|
|
Post by norflondon on Jul 18, 2024 23:00:23 GMT
I'd expect to see Harris take over as President very soon. Joe has insisted publicly that he will be the Democratic nominee and only God or a 'medical condition' would compel him to bow out...well now good chance he has the latter and if you believe in such things, God seems to be on the side of his opponent To give best chance of the win, Harris has to be an incumbent President. Harris needs to direct policy, even if only for threemonths, to be viable. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 18, 2024 23:14:28 GMT
Biden might be feeling conflict between his sense of duty and commitment, and his patriotism. It's tangentially related to the late Queen, who didn't ever consider abdication no matter her illnesses. It was a solid, stoic sense of carrying on which feeds their determination to see things through. Maybe the reality of the US under Trump is effecting his thought processes, a genuine living nightmare.
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 18, 2024 23:14:56 GMT
Indeed. She would also have the chance to appear as a major figure on the international stage ; e.g NATO gatherings, meeting world leaders etc. Whether justified or not, her status & profile will be raised as POTUS rather than VP.
|
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 18, 2024 23:45:08 GMT
Biden might be feeling conflict between his sense of duty and commitment, and his patriotism. It's tangentially related to the late Queen, who didn't ever consider abdication no matter her illnesses. It was a solid, stoic sense of carrying on which feeds their determination to see things through. Maybe the reality of the US under Trump is effecting his thought processes, a genuine living nightmare. President of the United States and Monarch of the United Kingdom are not comparable jobs in any way in terms of importance, stress, and many, many other things. |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 18, 2024 23:54:46 GMT
It's an utterly blind alley and extremely damaging. You talk of primogeniture and land ownership. But England too suffered the concentration of land with the Enclosure Act which had the effect of making a landless working class. Why would anyone want to work down a mine when they had land? Before the Enclosure Act someone could work for somebody else for, say, a few months - and then go back to the land if pay was cut or if other circumstances became too onerous. But not when your land had gone! Hence the Enclosure Act as employers gained the upper hand. You see in parts of the world still...or possibly did until recently...that capitalism is held back without an available and needy working class. It's to do with class, not race. Wealth. Your genes don't matter. My family has no land. But even if we wanted to, would it be wise to have a system in which all the wrongs of yesteryear were righted? Should English land be seized and shared out? The liberal way is the only way. We ensure that everyone has the chance to get on. That they have education. The same rights in law as everyone else. A safety net. We can't go revisiting injustices from hundreds or thousands of years ago. We have to go forward. CRT, of course, despises liberalism as its mortal enemy which it is What utter nonsense. Primogeniture was removed from the Irish landowners in Ireland but not the non Irish landowners in Ireland. The laws imposed were based on "race" and religion. In 1922 British Protestant landowners owned 97% of the arable land in Ireland. Nothing to do with the Agricultural Revolution which was based on Dutch methodology and introduced by returning Royalist exiles in the 17c Scotland differed as is shown in my local area as we still had slavery 
I was making the point that it's to do with class, not genes - and that, anyway, even with any injustice, how far back do you go? The sensible approach is the liberal approach... not some troglodytic warfare based on race and leading to civilisational collapse. |
|
|
|
Post by timmullen on Jul 19, 2024 1:54:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2024 2:27:55 GMT
I wonder if that's performative. Tester in Montana (first elected in 2006) has the hardest path to re-election of any Democratic Senator this year. IMO, disavowing Biden can't hurt. TL;DR - is this a somewhat cynical ploy from Senator Tester to help shore up cross-over support in his state (which he needs in spades to get over the line)? Tester winning would require split ticket voting the likes of we have not seen for a long time now. Trump is winning Big Sky Country by at least 15%. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 19, 2024 5:31:28 GMT
I'd love to see Tester lose, but I've been disappointed before.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibfc on Jul 19, 2024 5:41:59 GMT
I'd love to see Tester lose, but I've been disappointed before. It’s just irritating. Hopefully third time is the charm. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 19, 2024 5:57:17 GMT
The Trump speech looks and sounds like what future documentary makes might call our final warning from history.
I've read "The Handmaid's Tale". I know where this ends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
I'd love to see Tester lose, but I've been disappointed before. I think Tester has a slightly worse chance of getting re-elected than Allred has of winning Texas. He needs a herculean result to win MT with a Trump landslide there. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,733
|
Post by right on Jul 19, 2024 8:25:07 GMT
I’m beginning to wonder if Biden might not merely withdraw as candidate, but might actually resign as President straight away, in order to give Kamal Harris the advantage of being an incumbent President seeking re-election. Would that make it easier for her to win the election in November? This close I’d say no, there’s not really much she can do, especially as Congress is in its annual let’s spend weeks voting on Appropriations Bills that probably won’t pass until next year. The only things it might do is give her a greater public exposure (like Biden’s actually good TV address condemning the assassination attempt on Trump). The battle box |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 19, 2024 9:56:40 GMT
The Trump speech looks and sounds like what future documentary makes might call our final warning from history. I've read "The Handmaid's Tale". I know where this ends. Well done you. I found it unreadable tripe |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,838
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 19, 2024 11:23:41 GMT
But much of the Religious Right seem to regard it as an instruction manual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2024 11:38:22 GMT
Biden might be feeling conflict between his sense of duty and commitment, and his patriotism. It's tangentially related to the late Queen, who didn't ever consider abdication no matter her illnesses. It was a solid, stoic sense of carrying on which feeds their determination to see things through. Maybe the reality of the US under Trump is effecting his thought processes, a genuine living nightmare. President of the United States and Monarch of the United Kingdom are not comparable jobs in any way in terms of importance, stress, and many, many other things. Funny you mention monarchy on here. The under-discussed Project 2025 extols a unitary executive theory where the President would be more akin to Henry VIII. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 19, 2024 13:00:19 GMT
Its not "under discussed".
Its a group of weirdo LARPers who form the basis of a conspiracy theory that this is the secret agenda behind the next Republican administration. It'll be mostly similar to the last one.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,733
|
Post by right on Jul 19, 2024 14:44:11 GMT
Its not "under discussed". Its a group of weirdo LARPers who form the basis of a conspiracy theory that this is the secret agenda behind the next Republican administration. It'll be mostly similar to the last one. I wondered what all the fuss was about Agenda 2025. Went to YouTube, looked it up. First hit was Russell Brand. I thought a bit of conspiracy theory before actually getting an explanation would be good fun. But what I found, among all those annoying autodidact long words, clothes that are far too young for him and exaggerated hand gestures was a measured and reasonably detailed discussion of how American think tanks work, their competitive role in TRYING to set an incoming government's agenda and how this helps them with funding, a history of how they've done this and the friction laden relationship that they can have with presidential campaigns There was more graphics, unnecessary long words and urgency in delivery, but it was similar content to an American Politics seminar I knew his politics has become more heterodox but I didn't realise that beneath the aging student persona that Brand is capable of sensible and measured commentary. When did that happen? Last time I noticed him it was unreflective Marxist garbage. TLDR - Agenda 2025 isn't a Trump blueprint, it's just a buffet of policy ideas that these think tanks hope they can later show their donors that they are having an effect on a new regime's thinking if the regime coincides with their views. Heritage have been at that game since 1980. |
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 19, 2024 15:59:02 GMT
Its not "under discussed". Its a group of weirdo LARPers who form the basis of a conspiracy theory that this is the secret agenda behind the next Republican administration. It'll be mostly similar to the last one. I wondered what all the fuss was about Agenda 2025. Went to YouTube, looked it up. First hit was Russell Brand. I thought a bit of conspiracy theory before actually getting an explanation would be good fun. But what I found, among all those annoying autodidact long words, clothes that are far too young for him and exaggerated hand gestures was a measured and reasonably detailed discussion of how American think tanks work, their competitive role in TRYING to set an incoming government's agenda and how this helps them with funding, a history of how they've done this and the friction laden relationship that they can have with presidential campaigns There was more graphics, unnecessary long words and urgency in delivery, but it was similar content to an American Politics seminar I knew his politics has become more heterodox but I didn't realise that beneath the aging student persona that Brand is capable of sensible and measured commentary. When did that happen? Last time I noticed him it was unreflective Marxist garbage. TLDR - Agenda 2025 isn't a Trump blueprint, it's just a buffet of policy ideas that these think tanks hope they can later show their donors that they are having an effect on a new regime's thinking if the regime coincides with their views. Heritage have been at that game since 1980. Better to read the whole thing yourself and form your own opinions rather than watch Russell Brand’s interpretation on YouTube. Brand is literally at the RNC this week supporting Trump, so he’s hardly an unbiased source. static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 19, 2024 16:38:17 GMT
I wondered what all the fuss was about Agenda 2025. Went to YouTube, looked it up. First hit was Russell Brand. I thought a bit of conspiracy theory before actually getting an explanation would be good fun. But what I found, among all those annoying autodidact long words, clothes that are far too young for him and exaggerated hand gestures was a measured and reasonably detailed discussion of how American think tanks work, their competitive role in TRYING to set an incoming government's agenda and how this helps them with funding, a history of how they've done this and the friction laden relationship that they can have with presidential campaigns There was more graphics, unnecessary long words and urgency in delivery, but it was similar content to an American Politics seminar I knew his politics has become more heterodox but I didn't realise that beneath the aging student persona that Brand is capable of sensible and measured commentary. When did that happen? Last time I noticed him it was unreflective Marxist garbage. TLDR - Agenda 2025 isn't a Trump blueprint, it's just a buffet of policy ideas that these think tanks hope they can later show their donors that they are having an effect on a new regime's thinking if the regime coincides with their views. Heritage have been at that game since 1980. Better to read the whole thing yourself and form your own opinions rather than watch Russell Brand’s interpretation on YouTube. Brand is literally at the RNC this week supporting Trump, so he’s hardly an unbiased source. static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdfTL DR |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,733
|
Post by right on Jul 19, 2024 18:06:12 GMT
I wondered what all the fuss was about Agenda 2025. Went to YouTube, looked it up. First hit was Russell Brand. I thought a bit of conspiracy theory before actually getting an explanation would be good fun. But what I found, among all those annoying autodidact long words, clothes that are far too young for him and exaggerated hand gestures was a measured and reasonably detailed discussion of how American think tanks work, their competitive role in TRYING to set an incoming government's agenda and how this helps them with funding, a history of how they've done this and the friction laden relationship that they can have with presidential campaigns There was more graphics, unnecessary long words and urgency in delivery, but it was similar content to an American Politics seminar I knew his politics has become more heterodox but I didn't realise that beneath the aging student persona that Brand is capable of sensible and measured commentary. When did that happen? Last time I noticed him it was unreflective Marxist garbage. TLDR - Agenda 2025 isn't a Trump blueprint, it's just a buffet of policy ideas that these think tanks hope they can later show their donors that they are having an effect on a new regime's thinking if the regime coincides with their views. Heritage have been at that game since 1980. Better to read the whole thing yourself and form your own opinions rather than watch Russell Brand’s interpretation on YouTube. Brand is literally at the RNC this week supporting Trump, so he’s hardly an unbiased source. static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf It's a grab bag of policies that Trump may pick a couple from. Trump on many domestic areas is a centrist as has been shown by the Republican platform changes on abortion - throwing almost 50 years of pro life positioning aside (admittedly he seemed to want to go further).* And gay marriage. This grab bag is great to scare the kids with at bed time. * I'm both pro life and moderately anti Trump so although it's s clearly smart politics to occupy the center ground here, I don't approve of it |
|
