But even if it had one, that wouldn't work in the USA, given the separation of powers between the three branches of government with the president having a separate mandate from members of the legislature. There would need to be some sort of party organisation at national level that could perform the function of the 1922 committee and tell an incumbent (or aspiring) president that they no longer had party support and had to go. But even then, you'd rely on the president/candidate's decency, which clearly doesn't work in the case of an old man determined to stay on or a slightly less old man who thinks that no rules or standards apply to him.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The 2024 US presidential election.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
All the worlds' eyes will be on Biden at the NATO summit and of course with his meeting with Sir Keir.
I strongly feel if he makes gaffes and mumbles there will be even louder calls that he should be 25thd.
In my opinion it is really sad watching his decline.
I strongly feel if he makes gaffes and mumbles there will be even louder calls that he should be 25thd.
In my opinion it is really sad watching his decline.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Yes, I'm beginning to think they would have to invoke the 25th unless he chooses to stand down as a candidate. That would mean he didn't even finish his first term (as it's applicable to presidents not candidates) and I think would be much more damaging than having him agree to go.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
The cleanest way I think would be for him to announce he will not stand in November and release his delegates to his VP Kamala Harris at the DNC.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Either that or open it to all comers and give the delegates a free vote at the Convention. Both are risky, but so is letting Biden continue.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Could she? She seems to have had very little publicity, opinion polls indicate she's not especially popular, and she doesn't seem that well tested in national campaigning politics.
DM352
Member
And I am no expert but read somewhere they get to keep the fundraising dollars with a switch to Harris or for different, Bidens campaign money has to be returned to doners. Happy to be corrected.
I sense he may step down after the conference this week has concluded. Will be sad if it happens as he is a decent human being in my opinion.
Of course she could, frankly a bag of dead badgers could run rings around Trump. Give her 1 hour debating with him and she would leave him having another of his famous Trump tantrums.
Kamala Harris is extremely unpopular, yes. She’d lose to Trump.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Harris isn't popular with the right-wingers (for various reasons), she isn't that popular with left-wingers either and had been pretty anodyne as VP. It would be a very... courageous decision to make her the candidate.
But Trump is such an unhinged, reactionary extremist that just about anyone mentally up to the job could surely wipe the floor with him.
I find it incredibly hard to understand why any "middle American" would even contemplate voting for Trump. To me, he is an authoritarian, far-right extremist who has used hate speech against his opponents. He is a long way to the right of Farage and even further to the right of Le Pen or Meloni. He makes the European right look like reasonable people in comparison. He threatens to bring increased authoritarianism to America and instability to much of the world.
I just don't understand why anyone except the MAGA lot would even contemplate voting for that man.
Last edited:
birchesgreen
Established Member
Because they think he'll cut their tax. Voters over there are even more short-sighted than many are over here.
So if Reform had offered to cut tax (as well as keeping all the right-wing stuff), would Reform have won our election? And even Reform are more moderate than Trump.
Considering your most recent reply also: that says very, very bad things about America.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,962
At this point, it's become a religion for them. They've rejected candidates who could (and would) wipe the floor with Biden, and even a candidate like Bush would stand no chance against Trump.
The shocking thing for me is how many self-proclaimed religious people back Trump. These are the same people who study the Bible religiously, yet seem to have no problem with Trump.
birchesgreen
Established Member
A lot of people do vote on the promise of lower taxes, oh yes they also want better funded public services somehow.
Their brand of Christianity is somewhat unlike the average Church of England or Catholic congregation here.
Indeed. I suggest that so-called Christians who back Trump study the Bible a bit more closely.
(Disclaimer - I am not Christian myself though did have a Christian upbringing).
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,962
Yes, it's much more focused on taking the Bible literally, which is what makes it all so surprising. Then again, when you look at the Antichrist nature of some of their big "pastors", it's not really a surprise that they also love Trump.
I'm not religious, but I do genuinely believe that some of those "pastors" like Joel Osteen are the Antichrist themselves.
Purple Train
Established Member
The first thing to learn about American politics from a UK standpoint is that it is completely the opposite, in every conceivable way. Here, we generally have a relative social orthodoxy, and, therefore, the main difference between the parties is fiscal, hence why "left-wing" here refers to economic policies, and "right-wing" here refers to economic policies. In America, there is a relative* economic orthodoxy, and the main difference between the parties is social, hence why "left-wing" there refers to socially liberal policies, and "right-wing" there refers to socially conservative policies. Obviously this isn't the only way in which they differ, but it's a good indicator of just how different they are.
*I know the word "relative" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but, in its strictest sense, it's true: American economics are far more politically stable than the other side of the coin! Likewise, over here, there is a general consensus on lots of social issues which are very much hot potatoes in America. I've honed most of my political views from debating with Americans, and this does cause a lot of talking at cross-purposes. The American wing model does seem to be filtering into usage over here, which makes things even more confusing!
Absolutely. Unfortunately, the Evangelical (big E) lobby has spent so long in a position where they know they can throw their weight around that they forget that Jesus was a radical, that the "good Samaritan" was an oxymoron to his audience, that Jesus presents the Pharisees as a cautionary tale of how not to live one's faith. I would very much describe myself as an evangelical (albeit a C of E evangelical, which is very tame by American standards!) but the way the religious hierarchy in America conduct themselves, they are not the role models I want to have, either for myself or for young Christians in America, or, indeed, across the world. What also saddens me is that, given how vocal they are, they are the face of Christianity that lots of people see. They are not representative, just as the most politically vocal groups of the population are never representative of the actual population.
So would I, and I would particularly suggest that they read through the Gospels again, but often it isn't quite that clear-cut. Let me give you an example: one of the Americans I used to debate against, the kind of person who could throw out references off the top of their head (I struggle to remember which book particular verses come from sometimes!), and a person of very deep faith. While someone of a very small-state, low-tax persuasion, they hadn't got sucked in to Trump's cult of personality, and, as such, were usually the only person I could ever get some sense out of.
They were usually the only person who would ever admit that Trump could do something wrong - but still supports him, because, in their view, Trump's ethics and behaviour are the lesser of two evils compared to liberal abortion laws. Despite the fact that they are a Catholic and Biden is a Catholic, despite the comparative tightening of abortion laws that has happened in the past few years, despite Trump's slightly ambiguous past on that point - that's still the sticking point, and, from what I hear, it's like that for many like them. It goes back to what I was saying at the start of this post, that, in America, social policies matter more than the economy.
It's very hard for someone coming from a British viewpoint to get their head round - that kind of issue isn't really talked about in this country, isn't ever a major policy point. As someone who is pro-life, I don't like our current situation, but I accept that the laws themselves won't change, and that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I mentioned this to them, and they took a huge amount of persuasion that I was genuinely pro-life, because that sort of argument just doesn't hold water in America - the church isn't established, but, ironically, I think it holds much more power than it would do if it was (hence why I remain a proud proponent of antidisestablishmentarianism - sorry, I couldn't resist!); the established church here means it focuses on community - practical Christianity, if you will - than on national power, which I think explains why (rightly, in my view) Christians in Britain are generally far more relaxed about lobbying for specific laws, and focus on overarching political principles instead. A wider view, as it were.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to a difference in priorities, and one which is a fundamental breaking point for me. In my view, your faith can (possibly even should) influence your politics - but your politics should never influence your faith. Couple that mistake in certain high-profile evangelists with a church culture of following one's leader, and, in effect, a two-person political system, and I think that goes some way to explaining why America is so broken today.
Obviously, this is just personal experience, and I could be very wrong indeed! But I hope that answers your question, nw1 - it makes no sense at all, I know, to most people used to the British political system, but, equally, I don't think Britain makes much sense to Americans!
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Many (not all) Americans are incredibly badly informed. When I travelled round on Amtrak I found they were very happy to strike up a conversation but some spouted some seriously questionable beliefs about the world in general. That was 35 years ago but with the rise of questionable websites and increased polarisation in the media it's probably worse now.
There's also the "wild west" attitude of some, that the end justifies the means and people can do whatever is necessary to get their way. This also applies to gun use - look how many mainstream TV dramas resolve the plot by shooting the bad guy at the end.
The two combine to make an offer of simplistic solutions to complex problems attractive to many, and they are prepared to overlook the mainifest defects of the main they believe will deliver them.
They did (offer to increase tax thresholds) and they didn't (win).
Just as long as it isn't the Trump Bible.
joieman
Member
Those like Joel Osteen are actually the more liberal sort of Christians who often don't hold true to the fundamental Christian doctrines (the Virgin birth, the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc) or try to rationalise it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Quite agree with these points.
I would say, as a Christian myself, that it is faith (and hence the associated morals) that should influence politics rather than the other way about. This is why, for instance, the British slave trade was abolished: because good, God-fearing Christian men and women believed that slavery was sinful and sought to end it.
Last edited:
Purple Train
Established Member
Very true!
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
The upcoming press conference that Biden is holding (his first of the year) with no prior knowledge of the questions will be his undoing. After it, there won't be anyone with their own brain cells still intact who won't feel he must stand down, or be stood down. This has become Cruel and Unusual Punishment, even though self-inflicted.
I get the sense that you mean the Sir Humphrey Appleby definition of courageous there rather than the dictionary definition of it. I suppose another option is for her to be running-mate to someone else.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
That will not go down well. The optics would be appalling. A black female VP passed over for the presidential run by someone else (especially a white male!!). Harris will be the nominee if Biden drops out. Now in my opinion, if Biden were to resign in the next few days on ill health grounds and Harris becomes President , she will be able to run as the incumbent. Yes its a brave move but if Democrats want to win it would be not a bad move.
brad465
Veteran Member
Harris taking Biden's place as the candidate for the next election has the advantage that campaign funds raised so far would remain accessible. Were it anyone else the funds would either be lost completely or require a complex process to access. Her unpopularity might be mitigated if her VP pick in such a situation was more popular, potentially someone like Newsom or one of the touted swing state Democrat governors.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Exactly. I agree
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
It is not if but when now.
- Status