The 2024 US presidential election.

[GRALISTAIR]

Yet in neither instance did the NRA fans have their weapons, I presume because guns aren't allowed at Trump rallies? It kind of says it all really, Trump wants them all to have guns, expect for when he is about...

I don’t think it is Trump per se but the police, sheriff and Secret Service that don’t allow guns.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed it isn't, but only Americans can vote for their President. We (as in the rest of the world) will just have to watch and hope that they don't choose him.


Oh I'm sure he will do everything he can to turn the democratic system into something more akin to the Kim dynasty, after all he's already doing it with the GOP!


What was more baffling is that there were no "good guys with guns" save the secret service and police. Surely at a Trump rally everyone would be packing right? Just like the January 2021 storming of the Capitol, I mean if ever there was a 2nd Amendment moment it had to be that right? Yet in neither instance did the NRA fans have their weapons, I presume because guns aren't allowed at Trump rallies? It kind of says it all really, Trump wants them all to have guns, expect for when he is about...

I don’t think it is Trump per se but the police, sheriff and Secret Service that don’t allow guns.

I believe anyone attending the rally itself has to go through airport-style security so guns aren't allowed inside. The shooter was outside the perimeter. I assume also that anyone else outside was trying to get in so wouldn't be "carrying". This is just as well, because if people at the rally had been armed they would have ended up shooting at each other in total confusion, with a much higher casualty figure.

Having said all that, there is now a real risk that trigger happy militia types will turn up to "police" outside the perimeter of future rallies, having concluded that the real police and Secret Service aren't up to the job or have been nobbled by the Biden administration.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Having said all that, there is now a real risk that trigger happy militia types will turn up to "police" outside the perimeter of future rallies, having concluded that the real police and Secret Service aren't up to the job or have been nobbled by the Biden administration.

That is a great concern of mine too.

 

[Bantamzen]

I believe anyone attending the rally itself has to go through airport-style security so guns aren't allowed inside. The shooter was outside the perimeter. I assume also that anyone else outside was trying to get in so wouldn't be "carrying". This is just as well, because if people at the rally had been armed they would have ended up shooting at each other in total confusion, with a much higher casualty figure.

Having said all that, there is now a real risk that trigger happy militia types will turn up to "police" outside the perimeter of future rallies, having concluded that the real police and Secret Service aren't up to the job or have been nobbled by the Biden administration.

But isn't it ironic that Trump and co would be happy for guns to be everywhere, expect the places they show up to? Kind of tells you all you need to know about the Republicans right now.

 

[nw1]

And the US will not break up, but there will be strains.

I could see a contiguous "Eastern" group of blue or swing states stretching in a triangle from Minnesota down to Washington DC and up to New England, and a contiguous "Western" group of blue or swing states comprising the 5 Dem-leaning states of Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico and Colorado plus the swing state of Arizona.

One wonders whether after four more years of Trump, and perhaps Trump Jr then threatening to rule from 2028-36, such an idea may start to be increasingly appealing, and secession referenda in the "blue" blocs may have a chance of winning. And then, perhaps threats of secession alone (the red states on their own would probably be an economic basket case) could force the right to start listening to the liberal left in order to save the USA as a single country.

 

[dangie]

Trump had told a rally in Michigan that he "took a bullet for democracy"

Is there nothing he won’t stoop low enough to.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Trump had told a rally in Michigan that he "took a bullet for democracy"

Is there nothing he won’t stoop low enough to.

Not when beating Biden is top priority.

 

[edwin_m]

But isn't it ironic that Trump and co would be happy for guns to be everywhere, expect the places they show up to? Kind of tells you all you need to know about the Republicans right now.

Their policy appears to be to make sure the "good people" have guns too. Preferably bigger and better ones. I've already suggested how that might play out if something like this happened again.

 

[Busaholic]

Not when beating Biden is top priority.

All that talk a week ago of dialling back on the personal insults hardly lasted a couple of days, and motormouth is back to what he and his cult followers love and expect.

It's all down to the voters of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now - how they vote will decide who wins. The trouble is all Trump supporters will vote for their man, whereas not all Biden (or Democrat) supporters will vote now. 'Undecideds' in the polls are way below what they were in the UK, at around 5%.

 

[brad465]

All that talk a week ago of dialling back on the personal insults hardly lasted a couple of days, and motormouth is back to what he and his cult followers love and expect.

It's all down to the voters of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now - how they vote will decide who wins. The trouble is all Trump supporters will vote for their man, whereas not all Biden (or Democrat) supporters will vote now. 'Undecideds' in the polls are way below what they were in the UK, at around 5%.

Once the US has completely torn itself to shreds and trashed almost everything it holds dear, maybe then when they rebuild from scratch they will realise having a system where a few thousand voters living in a few small corners of the country holding more power than over 100 million other voters, is not how to run a country (among several other political system flaws). And I thought FPTP in the UK was bad.

 

[JamesT]

Once the US has completely torn itself to shreds and trashed almost everything it holds dear, maybe then when they rebuild from scratch they will realise having a system where a few thousand voters living in a few small corners of the country holding more power than over 100 million other voters, is not how to run a country (among several other political system flaws). And I thought FPTP in the UK was bad.

A pure popular vote would merely shift the focus to different areas of the country. Campaigning would just be in the big cities and the rest of the country would be ignored as irrelevant. Like many parts of the US Constitution, the Electoral College is a compromise to balance competing interests.

 

[Senex]

Their policy appears to be to make sure the "good people" have guns too. Preferably bigger and better ones. I've already suggested how that might play out if something like this happened again.

And defining "good people" as "our people" of course.

 

[brad465]

A pure popular vote would merely shift the focus to different areas of the country. Campaigning would just be in the big cities and the rest of the country would be ignored as irrelevant. Like many parts of the US Constitution, the Electoral College is a compromise to balance competing interests.

Oh of course no system is perfect, but what they have at the moment seems like the worst deal and very outdated. It's not the only problem though, another prominent example is how every state has 2 senators irrespective of population. I admit I don't know the best solution as a proportional vote for a country that size and only 100 elected officials in that chamber would be difficult to allocate, but the idea that Wyoming has 1 senator for every 290,000 residents, while California has 1 for every 19-20 million residents seems very unfair.

 

[Ediswan]

A pure popular vote would merely shift the focus to different areas of the country. Campaigning would just be in the big cities and the rest of the country would be ignored as irrelevant.

Isaac Asimov had some thoughts on this in 1955:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held.

(From what I recall, Multivac selects the most average person from the most average state to answer the questions, it is not a lottery.)

 

[JamesT]

Oh of course no system is perfect, but what they have at the moment seems like the worst deal and very outdated. It's not the only problem though, another prominent example is how every state has 2 senators irrespective of population. I admit I don't know the best solution as a proportional vote for a country that size and only 100 elected officials in that chamber would be difficult to allocate, but the idea that Wyoming has 1 senator for every 290,000 residents, while California has 1 for every 19-20 million residents seems very unfair.

The Senate counterbalances the House of Representatives, where they are apportioned by population. To take your examples, Wyoming has 1 representative and California has 52.
So any legislation effectively needs a majority of the population and a majority of states to pass. Making the Senate proportional would likely make it just a mirror of the HoR.
Note the complaints from the Scottish nationalists around Brexit which used a simple vote across the whole of the UK rather than something that counted votes within the countries of the UK.

 

[nw1]

It's all down to the voters of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now - how they vote will decide who wins. The trouble is all Trump supporters will vote for their man, whereas not all Biden (or Democrat) supporters will vote now. 'Undecideds' in the polls are way below what they were in the UK, at around 5%.

It's down to those three again - interesting.

I guess the others that might decide the result are Georgia, Arizona and Nevada which also seem to be swing states nowadays. Wonder how many of those six Trump has to win to be likely to win overall? (if we assume no other state changes hands).

What do people think about other recent Dem-trending states such as Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico? Are at they at risk of being Trumped too?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

All that talk a week ago of dialling back on the personal insults hardly lasted a couple of days, and motormouth is back to what he and his cult followers love and expect.

Your comment implies that bad rhetoric is one sided and coming from MAGA republicans only. This is just not true. Earlier attacks on conservative SCOTUS justices for examples by liberals etc and others. Rhetoric from BOTH sides needs to be toned down - and the media.

 

[Busaholic]

Your comment implies that bad rhetoric is one sided and coming from MAGA republicans only. This is just not true. Earlier attacks on conservative SCOTUS justices for examples by liberals etc and others. Rhetoric from BOTH sides needs to be toned down - and the media.

I was focussing on the two current presidential candidates and the supposed conversion of Trump to a more temperate campaign, which has been proven to have been self-serving garbage by the man's recent utterances, worse if anything than what went before. Even if Biden were to attempt to reply in kind, he was never capable of it before and, frankly. now it would be a gift from heaven for Trump, but he's used to those now!

I'm an optimist, so I still think this election has many twists and turns to come, maybe even more dramatic than last weekend's.

 

[DanNCL]

Biden has pulled out.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is that for real?

 

[Gloster]

Is that for real?

On BBC.

 

[DanNCL]

Is that for real?

Yes. Just seen it on the BBC News channel.

 

[simonw]

Is that for real?

Joe Biden withdraws from presidential race following debate debacle

The shock decision leaves the Democratic nomination wide open just four months before the November election

www.theguardian.com

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Jesus. All confirmed- wow. It is the right decision.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Jesus. All confirmed- wow. It is the right decision.

He will now remembered for all the great things he has done but who is best to take on Trump?

 

[simonw]

He will now remembered for all the great things he has done but who is best to take on Trump?

Well he's endorsed his vp

 

[GRALISTAIR]

He will now remembered for all the great things he has done but who is best to take on Trump?

As I have said before it can only be Kamala otherwise the optics are horrible

 

[Buzby]

Kamala hasn’t the heft to win this - there must be one Democrat who can step in?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Kamala hasn’t the heft to win this - there must be one Democrat who can step in?

I will say it again. Biden has endorsed her. The optics of overlooking a black female as a sitting VP endorsed by Joe will be absolutely horrible.

 

[birchesgreen]

Get the VP pick right and they are back in the game big time.