[kenberg]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-June-30, 17:57, said:

I am compelled to ask: Assuming Biden is re-elected and subsequently becomes totally incapacitated, are you guys content with Kamala Harris as POTUS?

Brief answer: No

I am not all that prepared to answer a lot of questions about Kamala Harris, just as I have seldom been prepared to answer questions about any vice-president in previous admiinistrations.I could do some research and have a more informed opinion, but I expect that my answer then would be a better informed No.

[hrothgar]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-June-30, 17:57, said:

I am compelled to ask: Assuming Biden is re-elected and subsequently becomes totally incapacitated, are you guys content with Kamala Harris as POTUS?

Not my top choice, but I certainly don't consider her grossly unqualified unlike, say, Trump

[Al Phalpha]

hrothgar, on 2024-June-30, 18:50, said:

Not my top choice, but I certainly don't consider her grossly unqualified unlike, say, Trump

Just for the sake of argument: You say that Trump is "grossly unqualified". Exactly what do you see in Harris that makes her more qualified?

[kenberg]

I logged on intending to edit my respone, but hrothgar already included my planned edit. I much prefer Kammala Harris to Donald Trump. I prefer anyone or maybe anything to Donald Trump. Kamala Harris has her limits,we all do, but she is not a self-centerd rager bent on lies and revenge. Trump is.

If Biden stays on the ticket it seems clear he will lose, so the question about Harris having to take over from Biden halfway through his second term is pretty specuulative. But if it goes that way, Harris it is. .Not Trump.

Added: Here is my favorite story about vice-presidents althought I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I voted for the first time in 1960, Kennedy versus Nixon. I heard that some reporter asked Eisenhower to list some good things Nixon had done while serving as Ike's Veep. Ike told the reported to come back in a wek or so, Ike was sure he would by then be able to come up with something.

[johnu]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-June-30, 19:05, said:

Just for the sake of argument: You say that Trump is "grossly unqualified". Exactly what do you see in Harris that makes her more qualified?

Convicted Felon Trump is not just grossly unqualified, he is a danger to democracy and the republic. Convicted Felon Trump is a sociopath with dementia, who thinks he is above the law on his good days, and who thinks he is actually a god on his bad days. Is anybody potentially a worse president than Convicted Felon Trump? Hmmm, I'll have to get back to you about that.

[StevenG]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-June-30, 19:05, said:

Just for the sake of argument: You say that Trump is "grossly unqualified". Exactly what do you see in Harris that makes her more qualified?

My sister's cat is more qualified than Trump. And my sister's cat isn't even American.

[pilowsky]

StevenG, on 2024-July-01, 01:11, said:

My sister's cat is more qualified than Trump. And my sister's cat isn't even American.

Your sister's cat should be careful or Trump will try and grab her.

[hrothgar]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-June-30, 19:05, said:

Just for the sake of argument: You say that Trump is "grossly unqualified". Exactly what do you see in Harris that makes her more qualified?

She hasn't engaged in a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the US government
She hasn't raped anyone
She's not banned from operating charities because she stole money from cancer patients
She didn't run a fraudulent university
She didn't run an organization that was fined hundreds of millions of dollars for fraud
She's not under multiple criminal indictments
She hasn't been convicted of 34 felonies

I have issues with Harris.

She was my top choice going into the 202o Democratic primaries, but she ran an atrocious campaign
I don't like a bunch of her actions as Attorney General in CA

Balanced against this, she was a damn effective Senator

But suggesting that she is anything like Trump is asinine.

FWIW, I have no doubt that you're nothing more a troll
The fact that, this is, you know a bridge discussion forum and your only contributions is trolling a politic thread is a dead give away.

Please, show a little more love for your craft...
Spend some time talking about bridge, build up some credibility, THEN start the political trolling

What you're doing here is sad and lazy

[shyams]

kenberg, on 2024-June-30, 12:38, said:

Then who? Of course I don't know. But just to pick a name maybe Gretchen Whitmer.

In my opinion, two other Dem candidates are better than Whitmer.
1. Gavin Newsom: Setting his track record to one side (maybe Whitmer's is much better), the positive here is that Newsom projects arrogance and strength. When he is surely attacked by Trump (say at a debate), I predict that his demeanor will not even flicker.

He will ignore all insults and barbs while projecting himself as the big "Double Inverted Comma King" (don't google that, make an acronym of it). Voters will love & respect him for it.

2. Michelle Obama: The one key trait of hers is that most people, even foreigners like me, think that she is a genuinely decent and likeable person. So when she is attacked by Trump, the average viewer will resent Trump for having attacked someone they instinctively like. Again, good for getting the undecideds into your camp.

The reason I think Whitmer is worse is that
A. She is not a brash, psychopathic one like Newsom i.e. she will eventually blink under relentless attack and when that happens, the viewers will think of her as weak.
B. She doesn't have the reputation of Michelle Obama i.e. nobody will subconsciously side with her when she is attacked.


In the end, the DNC and the Insiders decide on such matters. So everything I say could be wrong.

Maybe they will make Joe Biden run for a second term. If that happens, I am certain that every American on this thread who is Dem leaning will vote for Biden (even if the chap turns into jello at Debate 2). This is not an attack on you all; the opposite is also true for Republicans who post here. E.g. If Trump was in jail, or hospitalised, or rendered temporarily incapable of speech (say due to a stroke), the Republican crowd will vote for him regardless citing examples like Senator John Fetterman.

hrothgar, on 2024-June-30, 13:55, said:

3. A convention floor fight would be disastrous. Replacing Biden (and Harris) requires a whole lot of grace and maturity fro those two candidates
4. Personally, I'd like to see the democrats go with Whiter / Shapiro or Whitmer / Warnock

Presumably, a convention floor fight is impossible given the near 100% delegate win for Biden.
If Biden informs his delegates to vote for X, not Y or Z, at the convention, then all (or an overwhelming majority) of them will vote for X to be the nominee. He won the Primaries --- his word is law (figuratively speaking).

Agree on Warnock for VP, a smart choice. But then he probably won't be picked by M. Obama, and Newsom is too much of a "... King" to let the DNC foist a running mate onto him.
So I guess he'd be in contention only if Whitmer or someone else is candidate.

johnu, on 2024-July-01, 00:10, said:

Convicted Felon Trump is not just grossly unqualified, he is a danger to democracy and the republic. Convicted Felon Trump is a sociopath with dementia, who thinks he is above the law on his good days, and who thinks he is actually a god on his bad days. Is anybody potentially a worse president than Convicted Felon Trump? Hmmm, I'll have to get back to you about that.

Let's say the Democrats decide Whitmer is candidate before Trump is sentenced. My (rather creative) view is that if the judge sentences Trump to prison, Whitmer (and Biden) should immediately declare in a public address to the nation that President Biden will commute the prison portion (not pardon). They can create a powerful message around "we will beat him at the Ballot in Nov... " etc, I think it is winning and it also prevents the MAGA side to paint Trump as the martyr...

[hrothgar]

1. Whitmer is an incredibly popular governor in a must win swing state for the Democrats

2. Michelle Obama will not run. Period. She has said so on multiple occasions.

3. Newsom is popular in CA, but very unpopular amongst never Trump Republicans

[mycroft]

"The time to discuss alternatives is called 'Primary season'. The time after that is over is time to run with what you brung." Got a problem with that? Get involved earlier.

Now, given that the only times to my memory since 1900 the one-term incumbent president wasn't the nominee for their party was when he died, yes, it is likely the primary season you needed to do this in was 2020. But the democrats - for good reasons, I think, but also because they're scared of pushing the envelope - picked the oldest, most establishment candidate. Who has turned out to be a pretty good president under the circumstances, surprisingly so for actual liberals like me. Now, playing "oh we did the wrong thing, let's get off the roller coaster now" rather than "may not be perfect, but we have to play the hand we're dealt. Luckily the opponents are giving us *lots* of chances, let's stop griping about partner's bad call and *take them*" is at best not positive. Plan for 2028, folks, because that fight - assuming Biden wins - will be worse.

The other big thing (besides "old, stutters, sometimes gets a cold on debate night") people have on Biden is his policy wrt Israel. Which, yeah, I've got some problems with, too (understatement). But name *anyone* who has a chance that would be better. The US has decided, years ago, that they need their bastion in ME and can't afford to push Israel into someone else's pocket. His hands are tied, and they actually are doing things to make it less bad, given the decisions they have made. And the alternative has family who looked forward to financing "vacation condos on the Med".

Am I scared? Hell yes. Could I wish for the Democrats for once in their lives to stop with the circular firing squad and act like McConnell Republicans for once in their lives? Same answer.

(And we have Dime Store Abbott as premier here, and are likely to get Bannon Lite as PM next, simply because he's the only alternative to "we're done with boring, not great, okay". We Don't Need Any More Help from you guys on our "look Daddy, look what I did" meadow walk. So I'm even more scared.)

[shyams]

mycroft, on 2024-July-01, 09:48, said:

Plan for 2028, folks, because that fight - assuming Biden wins - will be worse.

If Biden wins this time, we can all look forward to a Trump 2028 campaign with an unofficial launch sometime in Q3 2025 followed by a formal bid in early 2027.

At least that will ensure the unending thread remains active for "Four More Years! Four More Years!"

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2024-July-01, 09:48, said:

"The time to discuss alternatives is called 'Primary season'. The time after that is over is time to run with what you brung." Got a problem with that? Get involved earlier.

Now, given that the only times to my memory since 1900 the one-term incumbent president wasn't the nominee for their party was when he died, yes, it is likely the primary season you needed to do this in was 2020. But the democrats - for good reasons, I think, but also because they're scared of pushing the envelope - picked the oldest, most establishment candidate. Who has turned out to be a pretty good president under the circumstances, surprisingly so for actual liberals like me. Now, playing "oh we did the wrong thing, let's get off the roller coaster now" rather than "may not be perfect, but we have to play the hand we're dealt. Luckily the opponents are giving us *lots* of chances, let's stop griping about partner's bad call and *take them*" is at best not positive. Plan for 2028, folks, because that fight - assuming Biden wins - will be worse.

The other big thing (besides "old, stutters, sometimes gets a cold on debate night") people have on Biden is his policy wrt Israel. Which, yeah, I've got some problems with, too (understatement). But name *anyone* who has a chance that would be better. The US has decided, years ago, that they need their bastion in ME and can't afford to push Israel into someone else's pocket. His hands are tied, and they actually are doing things to make it less bad, given the decisions they have made. And the alternative has family who looked forward to financing "vacation condos on the Med".

Am I scared? Hell yes. Could I wish for the Democrats for once in their lives to stop with the circular firing squad and act like McConnell Republicans for once in their lives? Same answer.

(And we have Dime Store Abbott as premier here, and are likely to get Bannon Lite as PM next, simply because he's the only alternative to "we're done with boring, not great, okay". We Don't Need Any More Help from you guys on our "look Daddy, look what I did" meadow walk. So I'm even more scared.)

Well put. And I have seen other declarations of why we should keep the ticket as it is. For that matter, I have spent a little time thinking of how it could possibly go ok with Biden staying on. But no, it won't.

Biden was my choice in the 2020 primaries and yes, for the most part, I think it has gone reasonably well. And now?

I, and many, worried as we saw signs of decline. But I don't see Biden every day, I am not one of his buddies, I was not prepared to diagnose, from my now and then observations, just how serious his problems were or were not. My thinking went along these lines. "Biden, and his advisers, have daily experinece on which to judge. I am uneasy, but I guess I will just trust that if the decline is serious they will take the necessary actions."

Ten minutes, or less, into the debate, that trust vanished.

I have not done any sort of poll, of vourse not, but I have talked to others and heard pretty much the same from everyone. Surprising uniformity. The trust is gone. Before Thursday it was "Hey, I am worried, but surely Biden would have the good sense to drop out if he can no longer remember the first sentence by the time he gets to the third sentence". Friday the thinking became "Oh. I see. I trusted that Biden and his advisers would address this problem if it became serious, I now see that this trust was a mistake".

So here we are.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-July-01, 08:08, said:

Agree on Warnock for VP, a smart choice. But then he probably won't be picked by M. Obama, and Newsom is too much of a "... King" to let the DNC foist a running mate onto him.

Warnock is a terrible choice for VP. Of course, he would be a fine, or even excellent VP, but he is the incumbent senator from a swing state who won a nail-biter close election, when it is also vitally important for the Democrats to maintain a majority (or at least 50-50) edge in the Senate so it can confirm presidential appointments, and vote to pass legislation from the house. If Warnock was from a solid blue state where another Democrat would be expected to replace him, then it would be a different story.

Michelle Obama is not going to be "drafted" for president and Biden has said he is not withdrawing as the presumptive nominee. You seem to have major problems with Newsom. Is he perfect? Nobody is perfect, but Newsom is a very good charismatic politician.

[shyams]

johnu, on 2024-July-01, 18:16, said:

You seem to have major problems with Newsom. Is he perfect? Nobody is perfect, but Newsom is a very good charismatic politician.

On the contrary, I think Newsom will be the best candidate.

I do perceive him to be a bit of a psychopath (not a medical definition, a general term). That is not bad per se... numerous leaders (politicians, CEOs, etc) show the same tendencies and most of them are very successful at their job.

[PassedOut]

Looks to me like the recent Supreme Court decision granting complete immunity for presidential actions intends to give Biden a nudge, rather than to help Trump. If Biden takes action to protect democracy in the US--no matter how drastic the action--he will be immune from prosecution.

[shyams]

If anyone is interested in an unbiased interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, this site may prove handy Click here

Some key extracts from the above article by Amy Howe:

• Chief Justice Roberts basically prevented most Presidential actions from ever being subject to criminal prosecution.
  
• He ruled that Courts should take a broad view of what is "official responsibilities” & include all those “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” By ruling this way, CJ Roberts sets a shockingly high bar that prosecutions have to jump over before they can charge a President.
  
• CJ Roberts also prevents prosecutors from using evidence from [any] official acts to make a case to a jury about illegalities. Again, something worded such that all Federal cases against Trump are likely to be thrown out now.
  
  
• In sharp contrast, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's separate [concurrent] opinion laid down a reasoned & coherent approach on the matter:
  a. She specifies her view on "official acts" ant her interpretation is much narrower and permissive of criminal prosecutions.
  b. She states that at least some of Trump's actions cannot qualify for "official acts" immunity. She also explicitly talked about how Trump's interference in States' processes of election management are clearly never authorised according to the Constitution.
  c. She also disagreed with CJ Roberts on whether prosecutors can use evidence of a president’s official acts. She makes a fairly robust argument for why it should be allowed.
  
  
• I also found the dissent written by the liberal Justices to be powerful & on-point. Justice Sotomayor writes that...
  a. The majority's position “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” because "a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is (now) immune from prosecution”
  b. There is nothing in the US Constitution to support the kind of immunity. Then she makes a very relevant point that the section on impeachment of a President in the Constitution explicitly states that "a president can be subject to prosecution even after impeachment".
  c. She rightly points out that line that CJ Roberts drew between official & unofficial conduct “narrows the conduct considered ‘unofficial’ almost to a nullity”

In my view, the full ScotusBlig article deserves a thorough read.

Finally,

PassedOut, on 2024-July-03, 16:56, said:

Looks to me like the recent Supreme Court decision granting complete immunity for presidential actions intends to give Biden a nudge, rather than to help Trump. If Biden takes action to protect democracy in the US--no matter how drastic the action--he will be immune from prosecution.

Yes, I agree this may well be something that President Biden can use judiciously to his (and hopefully your country's) best advantage.

This post has been edited by shyams: 2024-July-04, 11:25

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2024-July-04, 11:06, said:

If anyone is interested in an unbiased interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling, this site may prove handy Click here

Some key extracts from the above article by Amy Howe:

• Chief Justice Roberts basically prevented most Presidential actions from ever being subject to criminal prosecution.
• He ruled that Courts should take a broad view of what is "official responsibilities” & include all those “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” By ruling this way, CJ Roberts sets a shockingly high bar that prosecutions have to jump over before they can charge a President.
• CJ Roberts also prevents prosecutors from using evidence from [any] official acts to make a case to a jury about illegalities. Again, something worded such that all Federal cases against Trump are likely to be thrown out now.
• In sharp contrast, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's separate [concurrent] opinion laid down a reasoned & coherent approach on the matter:
  a. She specifies her view on "official acts" ant her interpretation is much narrower and permissive of criminal prosecutions.
  b. She states that at least some of Trump's actions cannot qualify for "official acts" immunity. She also explicitly talked about how Trump's interference in States' processes of election management are clearly never authorised according to the Constitution.
  c. She also disagreed with CJ Roberts on whether prosecutors can use evidence of a president’s official acts. She makes a fairly robust argument for why it should be allowed.
• I also found the dissent written by the liberal Justices to be powerful & on-point. Justice Sotomayor writes that...
  a. The majority's position “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” because "a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is (now) immune from prosecution”
  b. There is nothing in the US Constitution to support the kind of immunity. Then she makes a very relevant point that the section on impeachment of a President in the Constitution explicitly states that "a president can be subject to prosecution even after impeachment".
  c. She rightly points out that line that CJ Roberts drew between official & unofficial conduct “narrows the conduct considered ‘unofficial’ almost to a nullity”

In my view, the full ScotusBlig article deserves a thorough read.

Finally,

Yes, I agree this may well be something that President Biden can use judiciously to his (and hopefully your country's) best advantage.

The distressing aspect is that Biden will not use his immunity to its fullest; Trump will.

[Cyberyeti]

Something I don't know the answer to, what happens if Biden keels over just before the election ? does his VP automatically get any votes for him ?

[thepossum]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-July-06, 10:39, said:

Something I don't know the answer to, what happens if Biden keels over just before the election ? does his VP automatically get any votes for him ?

It's curious thing and I mean this with genuine respect maybe the USA does have an obsession with the British Monarchy
Will the President adbicate or hang in there to the end