The 2024 US presidential election.

[DarloRich]

Its called taking responsibility, good leaders know when to do so. I realise this isn't a popular trait in an ever more cynical world where everybody believes their own hype, but if Biden wants to be the good guy then it's time to make his farewell speech.

That would be an even more solid yes. If he stands he will lose, it's as simple of that, his performance yesterday proved that the disastrous Trump debate wasn't an unlucky fluke. If he genuinely can't see that he's deluding himself. Not standing for re-election at all is preferable to standing and losing.

I don't disagree. Biden should stand aside. I said so after the debate. I simply say i can see why he might have to be winkled out. Not all of us are as self sacrificing as you.

 

[dangie]

People would think more of Biden if he stepped down. They would understand. Carrying on is a huge mistake. Of course the one person who would love Biden to carry on is Trump. In his eyes anything which makes him look better is a bonus, no matter how it comes.

 

[scarby]

The betting odds have altered dramatically.

A few weeks ago Trump and Biden were neck and neck, with Trump a fractional favourite - almost toss of a coin odds.

Biden has now shot out to 8-1, with Kamala Harris now second favourite at 4-1. Harris therefore of course is also now odds-on favourite to be the Democratic candidate (Newsom and Michelle Obama at around 10-1).

So either all the bookies have got it wrong or Biden has had it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

People would think more of Biden if he stepped down. They would understand. Carrying on is a huge mistake. Of course the one person who would love Biden to carry on is Trump. In his eyes anything which makes him look better is a bonus, no matter how it comes.

I totally agree.

 

[nw1]

"Hatred of Britain" wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I realise that but I just picked up on it as an aside. In the eyes of some on the right, dislike of the Johnson-Truss-Sunak regime of the past 5 years and/or dislike of Brexit equates to "hatred" of Britain. Something I've come across before.

 

[Busaholic]

The money pouring in previously has dried to a trickle, even for local state candidates. Please don't forget this man has his finger on the nuclear button (now, where did I last see that?). It's extremely unfunny. There is no shame in having dementia. It used to be the USSR that was ruled by the gerontocracy.

 

[Gloster]

The money pouring in previously has dried to a trickle, even for local state candidates. Please don't forget this man has his finger on the nuclear button (now, where did I last see that?). It's extremely unfunny. There is no shame in having dementia. It used to be the USSR that was ruled by the gerontocracy.

And there is also the worry that Trump may also be in the early stages of dementia. A wonderful choice between…and…

 

[nlogax]

That is not going to sit well with Mr and Ms Average, surely, even if he does try to bribe them with tax cuts. Surely Mr and Ms Average might be just a little concerned if their country's appalling public image under Trump might lead to economic side-effects as other countries start dealing with the USA with increased suspicion and an increasingly long bargepole.

That's a lot of faith in the word 'surely'. Based on what we've witnessed in recent years in American politics and the accompanying ebb and flow of political opinions across the US electorate, sorry to say I find it hard to share such faith.

 

[birchesgreen]

Americans don't really care what foreigners think of them, those that do will probably be Democrats anyway.

 

[TheSmiths82]

The money pouring in previously has dried to a trickle, even for local state candidates. Please don't forget this man has his finger on the nuclear button (now, where did I last see that?). It's extremely unfunny. There is no shame in having dementia. It used to be the USSR that was ruled by the gerontocracy.

I don't think it is dementia as such, some people just loose their cognitive ability when they get order. I would probably get mixed up if I was doing a speech in front of a load of cameras. I agree though that he really needs to stand down! It reminds me of an elderly relative that needs to stop driving but they still think they are a brilliant driver and they have just been very unlucky that people keep crashing into them.

 

[HullRailMan]

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: 11 Jul 2024 ==


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.

Hmm….Christian ‘morals’ has resulted in the persecution in law of homosexuals all around the world, and was used as an excuse to ostracise unmarried mothers, divorcees and many others. People’s individual belief in a fictional religion shouldn’t be anywhere near politics, and certainly shouldn’t be imposed on others through the political system.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Crazy thing is - in US politics Church and State are supposed to be separate. We all know that is BS.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't think it is dementia as such, some people just loose their cognitive ability when they get order. I would probably get mixed up if I was doing a speech in front of a load of cameras. I agree though that he really needs to stand down! It reminds me of an elderly relative that needs to stop driving but they still think they are a brilliant driver and they have just been very unlucky that people keep crashing into them.

I'm well aware on a personal level how one's short-term memory can play tricks at time, and I'm five years younger than Biden. Perhaps 'senility' is the word that fits the bill for the present. The point is, how he is now is as good as it's ever going to be for him, and in even three months time his condition will be noticeably worse.

 

[Purple Train]

Hmm….Christian ‘morals’ has resulted in the persecution in law of homosexuals all around the world, and was used as an excuse to ostracise unmarried mothers, divorcees and many others. People’s individual belief in a fictional religion shouldn’t be anywhere near politics, and certainly shouldn’t be imposed on others through the political system.

And atheistic "morals" resulted in the persecution of Catholic priests in Mexico, systematic discrimination against Christians in France, and widespread persecution of those of many faiths in, for instance, China and North Korea. Trying to link the views of certain people to their belief system, as if they are representative of that entire belief system, is a fallacy. Xi Jinping and Tomas Garrido Canabal are no more representative of atheists than Fred Phelps is of Christians.

Anyway, this is significantly off-topic so I shall leave it there.

The betting odds have altered dramatically.

A few weeks ago Trump and Biden were neck and neck, with Trump a fractional favourite - almost toss of a coin odds.

Biden has now shot out to 8-1, with Kamala Harris now second favourite at 4-1. Harris therefore of course is also now odds-on favourite to be the Democratic candidate (Newsom and Michelle Obama at around 10-1).

So either all the bookies have got it wrong or Biden has had it.

That's interesting, thank you. Personally, I'm extremely pessimistic regarding anything like a positive outcome: Biden is being far too stubborn for his own good, and any method to send him the American equivalent of Sir Graham Brady will likely be very ugly indeed, which plays right into Trump's hands.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem is the Dems do not have a credible nominee and have memed themselves into this corner by choosing a VP who is deeply unpleasant and unpopular.

I do think the Democrats ought to be asking themselves why as one of the major parties in a country of 300M people, and a party that has about 50 senators, about 200 members of the House of Representatives, and numerous elected Governors and members of state assemblies, they still have almost noone amongst those who could make a plausible and popular presidential candidate. That seems an awful failing.

They chose her as VP because she is a woman, and black. They can’t well overlook her as a successor.

If true, that would indicate a huge culture problem in the Democrats. If you select someone because of the colour of their skin and their gender instead of because of their abilities, then you probably shouldn't be surprised if that person turns out to be rubbish at their job.

 

[brad465]

Hmm….Christian ‘morals’ has resulted in the persecution in law of homosexuals all around the world, and was used as an excuse to ostracise unmarried mothers, divorcees and many others. People’s individual belief in a fictional religion shouldn’t be anywhere near politics, and certainly shouldn’t be imposed on others through the political system.

It's not about religion it's about power, land, resources, money, etc., regarding any conflict/persecution. Religion is almost always just the excuse to con victims into supporting the "cause".

I do think the Democrats ought to be asking themselves why as one of the major parties in a country of 300M people, and a party that has about 50 senators, about 200 members of the House of Representatives, and numerous elected Governors and members of state assemblies, they still have almost noone amongst those who could make a plausible and popular presidential candidate. That seems an awful failing.

I'd be asking all the donors why they backed Biden for so long instead of someone younger, likewise for Trump and all the other old people in Congress (which is a large majority). Of course this level of money/influence shouldn't exist at all in politics, but that's another debate entirely.

If true, that would indicate a huge culture problem in the Democrats. If you select someone because of the colour of their skin and their gender instead of because of their abilities, then you probably shouldn't be surprised if that person turns out to be rubbish at their job.

That probably was a motive, but I think there was also trying to keep Democrats from a different wing of the party to Biden onside, similar to how a UK Government Cabinet contains members who represent different party factions. AIUI Harris' main problem is she hasn't really been visible. Experience-wise she was a US Senator for 4 years and Attorney General in California for 6 years, which is comparable to Obama (who had 3 years in the US Senate and 7 years in the Illinois State Senate).

 

[nw1]

In terms of the reality of what a Trump presidency supported by a Republican Congress would bring, what does everyone think the consequences will be?

Internationally the possibility of "letting Putin have Ukraine" has already been mentioned as one of the darkest consequences.

But what about domestically? How much of a crackdown on the left, on liberals, and on civil rights could there be under the combination of a Trump presidency and Republican Congress with significant religious-right influence?

Could we see a complete, US-wide ban on abortion, for instance?

The raising of the homosexual age of consent to 21 or 25, or allowing red states to ban homosexuality altogether?

Severe anti-protest laws, allowing the authorities to implement politically-motivated bans of marches and protests?

Could we see an increased surveillance society in which, possibly in conjunction with certain "friends" of Trump (who shall remain nameless), people are blacklisted for posting anti-Trump or anti-Republican content online, which could then be freely sourced by employers should they desire?

In a very, very worst case scenario could the US move to being similar to Erdogan's Turkey in which people are actually arrested for anti-Government activity?

The last of those is a worst case scenario and unlikely to happen but I'm wondering just how much erosion of civil rights there will be under Trump.

 

[joieman]

The raising of the homosexual age of consent to 21 or 25, or allowing red states to ban homosexuality altogether?

I don't think banning homosexuality would be feasible because it would be impossible to police it if it happens in private.

 

[dgl]

I don't think banning homosexuality would be feasible because it would be impossible to police it if it happens in private.

And it's the people who oppose it so much are usually the ones who indulge in it privately! Would lead to a lot of blackmail me thinks.
Hopefully with a less favourable to Trump government in the UK some of Trumps madness could be watered down. Starmer certainly wouldn't roll over and beg for Trump like Boris, Liz or Rishi would.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In terms of the reality of what a Trump presidency supported by a Republican Congress would bring, what does everyone think the consequences will be?

Your list misses out the most obvious and in the long run, possible the most damaging likely consequence: The dismantling of environmental protections, along with the denial of science over climate change and the pursuit of burning more fossil fuels. Climate change and environmental destruction has to be the single most important danger facing humanity, and the impact of a Trump (or for that matter, any Republican presidency) on that is likely to be horrendous.

Internationally the possibility of "letting Putin have Ukraine" has already been mentioned as one of the darkest consequences.

I suspect the Ukraine situation won't be quite as bad as that because a lot of Republican lawmakers fully support Ukraine and some will vote with the Democrats to try to keep that support going, but yes it will be bad. And that's really just one aspect of a wider problem: Trump's support across the World for authoritarian dictatorships and his apparent distaste for democratic leaders. If climate change is the most serious issue pressing humanity, then the 2nd most serious is surely the spread of authoritarianism around the World.

But what about domestically? How much of a crackdown on the left, on liberals, and on civil rights could there be under the combination of a Trump presidency and Republican Congress with significant religious-right influence?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I don't think that's much of a danger. Free speech is very much embedded in the American psyche. Trump has an awful record for undermining election results and of spreading lies but I don't believe he has any history of interfering with free speech, so I can't see that kind of thing happening. Ditto the other suggestions you make along those lines. I think the real danger is that things like gerrymandering of elections and undermining election results becomes even more rife, to the point where the 2028 Presidential election effectively becomes rigged in the Republican's favour.

Could we see a complete, US-wide ban on abortion, for instance?

I think that would require a change to the constitution. Not gonna happen.

 

[brad465]

Support for Ukraine may not disappear overnight, and recently Trump seems to be softening his tone (he recently said Europe should be matching the US's contributions, rather than saying nothing should be going full stop).

If the current Gaza conflict is still ongoing however, I can see Trump giving Israel carte blanche in Gaza, to the point that all the "Genocide Joe" folk will be wishing Biden were still running things.

While Trump will no doubt try and undo climate change action, he probably won't be able to beat market forces entirely, and parts of the US have been advancing in green tech recently. Texas in particular is a red state that is accelerating in this area and is already the largest producer by numerical output, even though we think California is the leader in this area. We talk a lot about the tipping point in terms of when climate change is irreversible, but there is also a tipping point where renewable energy's dominance becomes unstoppable, which we may be reaching imminently.

 

[joieman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the United States is the laughing stock of the world.

Kremlin mocks Joe Biden after gaffe-strewn Nato speech

Joe Biden mixed up Volodymyr Zelensky with Vladimir Putin

www.gbnews.com

The Kremlin has mocked Joe Biden after the 46th President accidentally mixed up Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin.

Biden, 81, who is under growing pressure to stand aside ahead of November 5, provoked audible gasps at the Nato summit in Washington DC on Thursday.

The slip-up, which the US President later corrected, featured prominently on bulletins across Russia.

Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova published a sarcastic update in which she mocked previous claims about Russia influencing America’s democratic process.

She said: “It seems to me that the notorious ‘Russian interference in the American elections' cannot be hidden any longer - there is a pro-Russian candidate (Biden) who is controlled by the 'hand of the Kremlin’.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also addressed the gaffe, branding it an “internal US topic” while also warning that “disrespectful” comments about Putin as “unacceptable to us”.

He added: “For us this was unacceptable. Such behaviour does not make an American head of state look good.”

Biden had referred to his Russian counterpart as a “murderous man” as he reiterated Washington’s support for Kyiv.

He also appeared to confuse Republican rival Donald Trump with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Grand Old Party insiders believe Trump’s chances of returning to the White House have improved since Biden’s latest blunder.

A Republican strategist, who was previously critical of Trump’s chances, told GB News: “Trump, as it stands now, will beat Biden.

“Biden had yet another disastrous conference last night with Nato. It was awful.”

Trump also posted a series of updates on his social media platform Truth Social laying into his White House successor.

“Crooked Joe has a case of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the 45th President wrote.

Despite calls for the 46th President to step aside, Biden defiantly reassured Democrats he would take on Trump later this year.

In a letter to Democratic figures in Washington, the 81-year-old wrote: “I want you to know that despite all the speculation in the press and elsewhere, I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump.”

Biden added: “I can respond to all this by saying clearly and unequivocally: I wouldn't be running again if I did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.”

Biden separately claimed losing is “not an option” and stressed he is getting “frustrated by elites” in the Democratic Paty calling for him to quit.

Despite the public turning towards Trump during the heated exchange, opinion polls suggest Biden remains better placed than Harris to take on the ex-President.

JL Partners revealed 47 per cent of voters currently support Trump, with just 42 per cent backing Biden.

However, Trump's vote share increases to 49 per cent against Harris, with the Vice President slumping to as low as 38 per cent.

Dropping out of the 2024 race at this stage would see Biden become the first Commander-in-Chief since Lyndon B Johnson to not seek re-election.

Of course the Russians would have something to say about Joe Biden's flagrant senility. Now the Russians are joking that Biden is the president they handpicked!

 

[Jozhua]

As much as the memes have been entertaining, project 2025 is genuinely scary and I think 2028 will be some of the least free/fair US elections for potentially over 100 years.

If Trump wins, I think Ukraine and Georgia will likely no longer exist, and neither will Taiwan.

Europe and the UK may find themselves recieving more investment, at the expense of reduced US demand for goods and services.

There’s a lot of risks involved with whatever choice they take at this point, but the greatest risk is definitely keeping Biden in place and watching him race towards the inevitable cliff edge. I’ve got a feeling that we’ll see some proper movement over the next week now though hopefully.

A good way of selling him stepping down is surely to point out to the American electorate that the Dems are still able to take a decision like this when they have someone unsuitable in charge, rather than the complete cowardice of many Republicans who despise Trump but are too scared to speak out?

I couldn't agree more.

In fact, the gaslighting pro Biden Dems have been doing about his health I think will cause significant damage too. To think voters will buy the message he is fit to run for another five years, is offensive to people's intelligence.

 

[brad465]

As much as the memes have been entertaining, project 2025 is genuinely scary and I think 2028 will be some of the least free/fair US elections for potentially over 100 years.

If Trump wins, I think Ukraine and Georgia will likely no longer exist, and neither will Taiwan.

Europe and the UK may find themselves receiving more investment, at the expense of reduced US demand for goods and services.

I suspect Trump won't let them all go to the wall, as he will want an external enemy to distract from domestic problems, not least all the freedom removals under that project agenda. If I had to take a punt Taiwan is the one he'd be least likely to allow to be lost, given his anti-China rhetoric is well known and their chip sector is vital to the US and world economies, but he is of course very unpredictable.

However one thing you missed is the Israel-Gaza situation, where I can see him allowing Israel to go all out in this conflict, to the point all the pro-Palestine protesters might wish it was still "Genocide Joe" running things. The risk here though is if Israel does this, an all out Middle East Conflict would be more likely, as Iran amongst others would not stand for this, which would send oil prices through the roof and make US (and global) inflation even worse.

 

[simonw]

I don't think banning homosexuality would be feasible because it would be impossible to police it if it happens in private.

Homosexuality was a criminal act until 1967 in this country, it was only in 2003 that all same sex activity was fully decriminalize in the us. It remains a criminal activity in a number of countries.

 

[Busaholic]

Might Michelle Obama be prepared to don the mantle of Democratic nominee for President if offered very shortly? Her chances of success with the voters must be pretty good.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the United States is the laughing stock of the world.

Kremlin mocks Joe Biden after gaffe-strewn Nato speech

Joe Biden mixed up Volodymyr Zelensky with Vladimir Putin

www.gbnews.com

Of course the Russians would have something to say about Joe Biden's flagrant senility. Now the Russians are joking that Biden is the president they handpicked!

The USSR had their fair share of senile General Secretaries of the Communist Party

 

[joieman]

The USSR had their fair share of senile General Secretaries of the Communist Party

Yes, the Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko gerontocracy. Gorbachev was the only Soviet leader actually born in the USSR rather than one of its predecessors!

 

[EZJ]

Shots allegedly fired at Trump at a rally in the U.S. Dragged off the stage by his security.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2024 ==

If this turns out to be the case I'm utterly appalled that the U.S election has taken this turn. I don't care what you think about a person's politics but this is unbelievable. I fear for the U.S if this is what it's come to.

 

[Busaholic]

Shots allegedly fired at Trump at a rally in the U.S. Dragged off the stage by his security.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2024 ==

If this turns out to be the case I'm utterly appalled that the U.S election has taken this turn. I don't care what you think about a person's politics but this is unbelievable. I fear for the U.S if this is what it's come to.

I posted a while back that, by all appearances, it seemed very possible that a shooter could get near enough to aim at Trump.