Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

USA 2024 presidential election

Options
11415161719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,072 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    He clearly likes Whitmer as he asked her to be VP in 2020 and she is heading up the re-election bid. I wouldn't be shocked if he went with her.

    However I also would not be shocked if he stays on unless his polling crashes either.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    He certainly isn't comporting himself like someone about to back out of the race.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,072 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Yeah seeing very strong public statements of support from Obama, Clintons and the power players in the Dem party they are clearly going to back him whether we like it or not.

    Its easy to forget if he does not want to go their is not much they can do really and ultimately they don't have a slam dunk of a replacement. Newsom may appeal to donors but he is untested, Whitmer would be tempting from a geographical pov but she is nobody nationally ,,,and the optics of drafting in a white person to step over Harris would be something they would be very wary of.

    Harris the VP is she that much more likely to beat Trump? and I don't think Michelle Obama is a runner no matter what betting money says.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,076 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I don't think he actually asked her to be VP but she did make the short-list, so yes he does clearly have time for her.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,076 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    The thing about Gavan Newsom that I can't get over is that he used be married to Don Jr's girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle. She's an absolute weapon.

    Not only does it show terrible judgement on his behalf but she also likely has a lot of dirt on him.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,179 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    in his defence, she’s went from being semi reasonable to chasing the right wing grift money since they were married.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,297 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Which would make her even more dangerous "Oh he made me dress him up in diapers and made me change them every night" which would go down a treat as she sells "the truth about Gavan" in a documentary etc. That's the type of thing only Trump can get away with sadly :(



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,072 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    The other issue is why do we all assume he is a much better option nationally than Harris? He won in in California (not hard tbf) as did Harris, so if you must sidestep Harris for a white person electorally they must be a slam dunk compared to Harris and is Newsom?

    I know some may say "race doesn't matter" but black voters are one of their most reliable voting blocs and one they are a little wary of Trump making ground with , turning down the opportunity of the 1st ever female black president because they don't trust her to beat Biden and going with Newsom?

    The fall out especially if Trump were to beat Newsom would calamitous for the Dems.

    Post edited by Rjd2 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,127 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    The Dems take DEI seriously, the idea of a white dude jumping the line ahead of Harris is no bueno, what would the Dems even stand for if they let this happen?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Just because you're VP, doesn't entitle you to a shot at the presidency in the next election.

    I thought all you right wingers hated the "entitlement culture" anyway?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,782 ✭✭✭✭Danzy




  • Registered Users Posts: 18,127 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    but its what the Dems want, DEI and entitlement , the best for the job regardless of race or Sex is a damn republican idea, stick to the script

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    No, it's what you right wingers THINK Democrats want. Jaysis, always putting words in others mouths.

    Find me a single poll that says Dems want Harris to run if Biden withdraws from the race.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,127 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Im predicting outcomes based on what they want, not what anybody thinks they want, you do get that? its their rules not mine. a "white man" helicoptered in now would be off brand for the dems, thats just facts and their reality . You should be agreeing with my point

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    You're predicting an outcome based on your right wing informed assumptions of what the Democrats will do.

    Why should I agree that the Democrats should put up a weak candidate that Trump will trounce? I want the Republicans and Trump to lose. Project 2025 is far too important to defeat.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,445 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Don't forget, if Biden loses, CFTrump will get to at a minimum replace the older SCOTUS judges with, no doubt, worse younger versions.

    And for a reminder, this is what they've gotten up to in this SCOTUS term alone, the full Presidential term would include Dobbs



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,127 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    you are just ignoring realities on the ground , you could argue you wish it was different but your starting point should be think like Democrats

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    It's impossible for you to think like a democrat, likewise it's impossible for me to think like a conservative.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,127 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    no its not, the fact that some outcomes are funny doesnt mean I cant. Thinking like a democrat highlight the difference between how Republicans and Democrats think, at a basic level Republicans think in system terms, Democrats think in outome terms but with the added curve ball that human nature and how people act is often ignored.

    "the border" is a great example, in a Republican mind its all rules to be obeyed something is legal/illegal /consequences, Democrats are different

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,356 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    You continually repeat these fallacies about the Republicans and the border.

    The same Republicans who refused to go along with a bipartisan bill to tighten up border controls?

    Their actions clearly demonstrate they don't actually care about the border, it is just a political football they use to whip up their base with lies and racist dog whistling.

    As for in a Republican mind its all rules to be obeyed… seriously? After years and years of Trump? The same Trump who has court case after court case lost or in train, for felonies, for sexual assault\rape, for defamation, for fradulent reporting of business affairs?

    Thinking like a Republican and obeying the rules have never been further apart, and the main driver of that is Trump and Tea Party \ MAGA Republicans.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    This is precisely what I mean. You know nothing if you bring the border to this debate. There was a bipartisan bill there, that Republicans were happier with than Democrats were. It was ready to be made law and the Border Patrol Union supported it and wanted it signed and passed, (they categorically DO NOT support Biden in any way, shape or form) yet Republicans refused to sign and pass it as it would give Biden "a win".

    Like I said,land stand by, you cannot conceive, imagine or picture how Democrats think. It's an impossibility. Most Republicans can't even think how Republicans are meant to think. This bipartisan border bill being a perfect example. You should all be furious with the party that they refused to sign the bill in case it gave Biden a win, but no, like cowed sheep, you all think "Dear Leader" must know best.

    Brainwashed is absolutely the correct term to use for any MAGA believer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,076 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    From this Politico piece. things the Biden family blame for Thursday night's performance:

    • Biden's campaign advisors
    • CNN moderators
    • Biden having a cold
    • The camera angles
    • The makeup

    Things not blamed:

    • Joe Biden

    Absolutely delusional stuff. They have no intention of getting him to step down. The election is done and dusted.

    The American's deserve another 4 years of Trump and his goons for having such a rigid electoral system that puts so much power in the people at the very top.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    That is one of the greatest examples of compressing a bunch of mistruths into as few words as possible as I have ever seen and only someone with strong political leanings (oh, look, he was in Clinton's cabinet) would make them. I don't know about him, but I've read all three opinions. I've a law degree, I have strange pastimes.

    1. SCOTUS said that the questionably-written federal law against bribing officials or giving them gratuities did not apply to state officials but of course remain valid against federal. State laws on the matter against state officials remain applicable. If you think that SCOTUS has made bribery legal, please go ahead and try it.
    2. SCOTUS stated that the penalties for breaking the prohibitions on camping in public areas were not 'cruel and unusual'. i.e. they were not out of the norm when compared with other offenses of a similar nature. They further observed that the decision on whether or not camping in public spaces should be lawful or criminalised (be it for homeless, backpackers, drunks or anyone else) is a policy matter best left for the local politicians.
    3. SCOTUS did absolutely not say that regulatory agencies had no authorities, they said that they have the authorities granted to them by statute. In this case, the agency's argument was "we believe that it is legal for us to force private entities to pay for our agents' salaries because we say it is, and courtesy of Chevron you must agree with us." Under what sort of principle would you say the agency's interpretation is correct? If you are worried about clean air, the EPA has authorities granted to it by the Clean Air Act which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The EPA can then set about creating and enforcing the appropriate regulations, their technical/scientific expertise of which is entitled to deference under Skidmore. In other words, we're back to where we were in 1983, a time when, oddly enough, we had government regulatory agencies doing a lot of regulation. (Interestingly, Chevron was ruling in favour of an attempt by the Reagan administration to deregulate).

    We find out later today (probably) on how 'immune' the President gets to be.

    Post edited by Manic Moran on


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,297 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    My bet is they (SCOUTS) plays it safe and dodge the whole question and send it back down again. That way they don't have to actually make a call and be blamed for influencing the president race.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I'm going with 'split decision', that official acts of the President get a level of immunity (qualified immunity for government employees down to street level is a very well-entrenched thing), and unofficial acts (such as acts of Candidate Trump who happens to work in the Oval Office) do not. But then it will be kicked back down for the lower courts to determine which act is which category, which will accomplish the same delaying effect. (Unless both sides stipulate as to what is/isn't official).



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,076 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Given the context of why Trump brought this case voting to allow the President have immunity is a litmus test for how deranged any of those justices are. I therefore predict a 7-2 ruling against with Thomas & Alito being the two dissenters.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,442 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Agree - And like you say , the challenge of determining where the line exists between "official" and "personal" could literally take years to clearly define.

    Anything other than "Zero immunity for a President for anything ever" (which obviously is not going to happen) is a win for Trump as the delays involved in sorting out the parameters mean those case won't get to trial before the election and even if he loses in November , it could still be a very long time before they have sorted out the terms of reference.

    Trumps lawyers won't stipulate to anything , they will fight every single detail to delay this as much as humanly possible.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,442 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    The ruling will be that there is no "absolute immunity" but that there is "some" immunity for official acts.

    Working out if what Trump did as regards the 2020 election was an official act (it wasn't) will take forever though as Trump will appeal and counter appeal until the end of time.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,297 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Heads on:
    Supreme Court finds former presidents are entitled to some immunity

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former presidents are
    entitled to immunity from prosecution for official actions – but not his
    private conduct.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,442 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Exactly as predicted.

    Official Acts Yes , Personal Acts No and now we'll spend 2 years watching them arguing over what constitutes an "official act".

    Win for Trump.



Advertisement