2024 US Presidential Election

[Guybrush]

Imo Trump should've been rejected by the republican party after the Jan 6th and his numerous criminal activities. He should not be allowed to run and propping up Trump again seems rotten to me.

And Biden should be in a care home. His main draw is being a lesser evil.

So I agree with this:

Unreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Sad - and sad how the crazy political situation in the US can affect the rest of the world as well.

[Lisnaholic]

The BBC have a leftist agenda on some things. If you go on their home page right now there'll be several articles and videos pushing identity politics. They are really into that sort of thing. Not just reporting but also programming.

But then they do things like that Corbyn incident where they tried to make him look Russian in the run up to the election in 2017.

They're also very dismissive of anything Midland, to the point I would say they are almost anti-Birmingham (I realise that describes most of the country but the national broadcaster shouldn't be doing it). I've already posted about the occasion I noticed them photoshopping a derogatory article (which they then admitted and apologised for before deleting the picture), they just would not have written a similar piece about other places. One of our MPs got involved. They also take the most money in license fees from the region and invest the smallest amount back in.

So basically I don't really like them.

I'm sorry that has been your experience with the BBC, jimmy jazz. I've never noticed actual anti-Birmingham stuff, but I can 100% believe that they are focused on Westminster, London and the Home Counties. My apologies because as a Londoner I'm probably guilty of the same.

Putin literally said he'd prefer Biden to win 2024 though.

Are you really taking a remark that Putin made at face value, Nimbly? With that attitude you could probably get a job on Tucker Carlson's team of investigative journalists.

[Nimbly9]

Putin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

Putin is a slightly different story though - he's not a gaffe machine like Biden or a loosey goosey ad libber like Trump.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

[Jwb]

A little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

i agree it's hyperbolic to say there "most likely won't be anymore elections" if Trump wins, but I'm kind of puzzled about the next paragraph.

1) what do you mean by republicans so frequently lose elections because they are too "by the books" when compared to the democrats?

2) what rules did the democrats bend with regard to Covid and the 2020 elections?

Republicans are favored electorally in our system by the sheer way that it is set up. From the way the senate is structured to the electoral college, republicans are benefited by all of that. They so frequently lose elections because despite being propped up institutionally, they are pushing essentially an ideology that is on  its last legs. Trump and his complete capture of the right in a few short years is a perfect symptom of that.

I don't necessarily know what will happen if he gets re elected but I know I don't trust him. And I know that just relying on the institutions to stop him from doing anything extra feels like a needless gamble. I completely get looking at Biden and thinking he's not fit to run. But if you really trust Trump more after watching the last decade or so, I don't understand that. The guy is a clear liability.

[Jwb]

Putin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

Putin is a slightly different story though.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

[Nimbly9]

He also said he'd build the wall and ultimately sidelined it in favor of other things.  NATO doesn't really work if countries, for whatever reason, all decided to just stop paying one day. If things ever actually got the point where Germany or someone else went "delinquent" (in Trump's words) then you are already done.

[Lexi Darling]

For the record I also do not think Trump will win the election and immediately declare himself god emperor for life. But I think he and project 2025 can very easily set us on a path toward erosion of democracy, and I don't trust people like the MAGA party to have any reservations about trying to achieve that goal.

[Lisnaholic]

First of all, thanks for that wonderful tool that cleans your link of its paywall restriction, SGR. That's perfect for my approach to the internet, which is "Never give a site any information or money".

I disagree - as we saw, the Republican party was completely divided over all of what you mentioned. You refer to it like it was some sort of party-wide plan, but that's far from the reality. Trump's second in command, Pence, blew up the entire plan. At best, this 'plan' encompassed Trump and his lawyers, not the Republican party.

^ Maybe I gave that impression, but it doesn't have to be a party-wide plan; it just has to be a plan that enough influential people can push through, while any dissenting senators, etc keep their mouths shout out of fear of the MAGA base. Plenty of examples of these silent enablers: they were all over the votes that impeached Trump, but refused to do the next logical thing, which was to convict him. Also, you hear their silence every time M Taylor Green describes the jailed Jan 6 rioters as "political prisoners".

That's certainly one narrative/way to frame it. Here's another:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in-2020-post-5583575

Paste that URL into this site if the paywall blocks you:

https://12ft.io/

One quick way to check what is true or not is to bear in mind this piece of advice: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". So while your article was interesting, I noticed that it came to the opposite conclusion of countless court decisions and recounts that found no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud. The article, though, is only backed up by one report. I also found these paragraphs suspicious:-

"The December survey, which President Trump called "the biggest story of the year," suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they're no longer permanent residents.
In the new study, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is "under most circumstances, illegal" and so potentially amounts to voter fraud."

^ Their original 20% figure has somehow been massaged upwards to 28.2%, but is also covered with caveats of "under most circumstances" and "potentially"

"Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead."

^ Maybe they have an argument for why every "fraudulent" vote was a vote for Biden, but I didn't notice it.

Mainly though, I'm relying on that maxim about "extraordinary claims" and assume that if this one (Heartland) report stands up to scrutiny from other experts, it'll turn up in more mainstream news outlets.

If the Republicans were motivated to end all elections and pull all these tricks to keep Trump and/or his allies in power, why wouldn't they have done it the first time? You know, when he was still eligible for another term (unlike next time, assuming he serves another term)? These fears of Trump and/or the Supreme Court ending fair elections if Trump gets elected again are just a Democrat fever-dream just like 2016 when they said the same ridiculous things before the election. And honestly, I think much of the fears the Democrats voice about what they think Trump will do if re-elected are just a projection - of what they would do if they were in his position and got re-elected.

^ The lack of success first time round is because (i) the Trump White House was full of old Republican "guard rail" politicians like John Bolton and (ii) the fake elector scheme was a new, just invented ploy. If Trump wins again, his "revenge tour cabinet" will look very different: Trump loyalists   with a working model of how to subvert an election.

[Lisnaholic]

Putin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

 - I meant what the phrase "at face value" always means: accepting a statement superficially, without any question or doubt about its truth.
 - In adition to what heads of state say, we can also go on what policies they entact.
 - Did you see a graphic I pulled up some time ago about truth and lies? Biden was about 50/50, Trump was more lies than truth. Obama was right up there with Mother Teresa

Putin is a slightly different story though - he's not a gaffe machine like Biden or a loosey goosey ad libber like Trump.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

^ His comment about Hillary was just confirmation of what the world already knew. If asked, Putin would prob say, "Yes, my name is Putin" but that doesn't mean "all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case." I didn't believe him in Helsinki, even though Trump did, I didn't believe him when he said that he wasn't going to invade Ukraine either.

[Jwb]

He also said he'd build the wall and ultimately sidelined it in favor of other things.  NATO doesn't really work if countries, for whatever reason, all decided to just stop paying one day. If things ever actually got the point where Germany or someone else went "delinquent" (in Trump's words) then you are already done.

yeah, I know. Nothing he says matters cause Trump just be saying shit.

But Putin we should definitely take at face value, when telling us who he would prefer our president to be. Not like there's any reason to doubt his motives for doing so.

[Marie Monday]

Yeah no @Nimbly9 I'm not taking Putin's statements about whom he prefers as president seriously lol. I have very little faith in Biden but we know for sure that Trump would do fuck all to help stop Putin

[Jwb]

It's a no brainer who Putin would prefer. Let's use our brains for half a second. Even if you oppose the aid the Ukraine, there's no doubt that it goes against Russia's interest for us to arm the country they are trying to invade.

[jimmy jazz]

I'm sorry that has been your experience with the BBC, jimmy jazz. I've never noticed actual anti-Birmingham stuff, but I can 100% believe that they are focused on Westminster, London and the Home Counties. My apologies because as a Londoner I'm probably guilty of the same.

I've got you down as one of the good guys mate don't worry.

[Lisnaholic]

I've got you down as one of the good guys mate don't worry.

Thank you, my friend! Right back at you. 

[jadis]

That doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

A strong word coming from you. What accounts for this intensity?