United States US presidential election 2024

[mrttao]

Still doesn’t explain why he’s still in office then, much less “running for President” again.

Because his handlers who actually rule from the shadows think a senile old man is the perfect puppet

 

[DarthOne]

Because his handlers who actually rule from the shadows think a senile old man is the perfect puppet

Oh I know that. The question is, what excuse will they tell everyone else?

 

[Buba]

Oh I know that. The question is, what excuse will they tell everyone else?

We love Biden so much that we wish to put him in a Good Home.
Wouldn't you want that for your gramps?

 

[Terthna]

Oh I know that. The question is, what excuse will they tell everyone else?

Honestly, I think we may be reaching the point where they dispense with the excuses, and just resort to threats.

 

[Captain X]

The Colorado ballot case is not going well for Colorado.

 

[Jormungandr]

The Colorado ballot case is not going well for Colorado.

They're terrified because they know he'll win in a landslide.

The dishonest bastards are using every trick in the book, legal or otherwise, to stop him from running somehow. And it's all failing.

 

[Cherico]

They're terrified because they know he'll win in a landslide.

The dishonest bastards are using every trick in the book, legal or otherwise, to stop him from running somehow. And it's all failing.

my money is that their going to assasinate him.

And this will backfire because it will turn Trump into a marytr and a hero, in death he will become a ledgend which will inspire future populists.

 

[Jormungandr]

my money is that their going to assassinate him.

And this will backfire because it will turn Trump into a martyr and a hero, in death he will become a ledgend which will inspire future populists.

If they do go to that extreme, there is zero doubt in my mind that'd spark a massive civil conflict, possibly an outright Second Civil War.

But they're not that stupid as to create a martyr.

...Wait, it's the Left. Of course they would be that fucking stupid.

 

[Cherico]

If they do go to that extreme, there is zero doubt in my mind that'd spark a massive civil conflict, possibly an outright Second Civil War.

But they're not that stupid as to create a martyr.

...Wait, it's the Left. Of course they would be that fucking stupid.

Jor, their parents would know and understand why its a bad idea.

But these are the same boomers who lived their entire lives through a relative golden age, they litterally do not get this shit because their lives were on easy mode. Seriously try talking to a boomer about how difficult it is to get a job and watch their eyes glaze over.

The few members of the great generations they get it, silent gens they get it, Xers, Milliials zoomers they get it but Boomers don't and the ones running the show are determined to die in office. So their geratric on top of being out of touch with reality.

 

[Jormungandr]

Jor, their parents would know and understand why its a bad idea.

But these are the same boomers who lived their entire lives through a relative golden age, they litterally do not get this shit because their lives were on easy mode. Seriously try talking to a boomer about how difficult it is to get a job and watch their eyes glaze over.

The few members of the great generations they get it, silent gens they get it, Xers, Milliials zoomers they get it but Boomers don't and the ones running the show are determined to die in office. So their geratric on top of being out of touch with reality.

All I can say is "what a clusterfuck." sigh

 

[Buba]

The Colorado ballot case is not going well for Colorado.

Did not watch the whole video, but "the most trusted" made my blood boil ...
And the reaction at the beginning - "he so shallow, he no care about Supreme COurt but only himself". What surprising, shocking behaviour from an elected politician. Simply unheard off!

 

[Blasterbot]

Did not watch the whole video, but "the most trusted" made my blood boil ...
And the reaction at the beginning - "he so shallow, he no care about Supreme COurt but only himself". What surprising, shocking behaviour from an elected politician. Simply unheard off!

it might be a 9-0 or 8-1 looking at the line of questions. even KBJ was asking pointed questions relating to due process. while usually the 3-3-3 split is not great in this case the establishment guys get how bad an idea letting this through would be and are pushing for a unanimous slap down. if any individual justice goes against it they are gonna get flagged as very partisan. ruining the image of neutrality Roberts prefers to project.

 

[DarthOne]

Michigan Arab Democrats FORMALLY Announce BIDEN BOYCOTT

So much for that coalition of diversity.

 

[mrttao]

Michigan Arab Democrats FORMALLY Announce BIDEN BOYCOTT

So much for that coalition of diversity.

Eh, they brought the muslims over so they could genocide the christians, not for their vote.
The other foreigners are their vote mills

 

[DarthOne]

Eh, they brought the muslims over so they could genocide the christians, not for their vote.
The other foreigners are their vote mills

Which was dumb of them if they think the Muslims won’t turn on them afterwards. All the more reason to throw them out.

 

[Jormungandr]

Which was dumb of them if they think the Muslims won’t turn on them afterwards. All the more reason to throw them out.

Well, there was that town who welcomed Muslim "refugees", and when they became the majority and the regional government, basically banned Groomers United shit -- cue the "we were betrayed!" wails from the Alphabet Soup crowd, hah.

 

[DarthOne]

Well, there was that town who welcomed Muslim "refugees", and when they became the majority and the regional government, basically banned Groomers United shit -- cue the "we were betrayed!" wails from the Alphabet Soup crowd, hah.

It’s the ‘chickens for KFC’ thing. The level of detachment from reality is truly astonishing.

All the more reason we need to stop them and reverse course now before things get even worse.

 

[Jormungandr]

It’s the ‘chickens for KFC’ thing. The level of detachment from reality is truly astonishing.

All the more reason we need to stop them and reverse course now before things get even worse.

When Leftists meet reality, it's always funny.

When that Groomers United weirdo showed up at a pro-Palestine protest, waving a rainbow flag, and then learned the hard way that they viewed Alphabet Soupers as weird things to be destroyed was, frankly, darkly hilarious.

It's literally Chickens for KFC.

 

[DarthOne]

When Leftists meet reality, it's always funny.

When that Groomers United weirdo showed up at a pro-Palestine protest, waving a rainbow flag, and then learned the hard way that they viewed Alphabet Soupers as weird things to be destroyed was, frankly, darkly hilarious.

It's literally Chickens for KFC.

Yeah I heard about that one. Poor dumb bastard.

Chalk up another win for ‘meme magic is real’ too.

 

[DarthOne]

The Republican Plot Against Donald Trump

How Congress Is Pursuing Endless War in Ukraine—and Trying to Stop a Trump Election

The junior senator from Ohio, a rumored favorite for vice president, makes his case exclusively for The American Conservative.

www.theamericanconservative.com

The inside story of how Congress is pursuing endless war in Ukraine—and trying to stop a Trump election.

his weekend, Senate Democrats (joined by a few Republicans, including most Republican leadership) forced through a "security supplemental" that spends close to $100 billion, most of it on Ukraine. It was the culmination of months of secretive negotiations on border security. Those negotiations produced a border security product unacceptable to most Republicans, so then Republicans voted it down, and then an hour later we were debating a security supplemental with border security stripped out.

The quick pivot, refusal to negotiate another round on border security, and immediate shift to blame Trump confirmed one thing: Republican leadership wasn't serious about border security. They cared most about Ukraine funding and saw the border negotiations as a distraction. This extinguished any hope of real border security before the negotiation began.

The story our leadership tells is that the "politics of border security" had changed because of Donald Trump. James Lankford dutifully negotiated a bipartisan border product. Conservative Republicans encouraged this negotiation. When the product took shape, Donald Trump demanded conservatives walk. Trump argued that Joe Biden didn't need a border security package—which was true—so Republicans should ask simply that Joe Biden do his job. This intervention allegedly killed a great piece of border policy.

This is a fairytale that makes conservative senators and Donald Trump look bad, perhaps by design. In truth, the demands conservative senators made at the beginning of the negotiation went like this: Joe Biden can fix this problem, but he refuses, so we must make him do his job. This posture came along specific demands from senators ranging from Ukraine aid supporters like Marco Rubio to Ukraine aid skeptics like me, and those in the middle like Ron Johnson. We argued that we could condition further Ukraine aid on decreased illegal border crossings. In other words, Congress would appropriate money to Ukraine in stages: if Biden refused to drive down border crossings, he wouldn't get his money for Ukraine.

The deal, as envisioned by conservatives, was apparently never on the table. According to both Democratic colleagues and some Republicans, this is because Republican leadership—specifically Mitch McConnell—refused to push the Democrats on this issue. Other Republicans have argued instead that even if Mitch McConnell empowered Lankford to make this demand, Democrats would have never agreed.

Obviously, this latter view reflects more favorably on Mitch McConnell, but only by a little, because it suggests a massive asymmetry in negotiating leverage. If Democrats are desperate for Ukraine aid, and Republicans—at least the negotiating Republicans—are also desperate for Ukraine aid, border security would inevitably land on the chopping block.

Did Trump oppose a deal? He certainly opposed the deal that was on the table. It would have done little to secure the border in the future, would have been a massive political gift to the Democrats, and would constrain Trump's border enforcement if he was ever elected president. This last point deserves extra emphasis: these bipartisan deals always seem to contain provisions that would put the next president, whoever that is, in a box.

Given its substance, it is hardly surprising that he opposed the deal, but most Republicans opposed the deal well before he weighed in—publicly or privately. In fact, the only conversation I had with Donald Trump about the border deal was a day after the text came out, well after I had opposed the bill's headline provisions. "Why do you guys want to give these people such a gift? It's stupid." It was an accurate point, but it didn't change anyone's mind because most of us already agreed with the former president.

So the deal fell apart, and the way it fell apart was the height of political malpractice. The text—370 pages of it—dropped late Sunday, February 4. We had a Republican conference meeting on Monday, well before anyone had time to digest major provisions. McConnell left the meeting and praised the bill but criticized the changing political dynamics. He blamed Donald Trump. He blamed the House of Representatives.

It's hard to imagine a more damaging political message: Hey everyone, we've got great bipartisan policy, but we're going to kill it because the knuckle draggers don't like it. It was a gift to Democrats and everyone knew it. Senate candidates across the country, many of whom are allies of Mitch McConnell, called me to complain bitterly of the predicament created by leadership in Washington.

Normally, spending bills go through months of review, committee markups, and hours of debate. The text of the Ukraine supplemental was distributed to Hill staff on Wednesday, February 7, and the first procedural vote was taken less than a day later. On February 5, many senators had emphasized the importance of doing something on the border before action was taken on Ukraine. Two days later, at least some of them had decided that fighting for border security for an hour had checked the box, and they were ready to move on to their real priority: funding for Ukraine. The bill will pass, albeit by a tiny margin, with a majority of Republicans opposing the bait and switch.

This current episode is finished, at least in the senate, but there will be many reruns. The form of this debacle will replay itself, to the great detriment of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates. Three facts are important. First, voters range from ambivalent to outright hostile of further Ukraine aid. Second, a subset of Republican senators are obsessed with Ukraine aid, caring about this issue more than any other. Third, a majority of House Republicans oppose further Ukraine aid, and demand strong border security measures regardless of the details of a Ukraine package.

It's easy to sketch out how these facts will manifest themselves in our political reality. The senate Ukraine bill goes to the House, where leadership there cannot bring it up to the floor without endangering House Speaker Mike Johnson. So the House will either refuse to vote on the Ukraine bill, or will attach a strong border security bill (like HR2) and then send it back to the Senate. In public and private, Senate Republican leadership will undermine the House leadership and the Republican presidential nominee.

Democrats could try to force House leadership to bring up Ukraine aid with a discharge petition, an approach that would hand control of the House floor over to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with the aid of a few House Republicans. Speaker Johnson could fight this maneuver aggressively. If he does, he will be attacked by Senate Republican leaders, at least privately, and will face another negative news cycle. If he doesn't, his own conference will turn against him. The cycle will replay over the government funding deadline in March. It will replay over the omnibus debate that follows. It will replay any time the U.S. Congress must actually do something.

Whatever shape this takes, the basic game will be the same. The media, obsessed with any story that makes Trump look bad, will blame him and "MAGA Republicans" in the House. They will blame Trump for the chaos. They will blame Trump for "extremism." They will refuse to report on Biden's failings and instead focus on internal Republican division. They will point to Republican senators attacking Donald Trump and House Republicans, just as they have over the last week. Democrats will run advertisements: "See, even Mitch McConnell thinks Trump is being ridiculous." And they will rinse and repeat this narrative all the way to the November election.

This is how you save Joe Biden's presidency: By taking the chaos of Joe Biden's tenure and making it about Republican chaos being even worse. By taking the extremism of Democrats and making it all about the crazy right-wingers in the House and Mar-a-Lago.

To be clear, this doesn't assume malice. The Republican establishment of Washington is so obsessively committed to Ukraine that they will use every tool at their disposal to apply pressure to other Republicans to write that big Ukraine check. The problem is that every time they apply pressure, they create an opening for Democrats and the media to tank our nominee.

For months, I have been confident that Donald Trump would be reelected as president. But this is how you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Republican establishment is going to war for more Ukraine money. They don't care if a second Trump term is collateral damage.

But, of course, they have an insurance plan even if Trump pulls it off. Though few have noticed, buried in the bill's text is a kill switch for the next Trump presidency. The legislation explicitly requires funding for Ukraine well into the next presidential term. The Washington Post has already reported this provision was added to control Donald Trump.

It gets worse. Back in 2019, Democrats articulated a novel theory of impeachment, based on Trump's refusal to spend money from the USAI—Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Five years after impeaching Trump for refusing to spend money on Ukraine, they have drafted a new law that again requires Trump to spend money on Ukraine. If he negotiates an end to the war, as he has promised to do, they will undoubtedly argue that he has broken the law. We are nearly a year away from an election that could give Trump the presidency, and Ukraine-obsessive Republicans have already given the Democrats a predicate to impeach him.

Slava Ukraini, America be damned.

If the war stops, the trickle effect is massive. It's not just the 200BN to Ukraine, it's the other 100s of billions to these republicans donors, and mil contracts that just stop.