USA 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Not sure how much USA cable news you watch (I watch at least 3/4 hours per day) but since CNN have changed top management (June 2023), they have been discussing Biden's gaffs for some time. I can't recall in the past the number of Republicans they have had on but in almost every segment they are interviewing one and I think unfairly almost always give them the last word.

MSNBC also mention but then follow up with his record so yes they have been soft pedaling.

It hasn't been since the debate, not sure how you have come up with this.

Calling it a scandal is a bit over the top I think when you consider FOX reporting.

"Discussing Biden's gaffes"?

No, I'm talking about his obvious mental decline bordering on dementia.

Side note - you watch 4 hours of US cable news per day? FMD.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Controlled Congress under Carter, Clinton and Obama.

They don't want to codify it. It's their biggest political wedge.
Fillibuster? Nostradamus, knew that there would be a Trump?

It was settled law until the SC was was stacked and if Trump wins, good-bye any decision that the 'right' don't like for the next 4/5 decades.
 
"Discussing Biden's gaffes"?

No, I'm talking about his obvious mental decline bordering on dementia.
Gaffs/mental decline call it as you wish, my point remains.


Side note - you watch 4 hours of US cable news per day? FMD.
I love it highly entertaining. Also I get to see the actual interviews and not edited highlights on social media.
 
"Discussing Biden's gaffes"?

No, I'm talking about his obvious mental decline bordering on dementia.

Side note - you watch 4 hours of US cable news per day? FMD.
I wouldn't last a minute with the waffle they dribble on.
 
Fillibuster? Nostradamus, knew that there would be a Trump?

It was settled law until the SC was was stacked and if Trump wins, good-bye any decision that the 'right' don't like for the next 4/5 decades.

It was actually central to Obama's election platform. He said it would be one of his first priorities. Then once elected, backed down, despite a supermajority.

"Wasn't expecting Trump". Well, that's why you act when you can.
 
It was actually central to Obama's election platform. He said it would be one of his first priority. Then once elected, backed down, despite a supermajority.
Which is why you always do things, politically, from a position of strength.
 
It was actually central to Obama's election platform. He said it would be one of his first priorities. Then once elected, backed down, despite a supermajority.

"Wasn't expecting Trump". Well, that's why you act when you can.
Yes he didn't go through with it but only had 60 seats in Senate for 4 months. Needed more for it to get past the fillibuster. Can't pass legislation without the Senate.

So no real Supermajority in both houses.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Who would you vote for?
An Inanimate C Rod.

homer simpson interview GIF
 
Project 2025 sounds a bit like what Dan Andrews govt did in Victoria just before covid.

Often referred to as ‘red wedding’

Opponents don’t call it out cos they’ve all done it to a lesser or larger extent, and will do in future.
Put it this way.

Humphrey in Yes Minister was able to ensure - most of the time - that the Prime Minister was guided towards doing something that was beneficial towards the public service, by presenting a series of options for him. His loyalty being towards the public service(1) and the British Empire (2). As such, he would frequently slow down, block, and make an obstacle of himself towards any policy he thought wasn't beneficial.

In Trump's last run, he kept running into public servants who steadfastly refused to do what he wanted them to do or told him he couldn't do certain things. Think of Mueller and the FBI, the inquests into collusion in 2016; he tried unsuccessfully to impede or prevent those from occurring, only to have public servants he couldn't fire or touch steadfastly do their job. In the final days of his term, he instituted Schedule F which reclassifies almost 80% of these public servants as political appointees; it meant he could dismiss them if they got in his way and he could employ someone who would play ball. It was one of the first things Biden got rid of, because you need that level of expertise within government; you need treasury to have mathematicians and economists used to dealing with government budgets, the DOJ to have experts in the law, law enforcement, constitutional law, the army to have experts in strategy (and so on) and these appointments cannot be purely made along partisan lines.

This is part of why Schedule F and Project 2025 is so terrifying. He didn't do as much damage as he could've last time because he was frequently stymied by that expertise who told him no. Next time, he can fire those people and replace them with Trump loyalists, as Project 2025 specifically discusses Schedule F and contains within it specific lists of people to be placed in specific positions to pull this off.

The next time he claims an election is rigged against him, he can do so knowing he has stacked the FEC with people loyal to him, and can order the army via people loyal to him, with the full knowledge that with the Supreme Court's most recent decision giving him complete immunity for any decision made within the auspices of the office of president. He could refuse to step down after his second term is up, because he categorises his opponent as an enemy of the state.

To state that this is akin to what Dan did in Victoria is... rather silly.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

USA 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top