2024 US Presidential Election

First topic message reminder :

Thought we should have a thread on it, as Ron DeSantis is expected to launch his campaign on Twitter this evening. He's trailing Trump by a big margin for the Republican nomination, around 37% behind in the polling average. But there's a lot of time for things to change and the oddsmakers only have DeSantis as a 2/1 outsider, against Trump's 2/5. Doesn't appear to be any other serious contenders for the Republican nomination at this point.

Biden is expected to run again and defend his crown, but his advancing age (he's into his 80s now) and low approval ratings means he may be vulnerable to a Democratic challenger. The most likely challenger seems to be Robert Kennedy Jr. who has already announced his candidacy and has polled as high as 21%, but that was still 49% behind Biden. As such, Biden's a 2/9 clear favourite to be the Democrat nominee in 2024, but if he drops out for whatever reason then the race is wide open.

Only 531 days until the election...

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Which would again go to show how low the USA has sunk. Odd though that their political opponents failed to bring them down. I guess Trump was the only one stupid enough to let it happen.

Political opponents? It's one big club and Trump ain't in it.

Oh I see. You think the Republicans don't actually want to bring down Biden (or Obama) and the Democrats did not want to bring down Bush (or Bush) because they're all in it together. Are they all lizard people, like the Royals?

Lizard people, that's a good one.

The Democrats and Bush, eh? In 2004 the two main Presidential candidates were both members of the same secret society at Yale. What are the chances of that?

I think we can agree Dubya is more of a criminal than Trump, right (even if not a convicted one)?

Duty281 wrote:I think we can agree Dubya is more of a criminal than Trump, right (even if not a convicted one)?

If you mean war crimes, then yes. But neither are anywhere near the scale of Netanyahu who has the support of both Biden and Trump.
I don't know much about W's pre-Presidential life, but I would imagine Trump is more of a criminal in that aspect, but in those days he got away with it because he was part of the financial elite rather than the political elite.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think we can agree Dubya is more of a criminal than Trump, right (even if not a convicted one)?

If you mean war crimes, then yes.

Absolutely. And yet Dubya's severe crimes against humanity will forever go unpunished in a court of law, while Trump's relatively minor issue of falsifying business records does get punished.

Is it better to punish one criminal or none?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is it better to punish one criminal or none?

Not all crimes are the same.

I'd let a thousand people go for falsifying business records if it meant prosecuting a war criminal like Bush.

That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Don't be silly. It's a perfectly logical premise that shoplifters should never be prosecuted because Jack the Ripper was never caught. Why can't you see that?

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

mountain man wrote:The judge has refused his appeal but apparently Trump can appeal that refusal.

The crazy thing is even if jailed he can still run and potentially win from prison.

Don't think he refused him leave to appeal the verdicts. He refused Trump's lead lawyers immediate request for acquittal on all charges due to his claim that Cohen perjured himself during the trial.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

I've offered 3 questions now, none of which you've answered.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

Who's the "they" that you refer to?

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Disagree. Why the assumption that all lawyers are bent, and are not just doing their job professionally? Why the assumption that had it been someone else, with the same records of their actions, professional lawyers wouldn't do their job properly?

What Trump (and Johnson here) have done is highlight how bad politics, and too many of those that are involved in it, has become. Much of our democracies are based on the presumption that people would behave 'honourably' when caught in an act. Trump and Johnson have just put two fingers up to that and basically told the public to **** off, and there's no documented regulation/law/whatever to fall back on and kick them out.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

I've offered 3 questions now, none of which you've answered.

I answered the first one. I thought the other two were self explanatory.

No, I wouldn't rather he got away with it. I would rather all people were prosecuted for all crimes. However, it's a joke to see a politically motivated attempt to go after Trump, when many previous US Presidents have done far worse things and got away with it.

Nice to see one that did - sure, I guess, but it's small potatoes, isn't it? Who cares about Trump's administrative records, when people like Dubya walk free?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

You want the Manhattan District attorney to go after Bush for war crimes?

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

You want the Manhattan District attorney to go after Bush for war crimes?

If he can tear himself away from Baptist Church, sure.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

I've offered 3 questions now, none of which you've answered.

I answered the first one. I thought the other two were self explanatory.

No, I wouldn't rather he got away with it. I would rather all people were prosecuted for all crimes. However, it's a joke to see a politically motivated attempt to go after Trump, when many previous US Presidents have done far worse things and got away with it.

Nice to see one that did - sure, I guess, but it's small potatoes, isn't it? Who cares about Trump's administrative records, when people like Dubya walk free?

It's unlikely that Bush could ever be prosecuted by the US Courts for crimes associated with the invasion of the Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress passed the necessary bills to facilitate the actions that the US took and therefore Bush didn't act ultra vires in ordering the invasions. It's also doubtful (although I can't say for certain without doing some research) that the US courts adopt the same principle of command responsibility (as has been adopted by the ICC and various historical international trials and tribunals) for crimes committed by subordinates (see the Celebici principle which arose from the Yugoslav tribunals). On that basis, I'm not sure under what jurisdiction and on what basis an appropriate prosecution against Bush could ever be brought by Congress or the Courts.

He could (and should) be prosecuted by the ICC (certainly for pursuing an unlawful war and possibly for the war crimes perpetrated by his subordinates in various prison camps), but given that the US doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, it would cause unholy hell if a case was ever brought against him.

Trump was prosecuted by a domestic court for a crime he has been found to have committed within the jurisdiction of that court.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Duty281 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:That's not a choice though, is it? The two cases are entirely unconnected.
Given that Trump clearly committed those crimes (unless you think the jury were rigged), would you rather he got away with it?
This is not some middle manager schmuck who cooked a book or two and couldn't afford a decent lawyer, this is a powerful member of the global elite with an army of lawyers, who decided he was above the law. Too few of those ever get caught, so it's nice to see that one did, isn't it?

Of course it's not a choice! But you offered the question.

They'll go after Trump for his relatively minor infraction. They won't go after Bush for war crimes.

I know what I'd rather see happen.

You want the Manhattan District attorney to go after Bush for war crimes?

If he can tear himself away from Baptist Church, sure.

I look forward to your analysis of how he could bring that case.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

If there hadn't been a politically motivated hunt then he would have got away with his crimes, which would be an even bigger joke.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

He's a crook, and has been proven to be one in this, and other cases. A genuine bottom-of-the-barrel scumbag. You can claim it's politically motivated (easy when one has no proof to that effect), but I might argue it bloody well should be politically motivated with this vindictive, sociopathic orange buffoon. I'd argue it's in America's interest to ensure this criminal doesn't re-enter the Whitehouse again. Whether you're Democrat, genuine Republican, or independent.

Why the assumption that all lawyers are bent, and are not just doing their job professionally? Why the assumption that had it been someone else, with the same records of their actions, professional lawyers wouldn't do their job properly?

Nope, I didn't say that.

I said and many others have said same that anyone else other than Trump this would not have even made news. Hence non event. I did not say a case would not be made against others or that lawyers etc were bent!

If you think for even a second I have any support or sympathy for Trump think again.

Also for clarity I said even the most ANTI - Trump would say the case was politically motivated. Obviously the pro Trump are saying it but so are his enemies(in private). Check out Americast on BBC and they have discussed this.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

If there hadn't been a politically motivated hunt then he would have got away with his crimes, which would be an even bigger joke.

And that brings up back to the original point.

Why do other criminals, like Dubya, get away with more severe infractions?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

He's a crook, and has been proven to be one in this, and other cases. A genuine bottom-of-the-barrel scumbag. You can claim it's politically motivated (easy when one has no proof to that effect), but I might argue it bloody well should be politically motivated with this vindictive, sociopathic orange buffoon. I'd argue it's in America's interest to ensure this criminal doesn't re-enter the Whitehouse again. Whether you're Democrat, genuine Republican, or independent.

Of course it's politically motivated! If Trump weren't running, or was getting battered in the polls, this nonsense wouldn't be bothered with.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

If there hadn't been a politically motivated hunt then he would have got away with his crimes, which would be an even bigger joke.

And that brings up back to the original point.

Why do other criminals, like Dubya, get away with more severe infractions?

Different courts and different jurisdictions, not a difficult concept to grasp.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

If there hadn't been a politically motivated hunt then he would have got away with his crimes, which would be an even bigger joke.

And that brings up back to the original point.

Why do other criminals, like Dubya, get away with more severe infractions?

Different courts and different jurisdictions, not a difficult concept to grasp.

But one to ignore if it suits his argument.

The case against George W Bush is an interesting one. Fact is he took US and UK to war on basis of a dossier which never existed(weapons of mass destruction which were never found).

Should he have been tried for that? Some say so. I honestly dont have the facts to hand or can be even bothered to look it all up but I can see point that's been made. On that basis Tony Blair equally as culpable.

However, it ain't happening now.

mountain man wrote:The case against George W Bush is an interesting one. Fact is he took US and UK to war on basis of a dossier which never existed(weapons of mass destruction which were never found).

Should he have been tried for that? Some say so. I honestly dont have the facts to hand or can be even bothered to look it all up but I can see point that's been made. On that basis Tony Blair equally as culpable.

However, it ain't happening now.

It's a nice club. Dubya's in it. Him admitting it was a bit sad, though.

"The decision of one man, to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of the Ukraine. Iraq too. Anyway..."

https://youtu.be/s1kwq52NKmo?si=cHpG3qO_T3g1aTA3&t=19

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:The case against George W Bush is an interesting one. Fact is he took US and UK to war on basis of a dossier which never existed(weapons of mass destruction which were never found).

Should he have been tried for that? Some say so. I honestly dont have the facts to hand or can be even bothered to look it all up but I can see point that's been made. On that basis Tony Blair equally as culpable.

However, it ain't happening now.

It's a nice club. Dubya's in it. Him admitting it was a bit sad, though.

"The decision of one man, to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of the Ukraine. Iraq too. Anyway..."

https://youtu.be/s1kwq52NKmo?si=cHpG3qO_T3g1aTA3&t=19

All very good, but has f*ck all to do with the proven criminality of Fat Joffrey.

Duty281 wrote:Why do other criminals, like Dubya, get away with more severe infractions?

Because life's not fair. But Trump's conviction makes it a little fairer for the rest of us who don't commit any crimes.

Trump now giving a rambling address about unfairness of it all. Quite why he persists on bad mouthing judge is remarkable seeing how he hasn't been sentenced yet. He's almost asking for jail time if I was the judge.

Apparently one of the defence witnesses was "literally crucified". I'd like to see the sketch artist's depiction of that!

mountain man wrote:The case against George W Bush is an interesting one. Fact is he took US and UK to war on basis of a dossier which never existed(weapons of mass destruction which were never found).

Should he have been tried for that? Some say so. I honestly dont have the facts to hand or can be even bothered to look it all up but I can see point that's been made. On that basis Tony Blair equally as culpable.

However, it ain't happening now.

It won't happen because of US and UK influence at the UN etc. That said, who knows? Maybe the South African case against Israel at the ICJ might stimulate someone to revisit the issue. I doubt it, though.

I'm not sure that US influence on the planet is as benign or altruistic as they'd have everyone believe.

mountain man wrote:Trump now giving a rambling address about unfairness of it all. Quite why he persists on bad mouthing judge is remarkable seeing how he hasn't been sentenced yet. He's almost asking for jail time if I was the judge.

A number of legal people have commented that, if nothing else, Trump's repeated flouting of the gag order during the trial is absolutely in-scope for consideration of sentence. Would be great if the judge feels vindictive, but think he'll err the other way because of the obvious way it'll be played by the MAGA loons and Trump himself.

Problem is Trump just galvanising his support with the conviction. Like he said previously, he could shoot someone and they'd still vote for him.

As an aside, is there problems with this site? Couldn't access for a while and now cannot get onto latest rugby thread.
I'm getting this :

"Error, during update topic during sync".

On the Premiership SF thread. I can access others so might be after I posted my last message there?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I think even the most anti Trump know it was politically motivated, general consensus I've read about it all is if it was anyone else it would be a non event.
However, fact is it happened. He was found guilty on all charges by jury of his peers not his political opponents etc so end of day he made a massive error and got found out and has paid the price.

However, as I said before I still find it hard to get my head around fact he could go to jail yet still be President. That really is nuts.

Exactly. Almost all American Presidents in recent history that preceded Trump are bigger crooks and bigger on the corruption scale, so who really cares about this?

Trump's been convicted though.

It's only not a 'non-event' because of who Trump is, the office he once held, and the first of its kind nature. If it was some CEO of a middling company who'd paid someone off and passed it off as a business expense to stand for Govenor somewhere, I'm sure it'd get a mention in the local news etc, but for about 24 hours, and certainly not on an international level.

Yes, but the 'first of its kind nature' is only because far bigger criminals than Trump have escaped justice.

It's a politically motivated hunt that will likely backfire.

He's a crook, and has been proven to be one in this, and other cases. A genuine bottom-of-the-barrel scumbag. You can claim it's politically motivated (easy when one has no proof to that effect), but I might argue it bloody well should be politically motivated with this vindictive, sociopathic orange buffoon. I'd argue it's in America's interest to ensure this criminal doesn't re-enter the Whitehouse again. Whether you're Democrat, genuine Republican, or independent.

Of course it's politically motivated! If Trump weren't running, or was getting battered in the polls, this nonsense wouldn't be bothered with.

If you say so. I'll come back to my point that I'd bloody well hope it was politically motivated in this case. Trump shouldn't be standing. He shouldn't have been confirmed for 2016. However, because he's an utter PoS with zero morals, he won't stand aside himself. Therefore, I'd absolutely argue that all legal means should be used to go after him.

You're undoubtedly correct re. other politicians, but I'm afraid that's not a sensible argument in suggesting Trump shouldn't be charged with anything.

I'm not arguing that Trump shouldn't be charged with anything.

Why shouldn't Trump be standing? He should be free to do so, and if people vote for him and he wins via the Electoral College, he should be the President.

Quick look at the state of the race. About 22 weeks left.

Arizona = Trump leads by 4.6% on 538 and 5.8% on RCP.
Georgia = Trump leads by 5.4% on 538 and 6% on RCP.
Michigan = Trump leads by 0.5% on 538 and tied on RCP.
Minnesota = Biden leads by 2.4% on 538 and 2.3% on RCP.
North Carolina = Trump leads by 6.1% on 538 and 7% on RCP.
Nevada = Trump leads by 5.8% on 538 and 7.2% on RCP.
Pennsylvania = Trump leads by 1.8% on 538 and 3.2% on RCP.
Wisconsin = Trump leads by 1.3% on 538 and 0.7% on RCP.

The states that Trump should be solidly winning, the likes of Texas/Florida/Ohio, are all recording big leads for him, so no problem for him in that department. Some issues for Biden, however, with Virginia recording a tie last week, and the most recent poll in Maine giving Trump a lead (Biden won it by 9% in 2020). But we'll still presume Biden keeps them blue and it's just a blip.

So Trump currently leading 268-226, with Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (worth 44 EC votes combined) too close to call. Biden would need all three to win 270-268. Trump just needs one. Trump has comfortable leads in four of the above states. Minnesota, which Biden won in 2020 by 7%, is a bit tighter than he'd like, but it's an OK lead.

Probably wondering if there is a precedent for someone trying to be President from Jail and there is.....America's greatest Union pioneer and lefty Eugene Debs pretty much the Leader of the Socialist movement was routinely in trouble generally for getting rowdy on Picket lines...blocking distribution etc...and enjoyed regular porridge at the turn of the 20th Century....

Ran for the Presidency pretty much from 1900 to 1920 think he got 7% and a million votes plus in 1912.........Good performance for sure..

But Eugene made the mistake of telling Americans to dodge the draft before the 1920 Election and fought it from a jail cell but still got around a million votes...

Funny thing was in that year Warren Harding one of the most corrupt Presidents in history who probably belonged in a cell won the election....(When asked by the GOP to name any indiscretions when being made Candidate it is alleged Harding said he would need 24 hours at least)..

Eugene Debs platform in 1920 was better wages...better worker conditions...Higher taxes for the rich and most importantly to pardon himself as soon as he won...



Can't see Trump running for President from Jail...

Duty281 wrote:...Why shouldn't Trump be standing? He should be free to do so, and if people vote for him and he wins via the Electoral College, he should be the President.

Umm, because he's not fit for the office and he's a proven crook. In addition, there's no sense (and never will be) that he's in any way a reformed character, who's learnt from his experiences. One might hope that an office such as the POTUS might be associated with a little more moral authority. Still...

The same's happened/happening here re. Johnson etc. Our systems are based on 'doing the right thing' w/o anything actually written down to account for people such as these scum. Trump's done untold damage to US politics w/ others (i.e. in the House and Senate) thinking that if it works for him, well....

A lot of commentators think and I agree with it that if Trump gets in he'll be looking to settle a few scores and be vindictive to those he thinks crossed him.
Hardly "presidential".

I agree, he's not fit for office. However, I'm not sure Biden is either physically or mentally but that's old news.

mountain man wrote:A lot of commentators think and I agree with it that if Trump gets in he'll be looking to settle a few scores and be vindictive to those he thinks crossed him.
Hardly "presidential".

I agree, he's not fit for office. However, I'm not sure Biden is either physically or mentally but that's old news.

All Presidents settle scores........JFK set the IRS on Nixon's elderly frail Mum.....Roosevelt had the secret service following Hoover about looking for crap on him because he hated him....

Nixon threatened LBJ who told him to bring it on.....Taft and Teddy Roosevelt tried to destroy eachother.....

Let's not be naive shall we..

Come on, Trump acts like a spoilt kid at best of time. If he gets back in he'll be unbearable.

Biden launching a new action at curbing crossings over the US/Mexico border, with numbers at very high levels under his Presidency.

Immigration is perhaps the second biggest issue at the election, so Biden's hand may have been somewhat forced, but this move is very likely to go down very badly with his, already cold, left-wing supporters.

mountain man wrote:Come on, Trump acts like a spoilt kid at best of time. If he gets back in he'll be unbearable.

No one is arguing with you there.

Duty281 wrote:Virginia poll - 42% Biden; 42% Trump.

Granted, it goes to a 2% lead for Biden when Kennedy is added, but Virginia is a solid blue state, like New Mexico and New Hampshire, that should be safe for Biden. If he's having to battle here, it's over. He won it by just over 10% in 2020.

Another poll out in Virginia...48% Biden; 48% Trump. Going to a 1% Biden lead when Kennedy is added.

A state Biden won by 54%-44% in 2020, and worth 13 EC votes, is currently a battleground. I'd like to see more polling from Maine, New Mexico and New Hampshire, because they should be in the same level of comfort for Biden, but if it's this tight in Virginia...who knows?

There was some better news for Biden in that the same polling company gave Trump just a 4% lead in Florida (7% when Kennedy is added), indicating that state isn't entirely out of reach for the Democrats. But only if they kick into gear.

US is in a right mess.....Biden looked dreadful at the D-Day celebrations.....Trump is a convicted felon (Though it's all political garbage).....

Both are nearly 80.....and it's ridiculous....

Biden should win but will he be the candidate ??......50/50 he makes it to November.

Pryor out of Brewster's millions would get my vote.

Reform is the big question at this Election........Part of me thinks they get squeezed at GE time and part of me thinks because of prompting in polls they are doing better than polls suggest....

Certainly when you get surveys and you have three main parties listed and then others lower down under others it can make a difference.....

Hard to know where Reform are....Tories nearly out to 5/1 in Clacton so good money to be made there if you think Reform are overstated.....Also Labour 7/4 in Islington and I expect them to win comfortably.....

Rotherham is interesting with no Tory candidate.......Labour v Reform and Tories+Reform vote on last time gives Reform a good majority.......Reform out at 4/1 or higher I believe which is maybe worth a shot.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

FiveThirtyEight have come out with their election forecast, with all the associated decimal points, percentages and state breakdowns. They are using a new methodology this year, as they note the polls in 2020 inflated Biden to a considerable degree (pretty obvious if you were paying attention to the early vote counts at the time), and they note that Trump is leading in most polls in the swing states, but claim the fundamentals favour Biden.

Hence, they are currently forecasting that Biden will win 529 times out of 1,000, with Trump winning 467 times and a tie coming in in four instances.

Of the swing states mentioned in previous posts, FiveThirtyEight are currently forecasting Trump wins in Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, with Biden winning in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Arizona is narrowly favoured for Trump, at 52%-48% on the forecast, but it's practically too close to call. If we give Trump Arizona, that makes it 270-268 on the EC for Biden. One side thing to note is Nebraska's second district, worth 1 EC vote, which is favoured to go to Biden, but it's not as secure as Minnesota. Imagine a 269-269 tie...

It's probably a big election for FiveThirtyEight, as well. They got numerous things wrong in 2016, and they virtually wrote off Trump's chances in 2020, when it was in fact a wafer-thin election.

But I do love their website and the data and graphs and numbers etc. so they still get a thumbs up from me.

In the case of Biden, would potential VP choice make any difference? Get the feeling Harris not considered much of a plus point this cycle, but not paid much attention to what she's been up to...

navyblueshorts wrote:In the case of Biden, would potential VP choice make any difference? Get the feeling Harris not considered much of a plus point this cycle, but not paid much attention to what she's been up to...

How about Caroline Kennedy?

She'd be a great back-up for Joe and he owes her some favours after what her family did for him. Maybe there's a gentleman's agreement already made, who knows?

Then it's just a simple matter of driving him down to his favourite fishing spot on the coast of Delaware... not Massachusetts again - that'd be too obvious (and preferably a place with no witnesses this time) and concocting another unfortunate incident about how after they crossed the bridge by the river.. Joe somehow managed to get out of the car and they last saw him wandering off towards the water... mumbling something "strong tides here".