sure there's more serious meaty versions elsewhere. It was just the first time I had seen such material presented.

This is the only Democratic ticket that could replace Biden-Harris
If Joe Biden steps aside from the 2024 United States presidential election, there’s only one viable alternative, writes Henry Olsen.

https://www.news.com...780cff08dea6f72

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 02 July 2024 - 08:48 AM

[Lady Bliss]

It’s sad how my mom has now accepted my desire to get out of dodge at this point. Hoping Seattle is far enough but may need to be Europe. Trumpverse 2025 is fucking scary

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Tsundoku, on 02 July 2024 - 08:48 AM, said:

Dooblay-postay:

This is a pretty light article originally from the NY Post, but I'm sure there's more serious meaty versions elsewhere. It was just the first time I had seen such material presented.

This is the only Democratic ticket that could replace Biden-Harris
If Joe Biden steps aside from the 2024 United States presidential election, there's only one viable alternative, writes Henry Olsen.

https://www.news.com...780cff08dea6f72

In a leaked phonecall to a Biden campaign chair Whitmer said she won't run:

Quote

after a day of frenzied speculation that she would be a frontrunner if Biden could be persuaded to quit. [She said] she "hated" her name being floated and that she was loyal to the president.

[... also] saying that the president's debate performance will cost him Michigan. [...] The loss of Michigan would be a stunning blow after it firmly moved back into the D column in 2020 and Whitmer scored a 10-point victory over her Republican rival in 2022 to gain her second term.
Gretchen Whitmer: I Won't Run, but Joe Biden Has Lost Michigan After Debate (thedailybeast.com)

In other terrible news: the Supreme Court's immunity ruling forbids the use of official presidential acts for which the president has immunity as evidence in criminal trials (even for other crimes for which he doesn't have immunity). And they include public statements as official presidential acts. So Trump's Manhattan conviction will probably be overturned:

Quote

Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the [Manhattan] judge [...] asking him to set aside Trump's history-making conviction [...] The attorneys claimed the SCOTUS decision backed up the defense's position earlier in the proceedings that some evidence in the case should not have been introduced as it constituted official presidential acts.

Trump Is Trying to Scrub His Criminal Conviction After Supreme Court Immunity Ruling (thedailybeast.com)

[Edit: correction: the call was actually to a Biden campaign chair, not to Whitmer's campaign chair.]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 02 July 2024 - 02:31 PM

[worry]

Why do you say 'probably'? Possibly, sure, but when Trump was contesting jurisdiction, a federal judge already found that the case didn't involve official presidential acts, in so many words.

Quote

In denying Trump’s bid to move the trial from New York state court to federal court last year, a federal judge found that the allegations at the center of the case pertained to Trump’s personal life and do not “reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein wrote in the ruling.

And Judge Merchan obviously allowed the evidence to be presented in the trial he himself presided over. Did he do so without regard to whether they were official presidential acts, or did he already find that they weren't official presidential acts? I guess we'll find out.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 02 July 2024 - 03:45 PM, said:

Why do you say 'probably'? Possibly, sure, but when Trump was contesting jurisdiction, a federal judge already found that the case didn't involve official presidential acts, in so many words.

Quote

In denying Trump's bid to move the trial from New York state court to federal court last year, a federal judge found that the allegations at the center of the case pertained to Trump's personal life and do not "reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties.""The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event," U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein wrote in the ruling.

And Judge Merchan obviously allowed the evidence to be presented in the trial he himself presided over. Did he do so without regard to whether they were official presidential acts, or did he already find that they weren't official presidential acts? I guess we'll find out.

The federal judge's definition of "official act" was almost certainly more restrictive than the absurdly broad definition made into law by the Supreme Court ruling; as Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, it reduces the category of non-official acts "almost to a nullity". More importantly, the legal principle that "official acts" can't even be introduced as evidence---and require a separate hearing to determine whether evidence constitutes "official acts" or not---did not exist when Merchan was allowing the evidence. (Even Barrett dissented from that part of the majority opinion.) In particular, since the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's discussions with the Justice Department count as core official acts for which he has immunity, the same principle would render the Hope Hicks testimony inadmissible, since she was White House Communications Director (a government office), and so probably require a mistrial.

[worry]

That may be a factor, and you're right that the SCOTUS decision is unbearably limiting. So much of the trial involved events before January 20, 2017, but there are tangled details like discussions past that date about events before that date.
We're not gonna know for a few more weeks -- Manhattan DA agreed to a two-week postponement of sentencing so they could respond to the Trump attorneys' request, so it looks like it'll be late July at earliest. Now past the RNC Convention.

[Lady Bliss]

A lot of former Reagan staff might be helpful if that they propped up a president would be helpful. If they are still alive. https://www.cnn.com/...rats/index.html

[amphibian]

The thing is that Biden looks terrible in a debate format and then completely fine in a rally, fantastic in a photo line, triumphant in the specific section of the State of the Union where he's shit talking people. The stutter has to be recognized as a major factor in how this is playing out and many people aren't doing it because we don't fully know how to incorporate disability into our perspectives on things.

Disability is why I haven't made fun of Trump wearing diapers and smelling like shit all the time. That's how some people have to live and it's a thing we need to accept + support people being able to live their lives through.

I think Biden wins by 3-4% points in November. Trump is falling apart both as a person and as a candidate because the Supreme Court keeps going after dumb shit that does actually piss off voters.

The NY Times is also split because their leadership clearly is in the tank for Trump, yet there's several extremely good staff members (Jamelle Bouie coming to mind as the best) who are absolutely brilliant at reporting and observing that Biden is doing damn well as a president even with the atrocities in Gaza.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 03 July 2024 - 12:44 PM

[worry]

I hope you're right. I agree with you about the stutter thing, and I think it's being ignored in large part because the manufactured "senile old man" narrative has been gestating in yellow journalistic circles for basically the past 4 years (those circles include all the ownership and executive levels at NYT, WP, CNN, the WSJ, among others). To be clear, I don't like either of them and by 'manufactured' I'm not suggesting Biden is the sharpest tool in the shed, but he has his stuttering and moments of old man brain where it takes a while (sometimes too long) to catch his train of thought. If we're doing comparisons, Trump is way way way past that, and is talking absolute streams of mind-gone gibberish at his rallies this year, independent of his godawful policy positions.

Tbh I think killing Roe remains a self-dealt & potentially fatal wound for Republicans in general, up to and including DJT. It's very real in and of itself, and also very symbolic of the GOP's actions, positions, and goals across the board. Staple it to his forehead.

[Cause]

What I find interesting and thats never really discussed is that both candidates would have very real power as presidents, thats true. Hwoever ultiamtley they are also just the face of of a team. Trump still has no declared VP and I suppose democrats are not attacking that because they have Kamala who remains absolutely invisible.

Still the reason I would never vote for trump is becuase the Biden presidency has done well the last four years. Is it Biden, his team or just the US government on autopilot? I don't care, 4 more good years please. Trumps presidency was chaos. His team is Steve Banon, MTG and a hundred nuts beside. His 4 year term was pure chaos and that's true even with the pandemic taken out of the account.

As Worry says staple Roe to to their forehead, staple january six, staple bannon (jail) and roger stone (jail) and project 2025 and all the Maga lunacy to his presidency.

Generally voting for an empty suit is seen as a bad thing but I would quite litterally vote for 4 years of no president than a Trump presidency. Project 2025 even if they only believe in half of it is the death knell of america. Replacing career civil servants with politcal appointees is corruption at its finest. Its also very communist. South Africa calls it cadre deployment and South Africa cant keep the lights on.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

amphibian, on 03 July 2024 - 12:43 PM, said:

The NY Times is also split because their leadership clearly is in the tank for Trump, yet there's several extremely good staff members (Jamelle Bouie coming to mind as the best) who are absolutely brilliant at reporting and observing that Biden is doing damn well as a president even with the atrocities in Gaza.

NYT leadership in the tank for Trump? What?

Is that intended as tragicomic hyperbole, or do you seriously think their goal is to get Trump elected?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Some good news from the NYT:

Quote

Biden Told Ally That He Is Weighing Whether to Continue in the Race

[...] first indication that he is seriously considering whether he can recover [...]

Spoiler

[Biden] told a key ally that he knows he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince the public in the coming days that he is up for the job [...]

[Biden ...] understands that his next few appearances heading into the holiday weekend — including an interview scheduled for Friday with [...] ABC News and campaign stops in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — must go well.

"He knows if he has two more events like that, we're in a different place" by the end of the weekend

Biden Told Ally That He Is Weighing Whether to Continue in the Race - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Perhaps their editorial board was arrogant in thinking that they---or the rest of the press---could help cause Biden to step down, or overly optimistic in assuming that a better candidate would be chosen. But it seems like Biden may finally be seriously considering it....

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 03 July 2024 - 03:23 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

If he did step down it might galvanised people who didn't want to vote D because of Biden to actually vote for them now.

Or it could show a party in chaos and work very well for the fascists. Tough call.

[Cause]

Im not sure switching horses is the right play. It might just signal that Trump was the better candidate who forced Biden out of the race.

It might fire up independents to show them a new candidate or they might feel like the new candidate is an unknown and go back to Trump, who will crow about having sent the Dems and Bidens running.

It doesnt help that the right is in absolute lock step behind their candidate who can do no wrong (At this point its a full blown Cult of Personality) whereas the left has always been of the mind that Biden isnt great but he is better than trump. The left is being more honest but the tepid support even by Democrat supporters has certainly hurt and its made this narrative possible in the first place. Even before the debate people wanted to replace Biden. Left commentators who make a living supporting the demcorat machine have even been tepid.

[Abyss]

Biden states 'this is a perilous time in American history, the threat of another Trump presidency is real, and therefore I am stepping aside to support a leader who can best blah bla etc etc'
..and then of course they need to put someone fwd who can actually pull it all together.


Where is VP Kamala Harris during all this anyways? Has she just thrown in the towel and focused on a book deal and future speaking circuit?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Abyss, on 03 July 2024 - 06:42 PM, said:

Biden states 'this is a perilous time in American history, the threat of another Trump presidency is real, and therefore I am stepping aside to support a leader who can best blah bla etc etc'
..and then of course they need to put someone fwd who can actually pull it all together.

Where is VP Kamala Harris during all this anyways? Has she just thrown in the towel and focused on a book deal and future speaking circuit?

Quote

The high-ranking House Democratic member told me that the party leadership in the chamber [...] will seek to quickly unify behind Harris as the alternative [if Biden steps aside]. [...] Other Democrats have noted that under campaign-finance rules, only Harris could utilize the $240 million in cash that the Biden ticket has stockpiled (although some believe that another candidate could find a way to access that money).

Spoiler

One reason Biden didn't face much pressure to drop out earlier is the double fear many of his critics have that she can't win either, yet that denying the nomination to the first woman of color would tear the party apart.


Still, based on my conversations, even some of those skeptical of Harris are moving toward the belief that she presents a better bet than continuing with a diminished Biden. "People have seen something they can't unsee about this guy. And his performance will not get better; it won't," [...]


[...] The pollster working in one of the blue-wall states told me that although House and Senate candidates are alarmed about Biden's position, "I think they are scared to death about Kamala. And they are scared to death about the fight. There isn't a grand plan." [...]

the finding in yesterday's CNN survey that Harris, though still trailing, was polling better against Trump than Biden definitely raised eyebrows among Democrats.

Across the party, widespread agreement is emerging that Biden's chances [...] have dramatically diminished. "No one I have talked to believes Biden is going to win this race anymore: nobody," said one longtime Democratic pollster working in a key battleground state who, like almost all of the party insiders I interviewed for this article, asked for anonymity to discuss the situation candidly.

Spoiler

"He needs to relentlessly speak to the American public in unscripted events over the next week," [...]

Biden's campaign [...] hasn't announced anything like the volume of appearances [...] urged [... and that] is being interpreted by those worried about Biden's prospects as confirmation of their fears. [...]

[...] one of Biden's staunchest congressional allies[...] Clyburn has analogized Biden's poor showing to a single strike during an at bat, saying, "If this were a ball game, he's got two more swings."

Democrats Begin Their Shift From Anxiety to Action - The Atlantic

TL;DR if Biden steps aside she'll probably end up being the nominee, but it would be better if she let someone else do it, because she's also behind Trump in polls (though according to the latest CNN poll she's not as far behind as Biden is).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 03 July 2024 - 07:20 PM