Opinion International Geopolitics

[Festerz]

The debates are almost meaningless, Trump voters will vote for Trump, anti-Trumpers will vote against him it's not going to matter. It's not like no one has had any exposure to these guys, they know everything about them. The Democrats have decided running a corpse against Trump makes no difference, voters have already made their minds up.

In the context of the polarised binary state of politics in the US in 2024 you are spot on.

But it's impt to bear in mind the US, unlike Australia, is a democracy where voting is voluntary, is held on a weekday, requires registration and often queuing in long lines during breaks in your working day for the privilege.

US voting history has shown that getting people out to vote, particularly those who already feel disenfranchised from the democratic process, is critical to swinging elections - especially for the Democratic Party.

Having two candidates who are not seen as being fit for presidential service (for character or competency reasons) will not encourage voter turnout and will have a detrimental effect on the legitimacy of the electoral process and the following four years. This is how the disastrous performance of Joe Biden in the first Presidential debate should be judged. I mean, the guy's electoral chances were effectively over within 10 minutes of the debate starting and we are more than four months from the election date.

For that reason it's essential that Biden be replaced as the Democratic candidate as quickly as possible. Not just for US citizens but for US trading and defence partners in the rest of the world, including Australia, whose economy and strategic global positioning are heavily reliant on competent US leadership.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

The debates are almost meaningless, Trump voters will vote for Trump, anti-Trumpers will vote against him it's not going to matter. It's not like no one has had any exposure to these guys, they know everything about them. The Democrats have decided running a corpse against Trump makes no difference, voters have already made their minds up.

The debate was simply a slanging match between an incoherent guy telling the truth and an inveterate liar, convicted felon and TV performer looking vaguely coherent.

There are 161 odd million registered voters in the US, not even a third of those watched the debate. And most that watched have already made up their minds.

What the Democrats need is another candidate like Bill Clinton from states they don't normally hold. When Clinton ran, they won states like Arkansas (Slick Willie's home), Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana. He didn't crack the red wall that runs down the spine but he won to the East. All those states voted red in 2020.

The republicans have a candidate most strongly associated with New York who will never win NY, so the Dems have a headstart there.

It's going to come down to a few battleground states again and it's basically a question of voting for or against hubris, sanity and morality. And only just, because Biden is hardly spotless, just Trump is worse and more publicised.

Not sure about this. Think it might have been eye opening for a lot of democrats, who previously assumed the clips of Biden showing his mental decline were right wing sources manipulating what they showed.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

If it was anyone else but Trump, it could have been disastrous. People will vote on the basis on Not Donald Trump. Biden can always be replaced later. Biden won the Democrat primaries, how will they look if they replace him?

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic about the acumen of voters and figure that their decisions will be made on decisions other than the actual minute by minute comparison between a walking corpse and a convicted felon, but rather what they think these two stand for, whatever that may be.

It's sad that this is the choice for the self-styled greatest nation on Earth.

 

[snozulu]

 

[Festerz]

We can all have a laugh at Trump and his acts of idiocy. But don't ever be fooled by the real threat he represents.

I personally think many Australians look at the USofA through rose coloured glasses. A view fashioned by US sitcoms and their once-in-a-lifetime family trips to California and Disneyland. A view of America that sees Trump and the racist, misogynist, xenophobic, second amendment extremist insurrectionism and conspiracy theory mongering that he represents as an outlier.

Students of American history post 1776 shows that this is not true (see: https://www.amazon.com.au/Forever-Wars-Americas-Unending-Conflict/dp/1399409301) It's just that the death of responsible journalism and its surpassing by social media platforming has allowed the likes of Donald Trump to channel the underlying right wing extremism that has always been there. Albeit it in a large minority of the total population - but able to exert a disproportionate influence on the shape of Washington politics due to quirks in the US electoral voting system.

Now more than ever, we (those who care about traditional democratic values) need someone with the persona, courage, values and (most importantly in the era of 24/7 media coverage and misinformation) stage presence to represent a viable alternative to Donald Trump and the extremist values he represents.

I just don't believe that the 81 year old Joe Biden is that person in 2024. And the fact that the Democrats imagined he was (and probably still do) suggests that maybe they ain't up to it either.

 

[sobrave]

We can all have a laugh at Trump and his acts of idiocy. But don't ever be fooled by the real threat he represents.

I personally think many Australians look at the USofA through rose coloured glasses. A view fashioned by US sitcoms and their once-in-a-lifetime family trips to California and Disneyland. A view of America that sees Trump and the racist, misogynist, xenophobic, second amendment extremist insurrectionism and conspiracy theory mongering that he represents as an outlier.

Students of American history post 1776 shows that this is not true (see: https://www.amazon.com.au/Forever-Wars-Americas-Unending-Conflict/dp/1399409301) It's just that the death of responsible journalism and its surpassing by social media platforming has allowed the likes of Donald Trump to channel the underlying right wing extremism that has always been there. Albeit it in a large minority of the total population - but able to exert a disproportionate influence on the shape of Washington politics due to quirks in the US electoral voting system.

Now more than ever, we (those who care about traditional democratic values) need someone with the persona, courage, values and (most importantly in the era of 24/7 media coverage and misinformation) stage presence to represent a viable alternative to Donald Trump and the extremist values he represents.

I just don't believe that the 81 year old Joe Biden is that person in 2024. And the fact that the Democrats imagined he was (and probably still do) suggests that maybe they ain't up to it either.

I don't think we're under any illusions about what a shitshow the US is

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Despite Joe Biden’s debate performance against Donald Trump being branded a disaster by many — new polling shows many voters will still likely to consider voting for the Democrats leader despite having fresh concerns over his mental fitness.

Ipsos polled about 5,000 likely voters in the days before the debate, and followed up with about half of them after it.

Despite President Biden’s poor performance, the polling shows he still has a decent shot at winning the election — as Trump failed to win over voters. Although voters agreed the debate was a disaster for President Biden, only a few in the poll said it would change their vote.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north...e/news-story/b6cd7dae02752365fe6bdbe0cce9db7d

 

[snozulu]

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

When the NY Times Editorial Board has a good cry for Joe to stand down, you know the left side of politics in USA is worried.

Opinion | To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race

The president’s inadequate performance in the debate made it clear he is not the man he was four years ago.

www.nytimes.com

By The Editorial Board
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in this November’s presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy.

Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy — an erratic and self-interested figure unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of elections. His supporters have described, publicly, a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system.

Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020. That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year.
At Thursday’s debate, the president needed to convince the American public that he was equal to the formidable demands of the office he is seeking to hold for another term. Voters, however, cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago.

The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.

Mr. Biden has been an admirable president. Under his leadership, the nation has prospered and begun to address a range of long-term challenges, and the wounds ripped open by Mr. Trump have begun to heal. But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.
As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.

If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.

Ending his candidacy would be against all of Mr. Biden’s personal and political instincts. He has picked himself up from tragedies and setbacks in the past and clearly believes he can do so again. Supporters of the president are already explaining away Thursday’s debate as one data point compared with three years of accomplishments. But the president’s performance cannot be written off as a bad night or blamed on a supposed cold, because it affirmed concerns that have been mounting for months or even years. Even when Mr. Biden tried to lay out his policy proposals, he stumbled. It cannot be outweighed by other public appearances because he has limited and carefully controlled his public appearances.

It should be remembered that Mr. Biden challenged Mr. Trump to this verbal duel. He set the rules, and he insisted on a date months earlier than any previous general election debate. He understood that he needed to address longstanding public concerns about his mental acuity and that he needed to do so as soon as possible.
The truth Mr. Biden needs to confront now is that he failed his own test.

In polls and interviews, voters say they are seeking fresh voices to take on Mr. Trump. And the consolation for Mr. Biden and his supporters is that there is still time to rally behind a different candidate. While Americans are conditioned to the long slog of multiyear presidential elections, in many democracies, campaigns are staged in the space of a few months.
It is a tragedy that Republicans themselves are not engaged in deeper soul-searching after Thursday’s debate. Mr. Trump’s own performance ought to be regarded as disqualifying. He lied brazenly and repeatedly about his own actions, his record as president and his opponent. He described plans that would harm the American economy, undermine civil liberties and fray America’s relationships with other nations. He refused to promise that he would accept defeat, returning instead to the kind of rhetoric that incited the Jan. 6 attack on Congress.

The Republican Party, however, has been co-opted by Mr. Trump’s ambitions. The burden rests on the Democratic Party to put the interests of the nation above the ambitions of a single man.

Democrats who have deferred to Mr. Biden must now find the courage to speak plain truths to the party’s leader. The confidants and aides who have encouraged the president’s candidacy and who sheltered him from unscripted appearances in public should recognize the damage to Mr. Biden’s standing and the unlikelihood that he can repair it.

Mr. Biden answered an urgent question on Thursday night. It was not the answer that he and his supporters were hoping for. But if the risk of a second Trump term is as great as he says it is — and we agree with him that the danger is enormous — then his dedication to this country leaves him and his party only one choice.

The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public: acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place to defeat Mr. Trump in November.

It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation — the cause that drew Mr. Biden to run for the presidency in 2019 — from the malign warping of Mr. Trump. And it is the best service that Mr. Biden can provide to a country that he has nobly served for so long.

 

[Festerz]

When the NY Times Editorial Board has a good cry for Joe to stand down,

Pretty balanced and accurate analysis of the current state of affairs in the US Presidential race imho.

The US Presidential contest has always been a binary contest. But sadly in a time where facts don’t seem to count, winning the personality battle becomes critical.

 

[TazD]

Time for Joe to do some "official" drone strikes on his political rivals

 

[PortWTF]

I don't know anything about American constitutional law, and it seems way out there that the Supreme Court could rule that a president has immunity from prosecution for official acts, despite there being nothing in the constitution that says so.

Wouldn't the solution simply be to create a new amendment to explicitly state that a president does not have immunity from prosecution?

 

[BornPort]

I don't know anything about American constitutional law, and it seems way out there that the Supreme Court could rule that a president has immunity from prosecution for official acts, despite there being nothing in the constitution that says so.

Wouldn't the solution simply be to create a new amendment to explicitly state that a president does not have immunity from prosecution?

It would never be ratified. You need a two-thirds majority in both houses and 3/4 of the states to agree.

 

[snozulu]

I don't know anything about American constitutional law, and it seems way out there that the Supreme Court could rule that a president has immunity from prosecution for official acts, despite there being nothing in the constitution that says so.

Wouldn't the solution simply be to create a new amendment to explicitly state that a president does not have immunity from prosecution?

He appointed 3 of those judges that voted it in too.

 

[Ford Fairlane]