Author Topic: 2024  (Read 122652 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
polls tighten in swing states
« Reply #1400 on: June 16, 2024, 09:11:21 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/deadlocked-swing-state-polls-tighten-amid-trump-s-trial-fallout/vi-BB1ok3IL?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=c68b7a14355f450fb2ac0a160929732e&ei=15

don't know if true but if more polling shows jail time will swing this more in Dem direction he will be sentenced to jail time.

some cans still don't get it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
2024, "Convicted Felon" polling
« Reply #1401 on: June 19, 2024, 02:33:49 PM »
They got what they wanted, 34 felonies no one can explain what they are, misdemeanor bookkeeping errors by staff is all we can tell.

Now where's the pot of gold?

RCP Betting Odds:  52% Trump, 33% Biden
https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

RCP poll averages:
TRUMP (R) 42.3, BIDEN (D) 39.9    KENNEDY 7.9
(Kennedy needs 15% to get in the debates.)

13 point improvement for Trump compared to same time 2020.

Iowa:   Trump 50%,  Biden 32%
(One analyst:  There is no scenario where Trump wins Iowa by 18% and loses Wisconsin.)

Virginia:  Tied.  (Fox)

Arizona:  Trump +4.6

Georgia:  Trump +4.8

Biden Job Approval:  - 15.7

Direction of the country,  -39.3%  (How does that mesh with the Biden and Democrats 'More of the Same' theme?)

https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls

[Doug]  This is FAR from over - but I wouldn't want to be them.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1402 on: June 19, 2024, 04:15:51 PM »
I read Biden will take a week to practice
for the debate

and try out his new deep in the ear canal microphone :))    :wink:

OTOH Trump it is claimed, and I believe it likely true,  is going to  wing it.
I don't think that smart but no one can change his mind.

He will say same things he says at his rallies.
It is the way he states it though that could be fine tuned, but God forbid he could do that.
He is not talking to his base in the debates he is talking to the swingers. (voters)

We know Bash & Tapper will hit him with his questions about his "conviction " and he will rant how it is rigged.
(true but the point is they will waste time propping up lawfare)

They will ask him about what he means by retribution,
and does he really think he can or should ship out millions of illegals etc.

Somehow they will focus a lot of time on his personality rather than contrast the policies of the present president and himself.

PA, WI, MI, we need.
Unbelievable states like Massachussetts and California and MN that are hopelessly lost ......

I don't know about the down ballots.

It seems being labelled pro Trump is not a help. It should be it means one is for better poliicies but it doesn't seem to carry over this way.

Lake is still getting beat in Az.
McCormick in PA too.
Garvery is being trounced meaning we will have Schiff in the Senate for eternity.
What a disaster that is.

VDH says Northern California is pretty conservative .   The only chance we can ever win California again is for Hispanics to turn to Rs.

Well that ain't happening anytime soon.
James Polk is turning in his grave - even though he was  Jacksononian Democrat.......
So are Winfield Scott and Zach Taylor.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024, Battleground Milwaukee
« Reply #1403 on: June 21, 2024, 06:11:18 AM »
Like a lot of states, the politics is dominated by one or two major cities. In battleground Wisconsin, Madison is liberal. (Ask BBG) You have the seat of the government and you have the rich white elites that make up the university environment.

Milwaukee is the urban center of Wisconsin. Without those two cities the state is nearly all red.

Trump said something about Milwaukee being horrible and liberals have pounced on it. I work the inner city of Minneapolis. The people who know what's horrible in the bad parts of a city are the people who live there.

Politico reports, Biden is faltering.  They don't really admit Trump is connecting.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/21/biden-black-voters-enthusiasm-gap-milwaukee-00163496

[Doug]  Madison is liberal by definition but Milwaukee votes Democrat based on the belief, I guess, that (black) people would starve without Democrats. (And then groceries went up 40% under Democrats, go figure.) The Democratic argument to the inner city is as old as Biden, but common sense should tell the people in these conditions that this bond with the Democrat party is not working.

This time around the people have lived 4 years under each of these president so the political talk of what each opponent will do has less meaning.

It takes a small percentage of people to switch sides to make a difference in these close elections, and Wisconsin is bound to be close.

The two signature policies of Biden, inflation and open borders, are not helping the cities and the people know it.

The real takeaway of the Politico article is that people are thinking for themselves, not voting as a group. They conclude,  that is a big danger signal for Democrats.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2024, 07:30:24 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1404 on: June 21, 2024, 06:54:47 AM »
" [Doug]  Madison is liberal by definition but Milwaukee votes Democrat based on the belief, I guess, that they will starve without them. The Democratic argument to the inner city is as old as Biden, but common sense should tell the people in these conditions that this bond with the Democrat party is not working.

It takes a small percentage of people to switch sides to make a difference in these close elections, and Wisconsin is bound to be close.

If urban blacks suddenly start (again) believing in the American Dream, the Democrat Party is toast."

Good point.
I pray but do not think likely Trump can make such points in the debate.  (he does but awkwardly a lot of the time)

And of course CNN's hit team Bash / Tapper will probably not give much if any opportunity to make his points.

"But , sir crime is DOWN in those cities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They will wast valuable time with January 6 (as though we have not heard enough for 3.5 yrs about it), his convictions (all bogus lawfare)  and selectively take out of context things he has said and harp on that in a negative way.

And of course abortion will be a topic.

All the while Biden will lie deny obfuscate etc without any challenge from them.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1405 on: June 21, 2024, 07:47:36 AM »
"And of course abortion will be a topic."

Biden can make a 90 second pitch for all the good abortion has done for the black family (while illegals invade their cities). And Trump won't be able to interrupt.   )

Crime is down (from elevated peaks) but areas of Milwaukee have crime rates 365% higher than the national average.
https://propertyclub.nyc/article/most-dangerous-neighborhoods-in-milwaukee

If that's not horrible, what is?

Calling it horrible means you're aware of it, not off touting $7500 tax credits for Tesla owners.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2024, 09:24:50 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
American Thinker
« Reply #1406 on: June 22, 2024, 05:09:03 AM »
what Trump himself should ask Biden what the moderators won't:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/06/debate_questions_the_moderators_should_but_won_t_ask_biden.html

I posted this because I disagree.
I don't think voters especially swing voters care about this.
We have heard both sides about this ad nauseum
Rehashing the same tired grievance is not going to impress or sway swing voters

I do expect Trump to waste time with this though.

I believe he should focus on the direction of the country and we have 2 clear choices.
Biden's is leading us down the road of ruin
DJTs is to repair damage done by 12 yrs of Obama Biden and to fix our problems.

period!

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2499
    • View Profile
What If Biden Crashes and Burns?
« Reply #1407 on: June 23, 2024, 03:18:29 PM »


Is the Debate To Be Biden’s Last Stand?
By Steve Huntley

June 21, 2024

It’s so strange, so unprecedented and so bizarre that no one is talking about it being so strange, so unprecedented and so bizarre.

That it is the debate scheduled for next Thursday, June 27, between President Biden and former President Trump.

June 27 — that’s more than two weeks before the Republican National Convention, more than seven weeks before the Democratic National Convention. And almost 10 weeks before Labor Day, the traditional date for the start of a general election presidential campaign.

And summer is a time when America is mostly on vacation. Folks are thinking more about beach time, airline schedules and the next hot travel destination. Politics is mostly shoved into the mental attic until the fall.
This fellow makes good points, particularly should Biden fail miserably and be replaced:

A debate between the two parties’ presidential candidates this early has never happened before. Never.

The explanation is that the Biden campaign, worried about his sagging poll ratings, wants to reassure voters about his age and mental acuity, contrast himself with Trump, and remind Americans that the stakes have never been higher. Meaning the evil orange man might get returned to the White House, and America needs to know how awful he is.

Really, the country needs to hear more Democrat reasons to hate Trump?

Already the legacy media daily sound the alarms about Trump’s supposed threat to democracy, mom and apple pie.

But that’s what Democrats are selling — an early debate exposé of the manifest danger of a second Trump term.

Let’s consider another possible motive, one perhaps animating Democrat leaders and party faithful who behind the scenes must be verging on panic over the increasing public perception of Biden as a senile old fool, an 81-year-old man who’s doddering, decrepit, feeble in mind and body.

That’s not a new worry. It had been building for months before the debate, and another one was announced for Sept. 10th. The president’s aging was officially and graphically described with the February release of a special prosecutor’s report about Biden holding on to classified government documents from his Senate and vice president days. In declining to bring criminal charges against Biden, the prosecutor described him as someone who would appear to a jury to be “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

This landed like an atom bomb because it confirmed what Americans had seen with their own eyes. Countless video clips revealed Biden stumbling, falling down, wandering aimlessly, mumbling and uttering incoherent ramblings about public policy and imaginary events from the past.

Since then, the picture has only gotten worse. The Wall Street Journal interviewed 45 people for an article headlined “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.” The New York Times exposed Biden’s tall stories as phony, or as its headline delicately put it, “Untangling Some of the President’s Favorite Yarns.” After Biden met with world leaders at the G7 summit in Italy, a London newspaper delivered a devastating verdict from the officials there: He was “losing focus” and “it’s the worst he has ever been.”

Still, nothing really new there. So why an early debate?

Influential Democrats might see it as the last chance to save the party in November.

These movers and shakers might figure that if Biden has a crippling debate performance of disconnected ramblings, meaningless utterances, angry outbursts and undeniable mental decline, there’s still time to persuade him to drop out and for the national convention in late July to produce a replacement.

Just over a week ago prominent Democrat strategist James Carville, who knows a thing or two about how to succeed in politics, said he wished that Biden had already dropped out.

After another recent disastrous poll, analyst Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight declared, “Dropping out would be a big risk. But there’s some threshold below which continuing to run is a bigger risk. Are we there yet? I don’t know. But it’s more than fair to ask.”

Suppose the debate turns into a humiliating embarrassment for Biden. Democrats might find themselves at Silver’s “there.”

No doubt a boatload of problems confronts any move to get Biden out.

First up is getting Biden to agree to it. A big lift, no doubt. The key figure is First Lady Jill Biden. The word is she loves the power of the executive mansion and won’t let go. But could Biden do so badly that she’d finally concede it’s in his best interest to quit the race?

Another formidable challenge would be denying Kamala Harris the right of succession as the party’s new presidential nominee. The vice president, thanks to her cackling and incomprehensible word salads, has achieved the unenviable status of being even more unpopular than her boss. Still, the conventional wisdom is that the Democrat base of women and black voters might revolt if she’s dumped.

Then, if those two obstacles are overcome, there’s the question of whom the Democrats nominate in the convention of late July? For the first time in decades, a political convention would be must-see TV.

There’s no need here to go into all the names who might jockey for the top job. But Republicans, for all their glee in watching Democrats squirm over Biden’s mental decline, should be very wary of the consequences of seeing him pushed out.

A younger, fresh face on the national scene most likely would be not just welcomed but cheered by millions of voters desperate for something other than what they see as the dreary Biden-Trump choice.

Independents and moderates might well view a new Democrat nominee as a much-needed break from the hyper-partisan, divisive and depressing politics of the past eight years.

That could apply even to candidates Republicans would damn as too liberal and too woke, such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Voters might be willing to overlook that for a much-desired fresh face offering a new direction for the nation. The charismatic Newsom has popped up on Fox News from time to time, demonstrating he’s willing to campaign for votes on the right.

The presidential race would become a whole new ballgame.

Harris is the focus of yet another option getting a little media talk in Washington. This idea would be, keep Biden on the ticket but have Harris drop out, opening the way for a replacement vice presidential nominee better viewed by the voters as a legitimate potential president.

Obviously, the thinking is that whoever is vice president to Biden will end up in the Oval Office eventually, and maybe soon in a second term.

History demonstrates the wisdom of that approach. In 1944 President Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped Vice President Henry Wallace, an apologist for Soviet communism, and replaced him on the ticket with Harry Truman. Roosevelt was an old man in failing health. He died just a couple of months into his fourth term, and Truman got the top job and won good marks from historians for his tenure.

Of course, there’s always a stupid way to do this. A Washington Post columnist suggested as a replacement for Harris — get this — Hillary Clinton. That’s just what 2024 presidential politics need — another dreary old face from the past.

There you have it, speculation about what might be behind this early debate. Perhaps you can find holes in these musings. Or offer counter arguments why it won’t happen. Or see it as too late in the game.

Or maybe you think this scenario of pushing Biden aside might be too cynical or Machiavellian. If so, let’s revisit a simple truth: The Democrats’ and the hard left’s lust for power and their obsession with destroying Trump know no bounds.

Think of the big lie of Russian collusion they promoted for years to try to cripple Trump’s presidency.   Remember how they co-opted the Covid 19 pandemic to bend and manipulate election laws in state after state to ensure a huge Democrat turnout in the 2020 election.

Recall how they organized 51 former intelligence officers to suppress news media coverage of the infamous Hunter Biden laptop. That contained a record of drinking, doping and whoring that, if widely reported, it might have tipped to Trump some close state races that went to Biden.

And never forget the sorry story of Democrats tossing aside all political norms to prosecute criminally Trump to try to discredit him with the voters. A judge in New York may yet send Trump to jail after his conviction on cooked-up, specious charges.

For Democrats, the ends justify the means.

Of course there’s one possibility I haven’t mentioned.    Maybe the June 27 debate will surprise us all — Biden does well enough to remain a viable candidate, or even shines and boosts his prospects.

The president has exceeded expectations in the past, such as with this year’s State of the Union Address. Could happen again. Trump told the New York Post he thinks Biden’s handlers will “juice him up” with performance enhancing drugs.

Who knows, with low expectations for Biden, maybe he could do well enough that the media would crown him the winner.   Given these crazy political times and the ruthless ambitions of the Democrats, would any of these scenarios coming true surprise you?

Steve Huntley, a retired Chicago journalist now living in Austin, Texas, has contributed other pieces to johnkassnews, from an examination of the secret jail for Christopher Columnbus and other politically problematic public art to an essay on Americans suffering from Joe Biden gas pain.

For almost three decades Huntley spent most of his career in Chicago journalism at the Chicago Sun-Times, where he was a feature writer, metro reporter, night city editor, metropolitan editor, editorial page editor and a columnist for the opinion pages.

Before that he was a reporter and editor with United Press International (UPI) in the South and Chicago, and Chicago bureau chief and a senior editor in Washington with U.S. News & World Report. Northwestern University Press has issued soft cover and eBook editions of Knocking Down Barriers: My Fight for Black America by Truman K. Gibson Jr. with Steve Huntley, a memoir of a Chicagoan who was a member of President Roosevelt’s World War II Black Cabinet working to desegregate the military.

https://johnkassnews.com/is-the-debate-to-be-bidens-last-stand/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
NY Post: Biden is one trick pony,Trump Bad is all he has
« Reply #1408 on: June 23, 2024, 06:16:55 PM »
"Most Americans believe he’s been a terrible president and is too old for a second term.

Just 40.5% of voters approve of his performance, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls taken in the last two months.

The surveys show an average disapproval of 55.6%, a gap of 15.1 points.

And some numbers are still sinking, with a Reuters/Ipsos survey showing him with a rock-bottom approval rating of just 36%.
That’s got defeat written all over it.

Worse, there’s no popular policy where Biden can plant his flag and say it’s an example of what he will do in a second term.

Consider that on questions covering eight major policies, the public gives him lopsided negative ratings on all eight, as tabulated by RealClearPolitics.

On the economy, for example, Biden’s average approval is just 40.8%, while his average disapproval is 57.8% — a negative gap of 17 points.

A separate measure of his handling of inflation has him negative 24 points.

On immigration, meaning the border, he’s negative 27 points.

The closest he comes to a positive measure is Ukraine, where he’s still negative 13 points.

On crime, he’s negative 14 points.

On the sweeping question of the direction of the country, just 25.5% approve while 64.3% disapprove, a gap of 38 points."

   - Michael Goodwin, NY Post

https://nypost.com/2024/06/22/opinion/joe-biden-is-a-one-trick-pony-with-only-one-act-blame-donald-trump/
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 05:10:33 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Trump debate strategy
« Reply #1409 on: June 23, 2024, 06:48:01 PM »
ccp: " ... I believe he should focus on the direction of the country and we have 2 clear choices."


  - Right.  He was a very succearful reality show actor.  He should go in there for 90 minutes and act Presidential.

Same with his public appearances for the next 4 months.

Like ccp is saying, paint us a picture of what make America great again means these next 4 years, weave in some specifics, draw the contrast, not get into a food fight.

Give Biden the respect of being President but call him out on policies, results and wrong direction.

Anticipate and refute Biden's deceptions, also anticipate the liberal factcheckers that will comment on what he says and preemptively shoot them down.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 04:20:40 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2499
    • View Profile
Will the SCOTUS Complicate This Week’s Debate?
« Reply #1410 on: June 24, 2024, 02:04:46 PM »
Certainly more than a few wildcards to be turned here:

Dispatch
June 23, 2024
Will the Supreme Court blow up the presidential debate?
by
James Piereson
On the many explosive cases to be decided this week.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
It is hard to know why the Trump and Biden campaigns decided upon June 27 as the date of the initial presidential debate. There is speculation that Trump wished to refocus attention on his campaign and away from recent legal proceedings in New York, and that the Democrats wished to get a look at Biden’s debate performance in advance of their convention in August, possibly with an eye to replacing him on the ticket if he performed badly. Both are plausible explanations.

Whatever the reasons, the two camps settled on a day and a week when the Supreme Court will be handing down a series of explosive decisions, several of them bearing upon the presidential campaign. Some of those decisions may be handed down on the morning of the debate and could upend settled strategies not only for Biden and Trump, but the debate moderators as well.

The Supreme Court is still sitting on a dozen pending cases that were argued during the course of the 2023–24 term, and it’s scheduled to issue opinions on all (or most) of them on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week—that is, over the three-day period sandwiching the presidential debate.

The granddaddy of them all is the Trump immunity case that may circumscribe Jack Smith’s prosecution of the former president over his alleged role in the January 6 riot at the Capitol. Trump claims that, as president at the time, he is immune from prosecution for any and all of these acts. The Supreme Court, in accepting the case on appeal, settled on a narrower set of questions, considering not whether a president or former president is immune from prosecution, but rather the extent to which presidential immunity may extend to the acts covered in the federal indictment. The justices could toss Mr. Smith’s indictment, narrow it substantially by throwing out some of the charges, or let it proceed along the lines of the original indictment. In the third case, Mr. Smith may still find an opportunity to commence this trial prior to the election.

A decision on this case released on Wednesday or Thursday will land with the force of dynamite in the middle of the presidential debate. The ruling, depending on how it goes, will be exploited in the debate by either Trump or Biden, one of whom will return to it on every possible occasion. The moderators will ask both to comment on the ruling. Trump, as a defendant in the charges, may be advised by counsel not to comment on the decision, lest he complicate his own situation or perhaps violate the limited gag order imposed by the federal judge in the case. If the decision goes for Trump, then Biden will be given still another opportunity to attack the Supreme Court.

No matter how it goes, the decision will divert attention from inflation, the border, crime, spending, Biden’s age, and other national issues. One suspects that the court, bearing this in mind, will hold its decision on the Trump case until Friday, the day after the debate—or perhaps even beyond this coming week.

The court is also due to rule on a parallel case involving other January 6 defendants who claim they are being charged improperly under an Enron-era statute that does not apply to their circumstances. The defendants in this case, Fischer v. United States, were convicted of obstructing a federal proceeding (the counting of electoral votes) under a provision of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (2002) that dealt with the destruction of evidence during an official investigation. A lower court (agreeing with the defendants) tossed the charges on the grounds that the law targeted the destruction of evidence rather than the kinds of acts that took place on January 6. An appeals court overturned that ruling, thereby sending it up to the Supreme Court, which will decide the case this week.

In Mr. Smith’s four-count indictment against Trump, two of the counts were brought under this provision of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. If the court rules for the defendants in Fischer, then two of Smith’s counts against Trump will likewise disappear—creating still more fodder for the presidential debate. The court may defer that decision, too, until Friday.

But this is not all. The court is due to issue rulings on several other potentially precedent-setting cases that should merit attention in the presidential debate.

In NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, the court will rule on a Texas law designed to prohibit social-media platforms from censoring speech based upon the viewpoints of different speakers. Texas has claimed that media platforms like Google and Facebook have discriminated against conservatives by deleting their posts or banning them completely. Florida subsequently passed a similar law. The media companies (represented here by NetChoice) contend that, as private actors, they possess a degree of editorial discretion under the First Amendment that is circumscribed by the Texas law. A federal district court issued an injunction against enforcement of the law, but that ruling was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In oral arguments, several justices appeared to be skeptical of the reach and purposes of the Texas statute.

In Murthy v. Missouri, the court will rule on claims by multiple plaintiffs who contend that the federal government engaged in improper censorship by leaning on social-media companies to suppress conservative views in regard to the origins of COVID-19, the 2020 presidential election, the efficacy masks and vaccines, and other issues. They contend that the government threatened these companies with regulatory retaliation if they did not suppress these views, thereby violating their free-speech rights under the First Amendment. The government contends that the claims are exaggerated; that it made recommendations, not threats, to social-media companies; and that (besides) it was interested mainly in removing misinformation from media platforms, not in suppressing free speech. A lower court sided with the plaintiffs by issuing an injunction prohibiting federal officials from communicating with social-media companies. An appeals court lifted that injunction. The court will rule to what extent the First Amendment applies to these kinds of communications between governments and media outlets.

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, also due for decision this week, is a challenge to the Chevron-deference doctrine according to which the Supreme Court defers to federal agencies in their interpretations of statutes Congress has delegated to them to administer. This is an important rule, in place since 1984, that gives federal agencies wide discretion in interpreting federal statutes, while denying parties access to the courts to challenge those interpretations. The facts here are narrow and arcane to most citizens, as they involve a regulation imposed on fishing vessels by the National Marine Fisheries service, which operates under the Department of Commerce on authority granted by Congress under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. According to the Chevron-deference doctrine, the court would defer to the findings of the regulatory agency—but the court is now taking the opportunity to review the doctrine from scratch. A decision in favor of Relentless, Inc. would have far-reaching implications for the powers of federal regulatory agencies.

City of Grants Pass vs. Johnson is a case in which the court will decide whether a local statute banning camping on public streets and parks violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The local government in this case approved the ordinance as a means of dealing with a growing homeless population in the town. The plaintiffs claim, somewhat oddly, that this ordinance imposes a cruel and unusual punishment on those people by forcing them off the streets and into other accommodations. Civic leaders across the country are watching for the decision in this case, as they would like to have the authority to approve similar laws in their jurisdictions.

Moyle v. United States is a federal challenge to an Idaho law restricting access to abortion except in a few narrow circumstances. The Biden Administration claims that the law violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals receiving funding under Medicare to offer appropriate treatment to pregnant women. In Biden’s view, the federal act preempts the Idaho law. A district court issued an injunction barring Idaho from enforcing the law, with the state now appealing the decision to the Supreme Court. The court must now decide—in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision—how to reconcile new state laws regulating access to abortion with existing federal rules regarding funding for health-care services.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy is another case dealing with the authority of regulatory agencies, to some degree parallel to the above challenge to the Chevron-deference doctrine. In this case, Jarkesy ran a hedge fund accused of securities fraud by the SEC, with an enforcement action decided by administrative-law judges rather than by judges in a federal court. Jarkesy claimed that the proceeding violated his right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. From his point of view, the statute conferring these powers to the SEC represented an unconstitutional delegation of powers, a claim commonly made in the 1930s in regard to newly created regulatory bodies, but rarely invoked since that time. Here the court has an opportunity to breathe new life into the non-delegation doctrine, which would in turn invite many new challenges to the authority of federal regulatory agencies.

These are unusually important cases with far-reaching implications for the powers of the federal government in relation to the states and the constitutional rights of citizens—and for the two candidates squaring off in a presidential election. It is rare for so many such cases to pile up for decision in the final week of the court’s term—and rarer still for so many of them to land in the middle of a contentious presidential debate.

https://newcriterion.com/2024/06/will-the-supreme-court-blow-up-the-presidential-debate/




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1414 on: June 25, 2024, 06:09:31 AM »
What happens with Rubio's Senate seat if he is selected/elected?

Does Gov. DeSantis appoint?  or?


BTW, I'm not getting all the mention of Vance.   Even less track record than Obama at the state/national wide level.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
2024, Debates are usually lost and not won
« Reply #1415 on: June 25, 2024, 06:13:22 AM »
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/06/25/debates_are_lost_not_won_151156.html

I think this agrees with my previous point, both candidates need to show up and look presidential for less than 40 minutes.

Biden will come with his State of the Union drug cocktail and surprise by looking coherent and by reciting some well-rehearsed lines. Biden and the moderators will all try to bait Trump and unfairly attack him. That is a given. How Trump responds is within his control.

Of course these really aren't debates. They are public appearances, the filming of political commercials. Trump's job is to steer everything back to the 60/40 issues that favor him, inflation, border, crime, without looking evasive about the questions asked or the attacks brought forward.

Don't worry so much about what the other guy is doing, maximize the quality of your time in front of the camera.

He needs some concise explanations as to why the question is slanted and how his opponent's answers and policies come up short.

It's pretty easy to find the Democratic economic talking points on the internet or in talks that Biden has already given. He needs to concisely dismiss why this isn't the case and why his policies and his results are better. Polls show that people already believe that. He needs to make clear to anyone who will listen, make America great again is a return to common sense, not a radical agenda or a step backward.

Inspire, and lay off of the vindictives.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1416 on: June 25, 2024, 06:31:36 AM »
What happens with Rubio's Senate seat if he is selected/elected?

Does Gov. DeSantis appoint?  or?


BTW, I'm not getting all the mention of Vance.   Even less track record than Obama at the state/national wide level.

Right, I don't get that either. One of them has to change their residence, like Dick Cheney did. People say it would be Trump because he has plenty of other residences. If Rubio does it, it looks more inauthentic.

The veepstakes aren't an easy game. Look at how Obama ended up with Biden and how Biden ended up with Kamala harris. Bush Senior saw great potential in Dan Quayle, the country didn't. McCain saw great potential in Sarah Palin and the country didn't.

Trump wants to win one election, I want this to be a 12-year plan. The VP is supposed to be the successor.

Rubio has great national experience, but not executive experience. DeSantis isn't really mentioned, has the same Florida problem. Doug Bergum and JD Vance are being looked at for their skills. The main skill should be the ability to step in at any moment as President.

The elephant in the room, is why aren't Democrats talking about their VP choice? Kamala Harris is a failure by every measure, but the party of cowards cannot touch that reality.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1417 on: June 25, 2024, 06:44:11 AM »
Some random thoughts:

Not clear to me that this is the moment to choose a successor.   Bergum seems capable of having the skill set and sufficient gravitas to step in.   Good rapport with Trump-- which matters.

Vance?  NFW!

Rubio?   Probably best if Trump changes resiL.   Lots of pluses politically.  Has been a serious student of geopolitics, including Latin America, for many years. 

=========================
WT

Tim Scott for vice president

South Carolina senator would consolidate Black voters’ recent rightward shift

By Deroy Murdock

Former President Donald Trump should select Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina Republican, as his running mate. Trump-Scott 2024 would be a juggernaut. Mr. Scott would serve Mr. Trump ably as vice president. He is well positioned to step in should Mr. Trump become sidelined.

Long before any of that, this duo must get elected. Here, Mr. Scott looks uniquely promising.

A May 15-16 Harvard-Harris survey of 1,660 registered voters discovered that, among seven potential choices for vice president, Mr. Scott is the only one who makes Americans more likely to back Mr. Trump, by 6 percentage points. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, with 0 points, does not move the needle. North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum curbs enthusiasm for Mr. Trump by 6 points.

Mr. Scott’s broad appeal across the Palmetto State helps explain why he regularly outperforms other top statewide Republican contenders. In November 2014, Sen. Lindsay Graham was reelected with 54.3% of the vote. Nikki Haley scored a second term as governor with 55.9% of the ballots. Mr. Scott bested them both, with 61.1%.

In 2016, Mr. Trump won the White House, partially thanks to 54.9% of South Carolina’s vote. That same election night, Mr. Scott won 60.6%. And in 2022, Gov. Henry McMaster earned four more years with 58%. That evening, Mr. Scott won six more years with a 62.9% victory.

While Mr. Scott was a low-key presidential candidate, he has been one of Mr. Trump’s best surrogates. He is upbeat, energetic, informative and persuasive. Those qualities will serve Mr. Trump well on the hustings, in Mr. Scott’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, and as his chief advocate as vice president. Mr. Scott’s experience in the House and Senate, his work as ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, and author of the opportunity zones and related tax cuts that he has sponsored or endorsed make him the right man to help Mr. Trump push the “make America great again” agenda through Congress. While South Carolina’s nine electoral votes have not gone Democratic since 1976, Mr. Scott could attract far more electoral votes elsewhere. The mere presence of Mr. Scott on the GOP ticket would consolidate the recent rightward shift of Black voters. They are marching toward Mr. Trump in stunning numbers. CNN data analyst Harry Enten was visibly shocked on June 17 when he discussed an aggregate of network polls that captured Mr. Trump’s swelling share of the Black vote. At this point in 2020, Trump had 7% of the Black vote, before scoring 12% that November, according to exit surveys by Edison Research. Mr. Trump now has 21% support among Black voters — triple his position in June 2020.

Meanwhile, excitement for President Biden among Black voters has vanished. Overall, he has plunged from 86% at this point in 2020 to 70% in 2024. With those over 50, he has slid from 83% to 74%. Support for Mr. Biden has collapsed among Blacks under 50, from 80% to 37%.

Mr. Scott would solidify and enhance the 20% or so of the Black vote that consistently has backed Mr. Trump in polls since last fall. Trump-Scott could secure 25% of the Black vote; 35% no longer seems beyond imagination. If that many Black Americans also vote GOP down-ballot, Republicans should keep the House and secure the Senate from Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer and the Biden Democrats. Stylistically, Mr. Scott would be the cream in Mr. Trump’s coffee. While some people find the former president a tad hot and strong, Mr. Scott is relaxed and soothing. Stirred together, these two would make a fine blend and complement each other — as running mates and governing partners should.

Given his integrity, legislative experience, increasingly polished rhetorical skills and everything he will gain while riding shotgun to Mr. Trump, Mr. Scott will make a suitable successor to the 45th and 47th president of the United States. America’s future will be quite bright if, on Jan. 20, 2029, Mr. Donald Trump hands the keys to the White House to President-elect Tim Scott.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2024, 07:06:58 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
FWIW
« Reply #1418 on: June 25, 2024, 08:26:53 AM »
O'Reilly recently proposed his favorite choice for VP

She is not on the list and reportedly she has no interest for the job now.  Maybe would run in '28 or later.

Sara Huckabee.

I don't like JD Vance at all.
I find him abrasive somehow not pleasing and not sure I agree with him and indeed when he is guest on someone's talk show I usually change the station.

Bergun would be good I think - successful in business and politics.   Would be a good soldier for Trump without the over the top religious overtones of Pence that turns off a lot of people (me NOT included but I am only one vote).



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
debate drugs
« Reply #1420 on: June 26, 2024, 06:23:56 AM »
Mark Levin on his podcast last night stated every doctor he spoke to was sure Biden was juiced up for big appearances. 
I posted this after his SOTU address to .

Suddenly he had more energy could speak loudly and forcefully for the whole time get around shake hands and hug the choir members and actually sound like he (almost) knew what he was talking about in abject opposition to any other contemporary appearances where he looks ashen frozen stiff mask faced and confused and trouble finding words.

Here are meds that he will be on tomorrow.
I would like to speak to some specialists to inquire if there are any other meds I am missing.
I doubt the DNC docs would pump him up with true amphetamines like Dr Morell gave to Hitler.
They would be too dangerous in an 82 year old man.  OTOH hand if his doctors have ties to Hillary Clinton who knows !
 :wink:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325201

https://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/sleep/basics/modafinil-the-ultimate-wake-up-pill.htm

and of course do not forget Donepezil and Memantine for memory

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1421 on: June 26, 2024, 06:39:13 AM »
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/06/25/karoline_leavitt_most_underreported_story_of_the_week_is_that_biden_needs_a_whole_week_to_prep_for_a_debate.html


What is this cush job he thinks he has that he can take a week off?

Does he know he's President of the United States?  Does he know the world is at war?  We're funding it?  Does he know the border is open, terrorists are flooding in?  Does he know Russia is holding an American journalist hostage?  Who is working on that?  Does he know Iran is on the brink of going nuclear, threatening the Middle East?  Does he know China has basically declared war on the Philippines?  Preparing to take Taiwan?  Does he know we are losing world's reserve currency status - under his watch, turning us into a bankrupt third world country?

Can he name his own Secretary of Defense? Treasury?

But no, he's off working on his debate cocktail.

Regarding the debate cocktail, if it's so good for him, why isn't he on it all the time?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2024, 06:43:39 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1422 on: June 26, 2024, 06:55:32 AM »
my guess is the debate will disappoint both sides
both will declare victory and in the end nothing will change.

It is really sad that CNN tries to deny what we have been watching 24/7 for 8 yrs or more.
That every show story line has been twisted against Trump and support the walking mummy.

What a joke and sad commentary on the US media.

Turley speaks of this on O'Reilly, Kelly and has been all over explaining his new book
on this.

We have had attacks on free speech before but NEVER this conglomeration of the media, government, corporations, academia, and the legal system all coming together to crush speech from the Right.

He tells of a professor who said something in a group of 4 people that offended the Left, and somehow it got back to the academic administrators of his college.  They forced him to resign and he then went home and blew his brains out.   Very chilling to say the least.   

This country is in BIG trouble.  Orwellian indeed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1423 on: June 27, 2024, 11:12:48 AM »
Word is we will see a 'tempered' Trump.

I would like to see him paint the big picture as clearly as it an be done.  This is a change of direction election.  The leader needs to be able to sum up what is wrong with their direction, why it doesn't work, and lay out what 'our' direction is and why it does work.  Include enough specifics on both sides of that to prove his points. 

He better start mentioning he needs the House and Senate to make it happen.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1424 on: June 27, 2024, 11:24:31 AM »
agree 100%

but predicting his demeanor as we all know is impossible.

Wonder what time the Obamanites will start juicing up the mummy.

Start at 50 seconds to get a good look at what is happening now in preparation for tonight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Bx-xahMh0

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
2024 Pre-debate continued, "Let me repeat that ..."
« Reply #1425 on: June 27, 2024, 04:58:26 PM »
I know people are setting up keyword drinking games so here's one.  From his previous debates I remember, every time Joe Biden says "let me repeat that", he is saying something false or lying.  We'll check the transcript tomorrow.

Trump does not need to lie to make any point.  I hope he checks his own data and is ready to win arguments with Biden the Left's 'fact checkers'.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2024, 05:00:48 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024, Debate 1
« Reply #1426 on: June 27, 2024, 08:09:29 PM »
Steve Hayward of Powerline:

"I can’t believe what I am seeing. Biden is dreadful. He lost the debate in the first five minutes. Trump is disciplined and killing it. (Especially on the abortion debate. The media won’t know it, but he totally owned Biden on that exchange.)

Biden sounds like he’s running for Senate, not president. I’m really starting to wonder if Biden’s team set him up to fail so they can replace him. The debate rules have helped Trump. And he’s getting in some great lines."
--------------------------------------------------------
[Doug]  I watched the whole thing.  Trump looks sharp and is making his points.  Most who hate him will still hate him.  Like Steve H says, The media won’t know it (Trump owned Biden on most exchanges).  What matters is what people in the middle think.

Joe looked terrible, lost his train of thought a few times, but mostly made his points for his people.  I don't think this knocks him off the ticket.

An interesting twist is that the Dem is the pro-war President (on two fronts) and generally the loudest protesters are from the Left. 

These two people don't like each other (understatement).

I disagree with Trump on some points but those are small compared to my feelings about what the Left is doing to this country.

P.S.  I know golf, I respect golf, I grew up around golf, it's a difficult game, hard to get good at, I know what a 6 and an 8 handicap game looks like, making par on most of the holes... but the discussion of golf (and egos) on this stage was bizarre! 

Speaking of egos, I haven't played golf yet this year, only play a few times a year since childhood, but I will bet all my net worth against Joe Biden anytime, any place.

That exchange helped RFK jr more than any other.  If anything, these rich guys golf games are a negative indicator of feeling the regular guys pain.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1427 on: June 27, 2024, 08:43:56 PM »
I like this one ;  says it all:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/06/27/actress-ellen-barkin-rages-cnn-debate-is-a-trump-campaign-rally-sponsored-by-cnn-what-the-fk/

Like Abby Philips on CNN post debate clearly delirious with rage and fear:

"Trump lies lies lies"

probably off a memo sent out to all the DNC media outlets .....

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024, Debate 1 Fallout
« Reply #1428 on: June 28, 2024, 08:38:17 AM »
I actually thought Biden did better than expected.  He lost his train of thought very early and very awkwardly, but mostly he mumbled out his prepared lines at most of the right times.  He had a bizarre look, see below.  I think he is a man who went through too many plastic surgeries perhaps, just a messed up face with weird expressions.  But his anger and negativity was a big strategic mistake, not the optimism of a great leader.  Trump looked just like his cartoon caricatures.  He mostly held back personal attacks but was ruthless on Biden's Presidential performance.

Biden's attacks on Trump's record all omitted reference to covid and the Dem states all shutting down their economies for him. 

I say Biden beat my expectations but he didn't satisfy the Left - the ones who picked him.  What were they thinking?  Dean Phillips had it right.  Someone should run against him but no one of prominence did.  How is he the best if no one else is allowed to compete?  THIS is what you get.

The (no longer) mainstream story of the debate is summed up by "Biden mumbled and Trump lied". 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/06/27/biden-trump-debate-lies-election/74236077007/

A Fumbling Performance, and a Panicking Party
President Biden’s shaky, halting debate performance has top Democrats talking about replacing him on the ticket.

Lots of articles on why only Joe can leave the ticket, he won his delegates.
  -  Peter Baker, NY Times

Time to go Joe,  The Atlanic
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/time-to-go-joe/ar-BB1p2tRn?cvid=fc6fecde3e424682f4cb1368e62d491a&ei=9

Why Biden’s debate performance could spell election trouble for South Florida Democrats | Opinion
the Miami Herald Editorial Board

And he's got a hole in his chin?  His hair looks good but we all know it's fake.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/time-to-go-joe/ar-BB1p2tRn?cvid=fc6fecde3e424682f4cb1368e62d491a&ei=9
« Last Edit: June 28, 2024, 08:43:56 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1429 on: June 28, 2024, 08:50:56 AM »
Okay one more debate fallout post, media keyword phrase, "halting" performance by Biden:

halting
/hôl′tĭng/
adjective
Hesitant or wavering.
a halting voice.
Imperfect; defective.
halting verse.
Limping; lame.
Merriam Webster


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1431 on: June 28, 2024, 09:58:51 AM »
Could Joe legitimately give all his delegates to Jill?

Word is she is the most powerful person in the WH now.

I agree with
Doug,
I thought he mostly got his points across and the mistakes he made were similar to mistakes he made for months
so I was pleasantly surprised to finally see the Dems no longer playing us for idiots

Trump was mostly good, but I agree with one person post debate live poll on CNN when she criticized Trump for simply telling us he was the best ever in everything without real specifics in too many answers.

At least he kept his cool  8-)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1432 on: June 28, 2024, 11:02:47 AM »
I thought Trump handled the abortion question very well, but overall needed to have done better in reassuring the undecided middle that he is not deranged.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1433 on: June 28, 2024, 11:43:24 AM »
Could Joe legitimately give all his delegates to Jill?

No.  My understanding:  Joe earned his delegates.  If Joe drops out, then no one has enough delegates and the convention would choose the candidate according to their rules.

The 'kingmakers' (Obama or whoever) behind the scenes would tell the convention the right answer, Jill or Michelle or Hillary or Kamala or Newsom or Whitmer(?) and the delegates would approve it.  Or there could be a long, contentious floor fight between competing factions with multiple candidates on multiple ballots.

None of it would have the legitimacy of the choice primary voters across the country.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1434 on: June 28, 2024, 12:11:12 PM »
I can't think of any more appropriate time to invoke the 25th Amendment.

We would get Kamala and then win by an even bigger margin in 11/24.

But for God's sake we effectively have no real President now.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1435 on: June 28, 2024, 12:14:43 PM »
one additional thought.

if we did not have this debate the demented guy would still be held up as a functioning leader by the entire LEFT wing.

Thank God we had this debate.....

PS I was wrong about the debate results - I thought it would be wash. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Noonan
« Reply #1436 on: June 28, 2024, 12:39:31 PM »
The Most Important Presidential Debate Ever
It was an unmitigated disaster for Biden and a rout for Trump. Democrats will have to face reality.
Peggy Noonan
June 28, 2024 12:37 am ET

In the weeks before CNN’s presidential debate I was skeptical of its significance. I didn’t see a dramatic, high-stakes, pivotal showdown coming, only a moderately sized, pro forma moment in a long, drawn-out campaign. The format had too many prohibitions—muted mics, no open discussion, no live audience, no opening statements, no talking to aides during the breaks, no notes on the lectern. This promised something airless, manufactured, hermetically sealed.

Beyond that I doubted we’d learn anything, because I doubted whether either candidate had the ability to expand on his known persona. Joe Biden has moments of blurted thought, but could he really sustain a thought or make an argument that coheres over two minutes? Could he suddenly show command, a true grasp of his own positions?

Could Donald Trump demonstrate that returning him to power wouldn’t be a wholly irresponsible act? Could he make any dent in the doubts, grounded in history, as to his nature and character? This wasn’t a question about whether he’s grown but about whether he can control himself.

Still, as a national event the early debate would function as the formal kickoff of the campaign, replacing Labor Day. And it would make clear how each candidate intends to present himself and his issues the next four months. So maybe it would be more consequential than I anticipated.

It was in fact as consequential as any presidential debate in history, and the worst night for an incumbent in history. It was a total and unmitigated disaster for Mr. Biden. It was a rout for Mr. Trump. It wasn’t the kind of rout that says: If the election were held tomorrow Donald Trump would win. It was the kind of rout that says: If the election were held tomorrow Donald Trump would win in a landslide.

It is impossible to believe that the Democrats will continue with Mr. Biden as their presidential standard-bearer. They are going to have to do what they fear to do: make themselves uncomfortable, reveal their internal splits and brokenness, and admit what the rest of the country can see and has long seen, that Mr. Biden can’t do the job. They have to stop being the victim of his vanity and poor judgment, and of his family’s need, and get themselves a new nominee.

From the moment he shuffled out with a soft and faltering gait, you could see how much he has declined. He was pale and waxy, and there was something almost furtive in his gaze. His voice was hoarse and feathery, with no projection. His answers were scrambled, halting. At some points he made no sense. At some points he seemed out of it.

Mr. Trump came across as calm, sure-voiced, focused. His demeanor wasn’t insane. He was low-key but high-energy. He obeyed the rules, amazingly, to his benefit. He showed respect for the moderators. If not quite genial he was collected, and he offered a new tack on why he’s running: He didn’t want to, but Mr. Biden, unfortunately, is such a disaster that Mr. Trump has to come back and save the country. “His policies are so bad . . . he will drive us into World War III.” World leaders neither respect nor fear him.

In the split screen, when not talking, Mr. Biden’s face seemed to freeze, sometimes in unfortunate loose-jawed expressions.

Mr. Trump was self-disciplined and knew his arguments. Won’t his proposed tariffs be inflationary? No, they’ll just spur dynamism and growth. He scored Mr. Biden on inflation, and the disastrously executed withdrawal from Afghanistan. He had the president on the defensive on abortion.

After Mr. Biden mumbled “We beat Medicare,” Mr. Trump said, “He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.”

Just before the half-hour mark, Mr. Trump unleashed an onslaught on illegal immigration and the border. It was pointed, tough and merciless. Mr. Biden had no answer. Or no answer you could follow. Instead he focused on a Trump aside. “Veterans are a hell of a lot better off” under him. “My son spent a year in Iraq.” His greatest hits. It seemed old and sad. Mr. Trump had just handed him his head on the border, and Mr. Biden had nothing to say.

“The whole world is blowing up because of him,” Mr. Trump said. Mr. Biden’s mumbled reply was neither memorable nor coherent.

READ MORE DECLARATIONS
The Purpose of Journalism Is to Get the StoryJune 20, 2024
The Dishonorable Attack on the AlitosJune 13, 2024
The moderators turned to Jan. 6. What do you say to voters who say you violated your constitutional oath on that day, and will do it again? Mr. Trump used his reply to tee off a long attack on Mr. Biden and how the world had deteriorated under him. He claimed that he only asked people to move forward “peacefully and patriotically” on that day, and then scored Nancy Pelosi for not accepting his help. “And she now admits she turned it down.”

Mr. Biden said Mr. Trump “encouraged those folks who went to Capitol Hill.” During the riot he sat back and watched it on television. Then Mr. Biden seemed to lose his focus—on what should have been his most powerful case against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump accused Democrats of allowing endless riots after George Floyd’s death and said the “unselect committee” on Jan. 6 operated dishonorably.

Mr. Biden often looked at Mr. Trump and seemed to think his facial expression at those moments was powerful. I don’t think Mr. Trump ever looked at Mr. Biden, only at the moderators. He did his own greatest hits: “My retribution is going to be success.” “His son is a felon.” “I did nothing wrong.”

Mr. Biden attempted to bait him with little effect. “Having sex with a porn star while your wife was pregnant.” “You have the morals of an alley cat.” Mr. Trump didn’t get rattled or angry but defended himself: “The public knows it’s a scam.”

He calmly claimed that he has always opposed political violence. A moderator asked if Mr. Trump accept the results of the election. Mr. Trump responded with his usual caveat: “If it’s fair and legal and a good election—absolutely.” “There’s nothing I’d rather do.”

Here, toward the end, Mr. Biden finally had a strong moment. “I doubt if you’ll accept [the November outcome] because you’re such a whiner.” “Something snapped in you” after losing in 2020.

All the fact-checkers will be out this weekend. Good, fine. Mr. Trump played fast and loose—we know this. But he’s the one who’ll have made sense to people. You could hear him and understand what he was saying. He seemed focused. He didn’t seem unstable. Again, he didn’t seem insane.

In pushing and agreeing to an early debate, Mr. Biden’s White House and campaign advisers took a big swing. They missed. Mr. Biden couldn’t execute their plan. The Democratic Party doesn’t know it, but it got a gift. The dam broke. There is still time, and Mr. Trump is still takable.

This can’t continue. I am sorry to say this harsh thing, but allowing him to go forward at this point looks like elder abuse.

At the very least you can be sure that Donald Trump will never bother to debate Joe Biden again. He doesn’t have to. He’ll be only too happy to leave it exactly where it is.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: Peggy Noonan on the debate
« Reply #1437 on: June 28, 2024, 03:28:10 PM »
Wow.
------------------

Another angle on this, we watched Fetterman debate (2022).  Biden was coherent and articulate compared to Fetterman then, and Fetterman won.

Later on, Fetterman got better and Joe won't.  Fetterman's race was for US Senate, not leader of the free world.  But still...

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1438 on: June 28, 2024, 03:38:46 PM »
I can't think of any more appropriate time to invoke the 25th Amendment.

We would get Kamala and then win by an even bigger margin in 11/24.

But for God's sake we effectively have no real President now.


I think it's Democrats who do this.  What we do is 'get the popcorn', this is a spectator sport.  (I mean keep pushing the message forward.)

Don't underestimate the Dem machine ability to get through this, but they've got a lot of strikes against them.

I did not see this coming.  Even when I saw him freeze up.  But Noonan and others said it, you cannot undo what happened.  You can't really argue everything went fine when you're own side says you blew it; you're finished.

Story today:  "Biden vows after debate debacle to fight on: 'When you get knocked down, you get back up'

I never heard a Presidential candidate since Rick Perry admit he lost.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2024, 03:43:06 PM by DougMacG »




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
If not Joe, then who?
« Reply #1442 on: June 29, 2024, 05:36:05 AM »
If not Joe, then who?

Harris?  No way.

Big Mike?  Doesn't want it.

Newsom?  Has made cold calculation to wait four years.

Whitmer?  Most people will simply go "Who?"

Hillary?   If Joe is out, then this is my prediction.   She is known, got more votes than Trump, can present herself as rested and ready and SHE REALLY WANTS IT.   The various factions can come to consensus around her.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: 2024, new campaign slogan
« Reply #1443 on: June 29, 2024, 05:56:08 AM »
« Last Edit: June 29, 2024, 05:58:28 AM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
In case I am right about Hillary replacing Joe.
« Reply #1445 on: June 29, 2024, 07:36:42 AM »


HILLARY’S 'SERIOUS LACK OF COMPETENCE' COST LIVES AT BENGHAZI
But she is only the tip of the iceberg.
June 29, 2016  Robert Spencer

Former CIA officer D. W. Wilber noted in The Hill Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions leading up to the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya as a whole were “lunacy on a grand scale”: “Additional security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to the United States.” Hillary’s “trust in the various militia factions to set aside their longstanding differences and establish a governing body in the war torn country illustrates another amateur mistake.” But it wasn’t. It was a professional mistake.

In reality, Hillary’s actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.

This is the kind of disastrous miscalculation preached by establishment foreign policy wonks including the likes of the puerile and silly Will McCants (and the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution in general), Max Abrahms (and the Council on Foreign Relations in general), and a host of others that the State Department and other foreign policy entities hire by the pound.

The foreign policy establishment is a bipartisan creation, and both parties refuse to challenge its hegemony. The Republicans, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings showed Tuesday, continue instead to let Hillary and Obama off the hook, and don’t even come close to challenging the entrenched foreign policy bureaucracy. Breitbart News noted that the final report from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)’s committee refused “to blame President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as refus[ed] to say directly if Clinton lied to the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.”

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible.”

Bozell detailed the many failures of Gowdy’s inquiry: “The causes, events and circumstances regarding the attacks on the American personnel and facilities at Benghazi are still a mystery to the American people. Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer. Why did this administration deliberately lie about the video? No answer. Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the multiple failures of the military? Should the Secretary of State be held responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department decisions? Not according to this report. They wouldn’t even state that Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by committee members, prove she had! But they did blame a ‘rusty bureaucratic process.’”

That “rusty bureaucratic process” is a product of the foreign policy establishment that led us into this mess. Hillary Clinton is just their most prominent exponent — which does not in the least exonerate her. It’s just to say that not only does Hillary Clinton’s influence over the U.S. government in whatever capacity need to be decisively rejected; the whole foreign policy establishment needs to be swept out, cherished and unquestioned assumptions rejected, and the edifice remade by people who are more realistic and unafraid to base policy on unpleasant realities rather than upon politically correct wishful thinking.

Even worse, right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of those slain there recounted that Secretary of State Clinton spoke to him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.” And she did. The filmmaker, who went by several different names, had a record full of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on the Internet – which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious video to YouTube.
For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the U.S. for Obama’s war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the technicality of the probation violation (while thousands of more serious probation violators walked the streets), but for insulting Muhammad. His arrest was a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. He was nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

That, too, was a reflection of the foreign policy establishment’s determination to compel Americans to stop doing anything and everything that any Muslim might construe as offensive to Islam. Reflecting the establishment policy also were Hillary’s fatuous words:

“Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

In response to that, Donald Trump recently opined that Hillary was “in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”
Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?

Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.

The foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
transcript debate
« Reply #1446 on: June 29, 2024, 08:26:48 AM »
O'Reilly
states his inside contact behind the debate scene says Tapper and Bash were both ordered to not be ideological in their questions by head of CNN

yet he also noted the questions asked were more frequently LEFT wing topics and most people would not notice there were more close ups of Trumps face vs Biden's.

here is the transcript  but I have not assessed the questions with regards to this claim yet it did seem like we did hear a lot
Climate change
Abortion
Jan 6
accepting the outcome of the next election
NATO

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: 2024
« Reply #1447 on: June 29, 2024, 12:25:49 PM »
Nothing about $$$ from the Chinese or the Ukes.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
RumInt
« Reply #1448 on: June 29, 2024, 12:57:54 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18652
    • View Profile
Re: transcript debate
« Reply #1449 on: June 29, 2024, 01:51:50 PM »
"Tapper and Bash were both ordered to not be ideological in their questions by head of CNN"

  - I believe that.   They were WAY better than expected.  The format favored Trump.  As mentioned, they worked in their bias just through the topics.  Trump kept weaving back to his topics, making it look like they just didn't give him enough time to answer earlier.

The opioid addiction crisis brought him right back to Joe's open border.

The Left should recognize, an honest debate was not winnable. They are on the wrong side of a lost every issue.  Inflation, open border, peace through weakness, etc.

I like the way Trump diverted the climate question to ridding our air and water of real pollutants.  And the Paris Accords fell right into his wheelhouse, China was exempt from it.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2024, 06:20:26 PM by DougMacG »