Biden Withdrawal Speculation Overshadows Trump Weirdness
I question the timing.
So, former President Donald Trump gave a bizarre, longwinded speech accepting his nomination as the Republican nominee for his old job last night. Here are this morning’s headlines:
- NYT, “People Close to Biden Say He Appears to Accept He May Have to Leave the Race“
- WaPo, “Pelosi has told House Democrats that Biden may soon be persuaded to exit race“
- AP, “Biden is isolated at home as Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats push for him to reconsider 2024 race“
- Axios, “Behind the Curtain: Top Dems now believe Biden will exit“
- NBC News, “‘We’re close to the end’: Biden world braces for the possibility that the president will step aside“
- Reuters, “Once defiant, Biden is now ‘soul searching’ about dropping out of race“
- NBC News, “Biden left feeling angry and betrayed by top Democratic leaders wavering on his campaign“
Retired national security scholar-turned-pundit Tom Nichols joked (I think) on Twitter yesterday that it would be a brilliant stroke for Biden to announce that he was dropping out just as Trump was starting his speech, just to take the attention away from his rival. While he didn’t do that, the effect of these leaks is essentially the same: this is what most folks talking about American politics will be talking about today.
As news stories go, this is certainly bigger. Hell, I’m in a hurry to get on the road this morning and I’m writing about it first. But, in this case, taking the spotlight off of Trump is not helpful to the cause of defeating Trump.
Some things just can not be helped. If Biden withdraws, it is important it happen as soon as possible, so there is urgency to the Biden story.
The reports I have seen of the Trump speech are that it was exactly what I expected, I can’t be the only one for whom that is non-news.
ETA: I could not watch the Trump speech, I go to bed too early so I can get my walking in before sun-up, the heat here in AZ (Phoenix suburbs) is just too stifling in sunshine.
@charontwo: It’ll be afternoon before I can write at length but gather from the Daily podcast that, for the first 15 minutes or so, he gave the unity speech from the teleprompter and then departed from the script and went on a stream of consciousness campaign rally rant for another 90 minutes. But, yeah, that won’t change anyone’s mind.
Between a VP-pick who’s more articulate and looks better on camera than Trump does (while saying the same things) and the Biden issue, Trump has made himself last week’s news. Vance will shift to attacking whoever replaces Biden and Trump will be reduced to saying “I agree”.
He’s never been ignored before – I really wonder how he’ll take it. I predict a certain amount of bewilderment followed. Wait until he finds out Vance’s rallies get more attendees and news coverage. Then we’ll have the GOP presidential nominee running against his VP-pick, and we really will have entered…The Twilight Zone…
This morning after interview with Frank Lutz on CNBC seems to be good. People saw the speech through what was already coloring their vision. No swing voters remain, it is all about getting people to vote what they’ve already decide.
He does lay out the dilemma for you Democrats with Kamala heir apparent if Old Joe is pulled at the very end. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The cliffhanger is whether Democrats will be able to reign in the “Orange Hitler” rhetoric at their convention or will they go right back to incitement to assassination. Could be wild if Democrats start running on policies instead of propaganda. We shall see.
@JKB:
I’m old enough to remember when we were regularly told by our fellow travellers on the right that violent rhetoric didn’t influence behavior. Now you seem to be indicating that people who were concerned about violent rhetoric were right all along.
Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the mounting evidence that like so many mass shooters (and past presidential assassins) it appears the shooter targeted Trump for the notoriety (and appears to have been researching shooting Biden as well). It continues to appear that opportunity (the proximity and staging of the event rather than ideology was a key factor).
See for more details: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/19/politics/trump-rally-shooter-searches/index.html
Of course, I also understand that you don’t trust any Federal Agencies or investigations. I look forward to hearing your outrage that a jury dared to fall into their wily traps and convicted poor Bob Menendez… another clear victim of the politicization of the DoJ.
@JKB:
No, we are not going to stop telling the truth about the perhaps irreparable damage this rapist, this fraud, this literal traitor, and his brainwashed culties will do to this country, and to the world.
When you decide to abase yourself and worship your NFT-peddling, golden-sneaker hawking, piece of garbage, you need to accept the fact that people are going to keep calling him what he is. What you know he is. What you want him to be.
You people will never be justified, you will never be forgiven, you will be despised through history as the nasty, hate-fueled fascist trash you are.
@JKB:
Your contention seems to be that criticism by Democrats propel die-hard gun-nut Republicans to try to assassinate their nominee.
1. Can you spell out that logic a bit more?
2. Just from a practicality standpoint, shouldn’t Democrats ramp up their criticism and see what Republican gun nuts do next to their leader?
(To be clear I don’t think there’s a direct connection between criticism and Republicans trying to assassinate their nominee, and I am not encouraging anyone–Independent, Democratic, or [statistically likely] Republican–to continue this violent behavior.)
CNN had a group of undecideds grade Trumps speech last night. Overall the grade was B/C with some limited explanation from each of the participants. What struck me was no one mentioned the lies that Trump was telling.
Now I may unique, but I am personally insulted when a person lies to me. I would give Trump an “F”, not based on presentation, not based on tenor, but based on content. Bald faced lies assumes that I am stupid – I am insulted by that.
James, it’s fixation on the Democratic side. The mission was to keep the Convicted Felon from the White House. For many now it is to get Biden to drop out. They are so convinced he can’t win, that they won’t lift a finger to attack the other side, until Biden is out of the race.
The next Fixation, should Biden withdraw, will be that Harris can’t possibly win.
@JKB:
There’s no evidence at all that anything any Democrat has said had anything to do with Crooks’ attempt on Trump. None.
At this point, any assertion to the contrary is a lie. Which isn’t surprising coming from you, a die-hard supporter of the least honest person to ever soil the office of the Presidency.
@Michael Reynolds:
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
@JKB:
This is a reference to Trump and MAGA sending a terrorist mob to the capital on Jan 6 screaming “Hang Mike Pence!” yes?
Perhaps that caused the Republican shooter to seek revenge on Trump this month.
@DK:
Don’t forget those 2 women who owed: “We’re going to find Pelosi and put a bullet through that bitch’s brain.”
Unless one is speaking of King Charles, this should be “rein in.”
@CSK: Not to mention rapist felon Trump, his family, and a bunch of medical Republicans cracking jokes when someone broke in Pelosi’s house and tried to kill her husband.
@Kathy:
It would be par the course for the “pro-democracy” party that wants to overturn 14 million primary votes because tight July polls** are now ominous holy writ set in gospel stone or something.
**Pay no attention to Trump polling worse in the summer of ’16, or Bill Clinton polling in third place in the summer of ’92.
A tweet:
https://x.com/ezraklein/status/1814045611072889273
If you scroll down the replies to this, you will see a lot of anger, a lot of jejune threats from supporters who are still dug in on riden’ with Biden.
It looks to me like this thing is past a tipping point. The sooner Biden withdraws (hoping he does withdraw, sees the writing on the wall), the more time Harris would have to vet and interview possible VP picks before the convention.
@Jsck:
I keep asking. Why are the only foreign leaders who support Trump, enemies of the United States?
Try answering that.
This is a fascinating blog. Commenters claiming to engage in reasoned debate making constant references to Trump as rapist, Hitler, dictator, etc etc.
often citing whack job man on the street comments as evidence it’s Republicans who are vitriolic.
Meanwhile,Dem Goldman or Lincoln Project head or various media and entertainment types talk of beheading, shooting or imprisoning the guy.
Do you guys know how juvenile you sound?
@charontwo:
I believe you’ve stated the case admirably.
I’ll just add that once the debate happened this was the nearly inevitable outcome. At the debate Biden wrote the story and it could not be hand-waved away. This mess is the fault of Biden’s staff who have clearly been covering for him, and Biden’s fault for failing to do what he said he’d do, be a transitional figure.
@charontwo: If Biden does decide to withdraw, the timing has an impact on what can be done with the money that has been raised. So, my .02 is that lawyers are heavily involved right now, trying to determine which path is likely to preserve funds for use.
In the WaPo today:
Emphasis mine.
For all of the folks who have been suggesting that legal challenges are hypothetical, the above should provide some insight into what Republicans are prepping for…which is pretty much what I predicted (because I used to work with and for these people and I know what the SOP is).
ETA: The issue with transferring the funds to the DNC or a super PAC is that it leaves the actual campaign (whomever it is) without cash on hand, unless he or she can raise multiple millions in a few days (which IS possible), it leaves things like payroll and vendors in the lurch. PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign. DNC help might be easier.
@Michael Reynolds:
You do realize that’s a really stupid question, right? Unsupportable, and just as a start: how dare he ask NATO members to pay up.
@Jack:
Meanwhile, gutless culties like you cannot explain why Vladimir Putin wants Trump to win.
The reason you cannot answer is because you know the answer proves your love of fascism and contempt for democracy.
@Jack:
Are you going to answer Michael‘s question?
@Michael Reynolds:
Woo .
Strong words, M Reynolds.
@CSK:
How about he, or you, prove the assertion?
@Jack:
Another evasion, another confession. Gutless.
It looks like complete disarray in the Dem party has caused frayed nerves.
It’s a self inflicted wound, people. Heal thyself.
@Michael Reynolds:
No. Prove your assertion. Or STFU
@Jack:
And another evasion from a weak little man.
The Democrats’ circular firing squad is doing a lot more damage to their nominee than the Republican’s lone wolf shooter did to theirs.
I am curious what everyone thinks.
Let’s assume Biden withdraws as nominee.
Should he also resign the Presidency immediately?
Should he do so at a later date?
Should he serve until the end of his term, whatever the result of the election?
@Jack: Do you have any answers to the questions Mr. Reynold’s asked?
To wit:
1) Why is it that the only world leaders who are friends of Trump are enemies of the United States?
2) Why is it that Vladimir Putin wants Trump to win?
@Jack:
Here you go. I can find a hundred more, but then you know that. You already know Russian media refers to Trump as, ‘our guy.’ Hop on YouTube and you can watch Russian mouthpieces saying it quite openly.
So, why don’t you grow a pair and try to answer a simple question without evasion.
@Jack: Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, and, in at least one case a judge ruled that he did sexually assault a woman. To Trump being called a rapist is probably a compliment. Also Trump said he wanted to be a dictator.
Maybe some of the other stuff is a bit of hyperbole, but we are talking about the guy who teased us that he had blockbuster evidence that Obama wasn’t born in the US because, well, he’s black.
@JKB:
Like when they suggested the “2nd amendment people” could maybe do something about it?
Oops, my mistake, that was Trump himself.
@Michael Reynolds:
You know you can get more logical sense out of your dogs than your trolls. I wonder why you keep trying.
@Kathy:
I’ve explained this before. People commenting are only a fraction of those who read the comments. IOW, the audience is not the troll, or the commentariat, but people who might see a lie silently received, as evidence of truth.
@Kurtz: I am assuming lawyers are gaming this out as we speak. A lot is going to depend on what the WH staff and campaign assess as possible risks–forcing Harris into the role quickly has plusses and minuses. There’s also the question of what happens to funds raised and the campaign structure.
Personally, I go back and forth…but if I were them…I would definitely want to talk to campaign and election law lawyers before making that decision.
@Jack:
And what’s wrong with making references to Trump’s own words and actions?
Trump himself said he’d be a “dictator” on the first day of his presidency.
Trump’s handpicked running mate JD Vance was among first to call him “America’s Hitler.” On social media, Trump has repeatedly amplified Nazi imagery and rhetoric.
Trump, who hung out with Jeff Epstein for nearly 20 years then praised Epstein for liking women “on the younger side,” bragged about grabbing the crotches of other men’s wives. His assault on E. Jean Caroll fit this pattern. A judge confirmed this assault was rape.
Hitleresque, crotchgrabbing rapist and *self-identified* aspiring dictator Trump is not a victim when people quote his own statements and behaviors, no matter how much his blind sheep fanboys whine.
I think the reason Putin and Kim prefer Trump is actually two-fold:
1) He (and now the entire Republican party) would like to reduce foreign intervention, which means dictators will be more free to do what they want.
2) He’s also just more easily duped. For someone who has a book about deal-making, he’s surprisingly incompetent about it, as North Korea and Iran are happy to know.
@Kurtz:
Here’s my take:
Acknowledging the viewpoint that while he may not be up for campaigning, that doesn’t mean he isn’t up for serving as President, I think things are the cleanest if Biden resigns both the candidacy and the Presidency. One reason for this is that it provides the best argument for VP Harris taking over Biden’s infrastructure and avoiding any quick-run primary (which I think will do far more harm than good). Plus, it feels like the best option from a Constitutional perspective.
I had not thought about the timing question. On quick reflection, given the underlying reasons for the transition, I don’t think it needs to be immediate. I can think of several good reasons for transitioning responsibilities over a period of a month or two. Alternatively, I think it’s important for Biden to stay on as an advisor to Harris for continuity’s sake.
The exact timeline for transition is a worthwhile question. I could see the most extreme version being Biden handing over power after Election day. That would allow Harris to focus solely on campaigning. That said, I will acknowledge that the optics are probably terrible.
@Jack:
I will let the others defend their own comments. But:
-one of the commenters who called Trump a rapist was one the commenters you namechecked yesterday as one of the regulars who makes, I believe you used the word coherent, posts. Sure, maybe it is not mutually exclusive to be juvenile (your word) and coherent, but it strikes me as a little odd.
I certainly agree with you about Jay, he is thoughtful, and a honest broker.
-Of course, yesterday, you also posted something that approached substance, at the request of @JLG. So maybe you were in a particularly (qualified) charitable mood, and willing to attempt genuine engagement.
But Jay also said something with which I agree:
-You come here and talk shit. Then you wonder why people talk shit in response.
If you want to, as you put it in your exchange with @JLG, “elevate this” you will likely get substantive responses.
But you typically run from substance. @MR asked you a question above. I asked you, in good faith, questions and offered to have a discussion. I engaged the the substance I could pull from your post. But it’s crickets.
That makes the shit talking you do, whether you have a point about commenters around here, overshadow the limited amount of engagement you have attempted.
Most of us, even some of the ones who you called “juvenile” will respond to substance with substance. You get what you give. Decide what you want.
@Jen:
What are the penalties? A fine to the campaign a year later?
And, so long as they don’t commit state crimes, there’s always the pardon.
I’m reminded of how Uber would move into markets with regulated taxi and livery industries, and just ignore the regulations and laws. Laws are for chumps.
@Jen:
Our current court system is so reasonable, what could possibly go wrong?
Legal challenges on a candidate’s eligibility and compliance up till election day (and beyond) should be fun.
@Gustopher:
Ah. So then laws are definitely for Democrats, not Republicans. SCOTUS and a few circuit courts probably agree.
@Kurtz:
I remain disappointed that Obama served out his term after losing.
The Trump campaign printed up countless invitations to the galas and balls celebrating the inauguration of the 45th President, and a short Biden Presidency then could have messed up all that printing. Would some staffer be tasked with drawing little lines making all those 45s into 46s? Would they reprint everything? Would they just go with what they had?
Sometimes it’s the little things that make all the difference.
Thank goodness some in our party still value democracy more than donors:
Good to hear some sanity. But I doubt it will matter. Other Democratic leaders now suddenly believe that running 2-4 points behind and within the margin-of-error in July polls with ~10% undecided is akin to immutable biblical prophecy — requiring panicked decisions, intraparty war, and drastic risks.
@Jack:
I’m on your side here. Trump was found liable for sexual assault, not rape. The cases accusing him of rape have either been withdrawn or never went to court. And Stormy Daniels claims have been in the “unwelcome but not rape” category — more of a muddled scenario where she felt pressured and just let it happen (not good, mind you, but probably not at the legal definition of rape)
“Sexual assaulter, lousy lay and alleged rapist Donald J. Trump” is a more accurate description.
@Matt Bernius:
I didn’t think to do this, but I should probably say that either Biden should stay on, or it should be Harris. I won’t add the stipulation to my original questions, because I would like to read the different perspectives, regardless of the scenario. I
IIRC it has been briefly discussed in threads here. But I don’t think it got too deep, because it did not seem likely that Biden would step aside. I think someone made the point that Biden should stay on as President to allow Harris to campaign full time.
I think a slow transition is better for a functional executive, and probably better as a part of her campaign pitch. She has kept a pretty low profile, so I think visibly taking over some duties could provide a boost to the campaign.
I also made the analogy of a rookie QB sitting behind a veteren bridge QB. We don’t see the backup working and learning much, but they are. I have to concede that I don’t always agree with that–counterfactuals are difficult–and think it is likely dependent on the makeup of the rookie. But it’s possible that this has been going on behind closed doors.
As of now, in the event Biden steps aside, preferably PDQ, I lean toward a two-ish month transition with Biden resigning toward the end of September.
I also suspect Obama would serve as an informal advisor in that scenario. I think he stated he planned to be mostly hands-off, but imagine he would make an exception in this high-stakes, unusual situation.
@Matt Bernius:
I me at to post about this, but it slipped my mind. I was talking to someone I’ve know for a long time. I like the dude. But, like several of my friends, he is a Republican. He said he heard something that was laughable on many levels. And he said it as if he believed it was a possibility. Knowing him, I’m pretty sure he considered it a possibility.
I have no idea where he picked up this rumor. But the scenario was that Biden would dump Harris for Barrack Obama. He said Michelle already said she wasn’t interested.
It was in the middle of a regular poker game, so I didn’t go for the–he’s not eligible. Besides, that appears to be an open legal question.
I suspect wherever he picked up that absurd possibility, they also made other claims. One of them was that the only reason Harris accepted the spot on the ticket was because she was going to lose her re-election to the Senate.
He argued with me about that. I visibly looked it up, even though I knew she wouldn’t have to defend her seat until 2022. He also claimed she barely won her election, which is also not true. I don’t know for sure, but I think he probably doesn’t realize that general elections for Senate in California typically pit two Dems against each other.
Anyway, I am amused by the discussion. I like the dude. He is my friend. But damn . . .
@Gustopher:
I see you are in ultra-Gustopher mode today.
@Gustopher:
You have a substantially higher impression of the general public’s…generosity in this regard than I, if you truly believe that a female, Black candidate’s campaign could deliberately violate the law and the resulting headlines would not have an impact on the election’s outcome.
Betamax was better than VHS.
But VHS won.
That’s gone too, now.
@Matt Bernius:
Indeed.
Where we are today… I believe a reelection of President Harris may be easier for America than electing candidate Harris.
@Gustopher: It is only not rape by the New York legal definition of rape which is restricted to penetration by penis. Many people regard penetration by finger, as in the E. Jean Carroll case, as rape.
It’s a matter of what your definition of rape is.
@Liberal Capitalist:
VHS could record longer from the start.
BTW, in the early days of VCR, we got a VHS player. The problem was that, for the first few years, most movies for sale and rent in Mexico were on Beta. We got a Beta VCR around the time this started to change.
Also, a lot of people thought VHS and VCR were the same thing.
@Gustopher:
But… no. It’s rape.
(Bold mine, source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ )
po-tay-to, po-tah-to… Trump rapist.
@Jack:
It is amazing that we have to parse the question of Trump as a rapist. He was clearly found to have committed sexual assault. He stated he grabs women by the genitals and kisses them without asking. His words.
And, there’s this: “Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll”
This is what you are defending, Jack. Own it.
@Kurtz:
Yeah, yeah, yeah
If I dismissed you, I apologize. I don’t keep a running scorecard of commenters.
M Reynolds, I thought, was a sane voice. Then he went berserk. If he wants to make the case for his assertion I think (to coin a phrase) he’s a big boy and can do it. But it’s pure BS for him (or you) to ask me to defend a position that is patently false, and just a figment of his imagination. He had to resort to gutless, instead of defend his assertion. Pretty weak stuff.
I’ve been listening to Russia, Russia, Russia, racist, dictator etc for years. But it was a Clinton dirty op. Twisted or selectively edited words.
Look at his first administration. Did he put Rachel Maddow in a concentration camp?
You guys need to look in the mirror and ask yourselves who the hell you really are. TDS’rs, or rational.
I just call balls and strikes.
@Jack: “I’ve been listening to Russia, Russia, Russia,”
For many years we had a troll around here who would spout racist gibberish, and when called on it would say something about being called a “raaaacist,” and apparently believe that he had completely inoculated himself by adding those extra vowels. In the same way, Trumpies like you — and Trump himself — think that merely saying “Russia” three times obliterates the documented evidence that Russia was indeed helping Trump.
Here’s a fun fact — it doesn’t. It just makes you look gullible.
@Jack:
There were a lot of sane, law respecting people in his first administration. It has been made abundantly clear that would not be the case in a second Trump administration, which will feature unprincipled opportunists of the extreme right.
@Jack:
Oh, ffs. Just in case you have no critical analysis skills:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=did+russia+influence+2016+election
Overwhelmingly, the documentation, senate inquiries and arrests and expulsions say yes.
Is it hard to live life with all that dirt in your ears from having your head stuck in the ground?
@Jack:
To your point, how many of his signature campaign promises at the time was he able to keep (also remember that for two years his party controlled the legislature)?
How much was he able to secure the border or “build the wall*”?
How did that Obamacare repeal go?
Also, it’s pretty clear that the Trump tariff plan helped create the inflation that Trump claims he’s solved… through more tariffs. I know you’re a champion of business, but I’d love any economic or business sources that think tariffs are anti-inflationary.
He did pass that tax cut, which increased the deficit. BTW, he’s promising to eliminate the deficit in the next four years. Any idea how he plans to do that?
Pretty much the biggest win that Republicans got out of the first Trump Presidency was (thanks in part to the hated by the base Mitch McConnel) three supreme court positions that significantly shifted the court to the right. Which admittedly is a big win, but would have happened with any other Republican in place.
* – I mean, one Covid-19 related success was the complete collapse of border crossings in 2020. So I guess that’s a win that you can claim, but it wasn’t based on a change to border or security policies.
@Liberal Capitalist:
You and Rachel Maddow.
Another zero heard from
Meanwhile, in the real world, HRC conducted a dirty op with Obama’s approval
And Hunters laptop is a Russian scam…..the CIA says so.
But my precious democracy…..
@Matt Bernius:
Black Sharpie.
@Matt Bernius:
The statistics are clear.
How were things in the US before Covid? Pretty damned good.
Now? The American electorate is not happy.
It is clear to me now how this blog works. Group think. Gang up on anyone who disagrees. Try to drive them out so you all can jerk each other off.
But WTFU. You guys are about to be handed your heads.
@charontwo:
No, it’s not clear. That is pure speculation.. You are entitled to your opinion, but don’t BS people as if its fact. I find it arrant nonsense.
@Jack:
You “just” lie constantly. Look in the mirror for your irrational Trump Dickriding Syndrome. And for your nonstop lying.
Liar.
Rapist felon Trump himself said he would be a dictator on the first day of his presidency.
Trump colluded with Russian attacks on Western democracy and still is. He publicly called for Russia to steal Hillary’s emails. His scampaign met Russian operatives in Trump Tower to discuss election meddling in exchange for sanctions reductions. His Russian asset campaign chair Paul Manafort has now publicly admitted coordinating with Russians. When Putin attacked Kyiv, Trump called Putin a “genius.” This year, Trump said he would not care if Putin attacked Europe.
Trump is a racist. He smeared the first black president with racist birther lies. He launched his toxic 2016 campaign with the racist lie that most migrants are rapists and murderers. He made comments so bigoted even Paul Ryan called them “textbook racism.” Trump tweeted a video of a supporter yelling “White Power!” on 28 June 2020. He defended as “very fine people” those who marched alongside tiki torch Nazis in defense of monuments to pro-slavery Confederate traitors.
Your MAGA extremist lies won’t sell here, champ. Cry about it.
@Liberal Capitalist:
He’s not in the dark: he’s an active and dedicated liar. He knows he’s not telling the truth, most of them do. I grew up around these MAGA troll types and still know a few: they like to think of themselves as clever and manipulative.
But they’re not. They just look ignorant and desperate. Sad!
@Jack:
Waaaaa waaaaa waaaaa. You’re not being bullied. Your lies are being calmly corrected.
Sorry you can’t force people here to buy into your pro-dictator, pro-rapist MAGA nonsense. This isn’t Breitbart, champ.
@Jack:
Red Wave 2022!!11!!
Biden is in the midst of the worst news cycle of any presidential candidate in recent memory, and rapist felon Trump still can’t pull away. That’s how much of a perverted thug, failure, and loser the Republican nominee is.
Good luck with your unlikeable Epstein-bestie Project 2025 candidate who already lost the popular vote twice. Let’s hope that this time when he loses, the dictator-wannabe won’t send a terrorist mob to assassinate politicians.
No mystery here.
People expect Trump to be weird, wild, dishonest, and feral. In fact, that’s exactly what his supporters LIKE about him. After 9 years of this, it’s pretty safe to say that his malevolent style is now completely ‘normalized.’
Top headline on my Yahoo News page just now.
As always, this is still only rumor and speculation.
Good idea? Bad idea? Who knows. Good luck with 2024 and onward either way. I hope you get what you want and that von Clausewitz quote about nations getting the governments they deserve is salutary rather than condemnatory. Either way, please fasten your seatbelts and remain in your seats for the remainder of the flight.
@DK: Neither were frail declining highly unpopular 81 year old incumbent Presidents.
@mcnp: Yet both managed to poll way worse in summer than the most effective Democratic president in modern history.
More importantly, all won the most votes during primary season, something that doesn’t seem to matter to the Democrats who either now agree with Trump that elections should be overturned or now think we should just skip voting altogether and just take polls.
@Jack:
Ok, so I guess you agree that Trump has few proven successes to run on. In that case you are enaging a “faith/vibes based” support of Trump. You can’t defend his presidency, its just that folks miss the warm glow of the post-Obama years (and the economy that Trump inherited).
By the way, your silence on the tariff speaks volumes.
It’s entirely true that Trump may win–I’m sure when that happens, you’ll find a way to justify how the inflation (and defacto extra taxes) that come from his plan to expand tariffs are good for us as a nation.
How is asking you to back up your assertions group think?
And beyond that, you keep coming back… which is just… well… sad. I mean there have to be better uses of your time than constantly trolling to get banned and then creating a new persona.
Again, I have a lot of pity for you. It’s clear you are insecure (otherwise, you might engage in a discussion versus shitting on everyone–but engaging might mean you get proven wrong and that would be hell on your ego) and lonely enough that you keep coming back here.
Which get’s to:
Hey, remind me whose Presidency the first year of Covid happened under? I guess you are saying that today life is actually better than 4 years ago under… checks notes, President Trump.
George Clooney and podbros do not speak for the Democratic Party base. This guy might, tho.
@Jack:
First, no one is asking you to defend someone else’s ‘false’ assertion.
Note the first line of my reply:
This is in no way asking you to defend anything anyone else said.
Anyway, it had nothing to do with dismissal.
If my post wasn’t clear, I apologize. This was my point:
With few exceptions, when you are engaged on substance, you do not respond. I am charitable most of the time. I assume that you did not see replies.
However, with every substantive post left with no reply, especially in a live thread in which you are posting throughout the day, it becomes less likely that it is just oversight. It becomes more reasonable to assume intentional bad faith.
You complain that:
Well, considering that @MR has had nasty exchanges with @DK and myself many times, group think isn’t exactly a problem. There are actually a lot of different views represented here. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you haven’t read enough or you refuse to make distinctions out of convenience or some other reason.
Now, perhaps I was not clear enough. The quotes in my reply were from your exchange with @Jay L Gischer in yesterday’s thread.
I was referencing that I asked you good faith questions about your comments yesterday. (Yes, I delivered a jab or two, but what do you expect when you insult the hosts and commenters here?)
Rather than block quote everything, here are direct links:
Your comment
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maga-is-getting-more-maga/#comment-2939802
My reply
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maga-is-getting-more-maga/#comment-2939819
Your comment
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maga-is-getting-more-maga/#comment-2939803
My reply
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maga-is-getting-more-maga/#comment-2939827
Your comment
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maga-is-getting-more-maga/#comment-2939877
My reply
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/maga-is-getting-more-maga/#comment-2939885
I acknowledge good points with which I disagree. I do it all the time.
Every person who has ever lived has had way more incorrect beliefs than correct beliefs.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
That’s some Grade-A trolling there!
@DK:
Both your points are taken. But I think they miss the mark.
I disagree with your characterization of the primary. From a practical perspective, Biden was running virtually unopposed, as is nearly always the case in primaries with a sitting President.*
It’s why politicians with moderate to high profiles will often threaten a primary run, but rarely follow through. The threat is often used to gain leverage toward achieving a different goal.
And the ones that do enter the primary are usually doing it for other reasons–often to raise their profile or introduce a conversation.
Trump in 2016 and Clinton in 1992 are hardly comparable to the current race–not in national climate nor in the comparative candidates. This election is between the actual incumbent and a quasi-incumbent.
*I’m curious if there are any statistical comparisons of primary turnout in states/districts with competitive primaries vs. those without.
@Jack:
FYI: those links were tedious to put together. Unfortunately, they require copying and pasting. Or you can just go to the thread and look.
@Jack:
I realized that I should play by my own rules. I answered your question with a question… So here goes an actual answer:
As others noted, there was really no transition plan in place for the first administration. And most of his appointees ended up being people with some sense of guardrails. It’s notable how few of the leaders from most of the first administration are involved in the second one.
BTW, on the entire “look at that first administration”–I lost count of the number of people Trump hired who he later claimed were incompetent deep state people he was helping out of the goodness of his heart (including Tillerson, Kelly, Barr, Sessions, Pence… the list goes on and on). One or two is understandable. Everyone gets a mulligan, but this was an ongoing pattern for four years. Personally, that would give me pause in supporting him, but you do you.
What’s noteworthy is that an area where the administration had a lot of success–Judicial Nominations–is one where all the work was farmed out to the Federalist Society who came with a list in hand.
That’s what makes this unique–people have had four years to plan for a second Trump Presidency. So we have detailed plans like Heritige’s Project 2025 Transition plan–which, despite Trump’s claims that he knows nothing about it, had many, many staffers, including Stephen Miller, working on it.
Likewise, we’ve already seen J.D Vance proclaim that he would take the extra-constitutional steps that Pence was unwilling to do. He also espouses moving from a bureaucratic system to a political patronage system to run the Federal government. Those are both really concerning positions.
Also, Trump now has a Supreme Court that appears prepared to rubber stamp many of his signature proposals (the incredible overreach and breadth of the Presidential Immunity ruling, for example, is something that, if it didn’t involve Trump, would cause conservative’s heads to explode).
Those are examples of all the scary possibilities of another Trump administration for those interested in good governance. Do I think it will be end of Democracy in the US? I hope not. And whether we’re talking about Project 2025 or Agenda 47, there’s a lot of items in those documents that are deeply anti-Democratic and I believe harmful to our position as a nation. That’s before we get to the destabilizing impact this will most likely have on the world and in particular the NATO alliance.
@Matt Bernius:
I don’t know why you are giving so much thought to rebutting Jack. I assure you he isn’t investing nearly as much brain power.
For instance, the fact Rachel Maddow wasn’t literally thrown into a concentration camp is very weak evidence that Trump’s first term wasn’t fascist adjacent. Trump put in a lot of work in through out his term to establish the mainstream media as an enemy of the people. Undermining the free press was a prerequisite step toward authoritarianism for most despots through time – political historians have the receipts.
Also, the troll believes Trump should get a pass on the real time impacts of the COVID pandemic, but believes Biden is completely on the hook for the aftermath effects such as inflation. He’s just calling “balls and strikes” fully oblivious to the fact the game he is judging is actually a round of badminton.
@Scott F.:
What can I say–one of my many flaws is that I try to actually respond to the content of people’s posts versus my guesses about their intent.
I have no illusions about the results. Like I said, I really pity that Jack is so insecure he can’t really engage. Further I know there is nothing I can do that will shut him up.
All that said, I’m writing for myself as much as anyone else. I write to learn and refine my thinking. For example, it took me this long to connect the Federalist Society’s prep work in 2016 to the potential transition in 2025. So I appreciate Jack giving me the opportunity–even if he doesn’t appreciate the results.
@Scott F.:
Do I think it will have any effect on @Jack? Unlikely. But others do read comments, and responding with substance is best practice.
It may not change anyone’s mind, but it can’t hurt to avoid rhetorical pugilism–I am willing to bet that the majority of persuadable people out there are genuinely turned off by contentious discussions.
ETA: if the person representing one side snipes constantly and those on the other side respond respectfully, who do you think looks more reasonable?
@Matt Bernius:
I don’t think it’s a flaw. When is responding reasonably in interpersonal discussions in a public forum ever bad?
And yeah, writing is good for clarifying thoughts–the more difficult the topic, the better it is. I’ve identified that as one my intents a few times here.
@Scott F.:
Even if we were to give him a mulligan on the pandemic and suggestions of bleach as a therapeutic, 2020 was also the year of mass protests against police violence, met with more police violence and agencies abducting people off the street in unmarked vans, only to release them later when they cannot charge them with anything.
Also, I hear Portland, Seattle and other cities were burnt to the ground in 2020 by BLM terrorists. I must say that the Biden administration has done a bang up job with the rebuilding — you can barely see a difference. Could use a bit more housing though.
@Gustopher: LL Don J– God that’s catchy and Hillarious LOLz
Someone get it to Lincoln Project!
@Jim Brown 32:
That is funny. There is that line in “Doin’ It”:
That would surely get under DJT’s skin.
@Kurtz:
One the one hand, I totally agree.
On the other hand, all the chores I am putting off to write those responses disagree.
@Scott F.: “For instance, the fact Rachel Maddow wasn’t literally thrown into a concentration camp is very weak evidence that Trump’s first term wasn’t fascist adjacent. ”
I believe the appropriate answer to Jack’s “question” is “Of course he didn’t throw RM in a concentration camp. She wasn’t a three year-old Hispanic child.
@mattbernius:
do chores vs. shed light upon dark . . .
@Gustopher: From what I can see from my position adjacent to the residential portions of Downtown Portland, the city seems to be trying to address the housing problem. I’m not sure how well it is addressing the affordability part of the problem, but I’m not sure we haven’t painted ourselves into a corner on that part anyway. Good time to be old though. Each passing year I’m becoming closer to the date that I will no longer be concerned with housing affordability–or any other kind for that matter.
@wr: Eeww! And ROTFLMAO! 😀 😛
@Matt Bernius: It’s not some new troll, though, Matt. It’s Drew/guarneri, and we’ve already been this route with him. Why should we spend so much time on him because he was clever enough to show back up years later after being banned?
@Jax: Pierce, now, that would be a character I’d be interested to see his viewpoint now.
Drew? Ban him again. And again and again.
@Jax:
I don’t know they are the same person. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are.
Assuming for a moment they are, that honestly only makes me feel more pity and empathy for them. They keep making the choice to come back despite constantly articulating how much they dislike what is going on here (both from authors and commenters).
Hate reading and then obsessively commenting (at least when you think your side is “winning”) just sounds like a really crappy way to go through life.
“How were things in the US before Covid? Pretty damned good.”
I have been reading politics for a long time but this seems kind of like a new ploy to me. Trump supporters seem to think that Covid should not count against him. However, Covid effects should count against Biden. Definitely not calling balls and strikes. Anyway, pick the three best Trump Years and the three best Biden years and Biden compares well. Then realize that Trump was left a sound economy with steadily improving numbers vs Biden inheriting a mess. Russia? As other have noted if you read the Mueller report rather than the Barr sanitized report there were and remain a lot fo connections but Mueller didnt think it was his place to prosecute. Besides which the only people I see mention the Russia issue anymore are highly biased partisans on the right.
Racist? I guess maybe there is a good reason someone could explain why he would compare illegal immigrants to a cannibal? Claiming they are rapists, murderers and just let out of insane asylums to come here.
Steve
@mattbernius: It is indeed Drew, Dr. Joyner confirmed this the other day.