What about Joe?

[willedoo]

Quote from Barack Obama on his Xcrement account - "Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself. Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight — and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit. Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November."

[onetrack]

Unfortunately, there is one simple, over-riding fact, weighing on American voters at present. Joe is "past it", it's that simple. He's become decrepit, and it's time for him to pull the pin.

But, as with so many leaders, they fail to understand when their time is over, and continue to hold on to the power they love to exert.

 

What is worse, in Joes case, he picked a VP that is unelectable, a disliked and incompetent VP who has little leadership ability, who was only picked because she fitted the "coloured" mold.

It's time for the Democrats to make a major U-turn and recognise that they're on the path to major vote losses, and ditch Joe, and bring in someone like Gretchen Wittmer, who really has shown true leadership ability.

But the namby-pamby power brokers running the Democrats are all dead scared of being the one that pulls out the revolver, and gives Joe a merciful shot, and puts him down - for his own sake, the sake of his family, the sake of his Party, and for the sake of America.

 

Trump is going to walk in the Presidency at the rate things are going, and that's not a scenario that the majority of the world wants to see. The next Trump Presidency will see a rise in vicious, abusive retaliation from Trump, as he ignores democratic principles and establishes himself as a truly evil Fascist, with every one of his decisions designed to be twisted, centralised, self serving decisions, helped by appointed lackeys in all the critical Governmental areas. 

[old man emu]

With reference to the US Supreme Court's ruling on Presidential immunity, that pretty well throws the whole New York criminal convictions out the door, as well as all the other pending matters.

 

I think that it is unkind to the memory of Hilter to place Trump in the same boat. At least Hitler had a published manifesto.

[willedoo]

The commentary I read was of the opinion that Biden holds enough sway in the party that the decision to stand down would have to come from him. It was also said the only people with a chance of influencing him are Obama and Pelosi. Also mentioned was that he's a stubborn person and that Jill is right behind him pushing.

 

Biden can possibly still beat Trump if he keeps away from debates and other non scripted appearances. When he has a good day he's still an effective campaigner. The problem is the good days are getting fewer. It's one thing to have long term speech issues that make communication more difficult, but to regularly lose the train of thought when speaking in public is worrying. Losing one's train of thought is not a speech issue, it's a brain issue.

[willedoo]

46 minutes ago, old man emu said:

With reference to the US Supreme Court's ruling on Presidential immunity, that pretty well throws the whole New York criminal convictions out the door, as well as all the other pending matters.

The court decision said that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. Anything he did that was not an official act as president is still answerable to the law.

[old man emu]

23 minutes ago, willedoo said:

Anything he did that was not an official act

You really have to watch the video that talks about the whole of the ruling. The ruling creates three classes where immunity applies. One is for official act. One is for act that a prosecutor would have to prove that there was no immunity. The third are personal acts that have nothing to do with the role of President (eg, an assault in the course of a domestic) for which there is no immunity.

 

SCOTUS has created a tangled web for a prosecutor of the second type in that records of interactions with "advisors" might not be admissible in a prosecution. That type of records was important in the New York fraud trial. If they had not been introduced, the case may not have been made.

 

I refer you to my other thread about this matter.

[willedoo]

Trump's post debate ad:

 

 

[1.5 degrees]

Democrats are hyperventilating about Joe Biden not being able to beat Donald Trump in November’s election.

 

I think replacing Joe Biden now, would be a mistake and here’s why:

 

1) Joe Biden as the incumbent would have a far greater chance in beating Trump than another candidate, parachuted in, at this late stage. 

 

2) Despite his shocking debate performance last Friday (Australian time), Joe Biden has demonstrated his ability to lead and manage the economy well, pass legislation and be a good progressive president (better than Obama and Clinton).

 

3) Any new candidate would get 4 months of relentless attacks by Fox News and the republicans, so it would be nearly impossible for a new candidate to demonstrate their credentials, to convince voters that they are up for the job. This is true for candidates such as Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer.

 

4) Americans, unfortunately, won’t vote for Kamala Harris as president, despite her achievements. If she were to replace Biden, it’s almost certain that she would lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, as well as lose Ohio and Iowa. These states will decide the election.

 

5) Read Allan Lichtmann’s analysis. He has correctly predicted all successful election results since 1984, except for 2000, which was essentially a coup orchestrated by the Supreme Court, to hand George W Bush the presidency.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/world/should-biden-step-aside-election-predictor-allan-lichtman-talks-plan-b/ar-BB1poyVP

[rgmwa]

I like his Plan B better. A large majority of Democrats across the country are concerned about Biden's age and ability to carry on for another four years. If he were to step side for Harris, suddenly Trump would be the old guy with cognitive issues. Fox and other republicans are already bashing Biden, so any new candidate will just get the same treatment. Biden is a very decent guy and is generally seen as a good president, but after the debate debacle he is now having to defend himself and try to salvage his credibility as a candidate, rather than being able to put all the focus on Trump's faults. The only way he can win now is if enough voters turn out to support the Democrats simply because they want to keep Trump out of the White House. If Joe could manage a smooth transition, it would inject new life into the election, particularly if Harris can get the support of the big donors and Democrat heavyweights, and picked a good VP. If he can't or won't step aside and it turns into a bun fight, I agree they will lose. 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. While Biden is probably cognitively better than Trump, his physical frailty is a concern, and few swinging voters are going to vote for someone who will likely be replaced before the end of the term, And, of course, changing now will require someone who is popular, has a thick skin to absorb the press hounding,and has the gravitas and assertion to go on the attack and make inroads in a very short period of time.

 

In addition, while the economic numbers are better than Trumps and probably what would have been Trump's if he was re-elected, many younger families are still feeling the pinch of the cost of living as wages have not kept up with inflation and of course, a reduced inflation rate still means prices are rising, not falling. Also, in some states,such as Nevada, there is a rental crisis looming as well. In the same way Albo is copping it electorally for not being a strong leader, previous economic policies and global shocks that caused the mess, both he and Biden ar ebeing tarred with the brush of blame for things not getting better (fast enough).And, it is useless to say to an American that their leader's handling of the global headwinds was far better than most because god resides in America and they con't compare themselves to anyone.

 

Of course if either lose their respective elections, the potential fruits of their policies will ripen and sweeten just as the Republicans/Lib Dems get in or shortly after, and who will take the credit It seems to be the cycle.

 

So, it is very likely that Trump will take the chocolates this time around regardless of what the Democrats do, even id dog albitey himself decided to lead them.

 

Happy Daze..

[old man emu]

I see that the problem with the US Presidency is that there never seems to have been the practice of succession planning. Succession planning is developing the skills needed to do a job in "younger" persons so that when the incumbent ceases to do the job, there is a qualified successor to take the reins. 

 

We seem to do it with our politicians. A party might displace a leader for a variety of reasons, but there is always someone with suitable experience to step into the role. A recent example is Dutton. Like him or not, at least for his Party he was able to take over from SCOMO and continue to maintain the Party's agenda.

 

The Americans have to put up someone new every four years, or eight if the incumbent is acceptable to the voters. While they have the position of Vice-President, that person mostly hovers in the background with no real chance of stepping in at the end of a President's term. During most of the history of the USA, the Vice-President has only made it to the Presidency due to the death in office of the President. LBJ is the only one in recent memory that won his election.

 

So if either Biden or Trump was to cark it, before the election or afterwards, where's the next qualified Presidential appointee? The US Presidency has relied too much on the stature of the candidates, making the elections more a popularity contest than a political agenda one.

[red750]

This was on Yahoo News today. It refers to the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, regarding replacement of the President if they become unfit to carry out their duties.

 

Opinion: It’s Time to Get Used to the Idea of President Kamala Harris

 

Read the article here.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

[facthunter]

A governor of California would be qualified. It's economy is larger than that of most Nations.  Nev

[rgmwa]

22 hours ago, old man emu said:

The Americans have to put up someone new every four years, or eight if the incumbent is acceptable to the voters.

Not to mention scrambling around for two months trying to find new people to replace an entire administration. At least with our system of shadow ministers, the incoming team can take over pretty easily.

 

[old man emu]

Joe wa lambasted because of his hesitancy during the debate, but think about this. Running a country doesn't require the ability to run off at the mouth. Still waters run deep, and if Joe didn't fire back with responses like his opponent did, then perhaps that meant that Joe considered his responses, knowing full well how anything could be taken out of context by his opponent's supporters.

 

In contrast, just look at his speech immediately after the debate, and also his speech in response the the SCOTUS ruling. Methinks the old dog doth know a trick or two.

[rgmwa]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Methinks the old dog doth know a trick or two.

So do I. Just wish I could remember them.

[facthunter]

Liars need a better memory.. Joe has always had stutter and that can hold up the flow of words but he's mostly overcome it . It usually gets worse under stress for them. Trump tried hard to rev Joe up with NOT answering ONE single question in the 90 minutes. The bloke running the show said HE didn't HAVE to and could use the time any way he chose. What sort of RULES are those? Nev

[old man emu]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

What sort of RULES are those

Syncophanic.

[pmccarthy]

Syncophanic?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

Syncophanic?

What are your, the spelling police?

 

(of a person or of behaviour) praising people in authority in a way that is not sincere, usually in order to get some advantage from them:

 

Such  person is a sycophant.

[onetrack]

I think OME meant to write "sycophantic".

[Marty_d]

He's sometimes a bit offbeat, so he might have meant syncopated.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Wasn't it CNN that hosted the debate. I am guessing they acquiesced rather than set the rules - as the ratings were probably more important to them than the fairness of the debate.

 

It's not a debate of you don't have to answer (reasonable) questions and someone isn't there fact checking the answers  - for both sides. It is just who is better at posutlating and propaganda.

[facthunter]

Set up to favour a crude and rude Trump. Nev

[pmccarthy]

11 hours ago, onetrack said:

I think OME meant to write "sycophantic".

Are you being sycophantic?