US Election; what are your thoughts?

[Matt N]

I know this is a thread regarding the last US presidential election in 2020, but I thought I’d post here as a debate had already started about the 2024 election beforehand.

Following Joe Biden’s debate performance last week against Donald Trump, which was widely considered to have gone very poorly for Biden, there is now strong discussion regarding the possibility of Joe Biden being replaced before the election, with another Democrat taking his place.

As we have a number of American members on here, I’d be interested to know; what are your thoughts on the idea of Biden being replaced? What did you think to the first presidential debate last week?

I won’t claim to be the most au fait with every aspect of American politics, being British, but I saw a few snippets of that debate. From my outside perspective, it was not good viewing from Biden’s standpoint, in my opinion. One of the key prevailing concerns about Biden is his age and whether he’s actually physically fit for another term, and I have to say that the debate appeared to reinforce these concerns quite strongly. Biden mumbled, lost his train of thought numerous times, gave incoherent answers and appeared somewhat vacant at times, and Trump, despite being only a few years younger, absolutely wiped the floor with him and seemed to give off a much “younger” impression and an impression of someone far more physically fit for office. I do not support Trump by any stretch of the imagination, and if I were American, I would definitely be voting Democrat, but after seeing Biden’s debate performance, I can see why some undecided Americans might watch that and think that Trump is the lesser of two evils. I’m not saying I agree with that view by any stretch, but I can see why people might think it.

With all of this in mind, I think that Joe Biden should be replaced as the Democratic presidential candidate. This debate could have just been a bad night for Joe Biden, but I don’t think the cut-throat nature of modern politics allows for bad nights, and I fear that the image of Biden in that debate is one that will stick with a lot of American voters. This debate was a key opportunity for Biden to prove his sceptics wrong and show that he still had enough fight in him for 4 more years, but I think it’s done the exact opposite, and proven prevailing concerns about his age and fitness to be president to arguably be justified. If Biden remains on the Democrat ticket, I think Trump will win in November, simply because he still gives off an impression of being physically fit for the presidency. I feel that a different candidate would remove these concerns from the picture and give the Democrats a fighting chance of beating Trump.

But what does anyone else think? I’d be interested to know your thoughts.

 

[InvertsAreMyJam]

I know this is a thread regarding the last US presidential election in 2020, but I thought I’d post here as a debate had already started about the 2024 election beforehand.

Following Joe Biden’s debate performance last week against Donald Trump, which was widely considered to have gone very poorly for Biden, there is now strong discussion regarding the possibility of Joe Biden being replaced before the election, with another Democrat taking his place.

As we have a number of American members on here, I’d be interested to know; what are your thoughts on the idea of Biden being replaced? What did you think to the first presidential debate last week?

I won’t claim to be the most au fait with every aspect of American politics, being British, but I saw a few snippets of that debate. From my outside perspective, it was not good viewing from Biden’s standpoint, in my opinion. One of the key prevailing concerns about Biden is his age and whether he’s actually physically fit for another term, and I have to say that the debate appeared to reinforce these concerns quite strongly. Biden mumbled, lost his train of thought numerous times, gave incoherent answers and appeared somewhat vacant at times, and Trump, despite being only a few years younger, absolutely wiped the floor with him and seemed to give off a much “younger” impression and an impression of someone far more physically fit for office. I do not support Trump by any stretch of the imagination, and if I were American, I would definitely be voting Democrat, but after seeing Biden’s debate performance, I can see why some undecided Americans might watch that and think that Trump is the lesser of two evils. I’m not saying I agree with that view by any stretch, but I can see why people might think it.

With all of this in mind, I think that Joe Biden should be replaced as the Democratic presidential candidate. This debate could have just been a bad night for Joe Biden, but I don’t think the cut-throat nature of modern politics allows for bad nights, and I fear that the image of Biden in that debate is one that will stick with a lot of American voters. This debate was a key opportunity for Biden to prove his sceptics wrong and show that he still had enough fight in him for 4 more years, but I think it’s done the exact opposite, and proven prevailing concerns about his age and fitness to be president to arguably be justified. If Biden remains on the Democrat ticket, I think Trump will win in November, simply because he still gives off an impression of being physically fit for the presidency. I feel that a different candidate would remove these concerns from the picture and give the Democrats a fighting chance of beating Trump.

But what does anyone else think? I’d be interested to know your thoughts.

We need to replace Biden, and quickly. I’m fully prepared for this to be America’s last July 4th. I’m not even kidding. If Trump wins, say goodbye to the United States of America and hello to an absolute dictatorship that wants you to die if you aren’t a white, straight, cis, Christian man. I can‘t stress enough how important it is that a Democrat wins this election. Do some research into Project 2025. It’s absolutely horrific.

And Trump winning wouldn’t just ruin the lives of every American. Oh no. It would ruin the entire world. Because of course, Project 2025 gets rid of all climate change and environmental policies, and gives a massive boost to the oil industry. Be prepared for climate change to get much, much worse.

At this point, if you’re planning on voting for Trump, I genuinely see you as a horrible person who doesn’t care about anybody other than yourself.

 

[RcTmix]

 

[Ollie]

What I don't understand about American politics, and I hope someone can help explain, is how Trump is allowed to run for the presidency again despite all the riots and criminal cases against him. Shocks me that he still has so much support.

I watched the beginning of the debate the other night and found Biden's performance lacking. During a debate, you're supposed to convince people why they should vote for you to lead the country. Instead, Biden seemed vacant and incoherent when he spoke.

Sadly, won't be surprised if Trump ends up winning.

 

[CanobieFan]

as an American, I'm horrified and terrified, simultaneously

 

[InvertsAreMyJam]

What I don't understand about American politics, and I hope someone can help explain, is how Trump is allowed to run for the presidency again despite all the riots and criminal cases against him. Shocks me that he still has so much support.

I watched the beginning of the debate the other night and found Biden's performance lacking. During a debate, you're supposed to convince people why they should vote for you to lead the country. Instead, Biden seemed vacant and incoherent when he spoke.

Sadly, won't be surprised if Trump ends up winning.

I’m guessing it’s because the Founding Fathers never thought a CONVICTED FELON would be running for President. And why would they?!

 

[emoo]

Debates are always a mess. In this case can't people just see what it was like during each of their past terms and any fallout? All voters will have lived through both and already know which way they want to go OR which way they do not. Would a horrifying performance by either really change minds?

 

[Hyde]

What I don't understand about American politics, and I hope someone can help explain, is how Trump is allowed to run for the presidency again despite all the riots and criminal cases against him. Shocks me that he still has so much support.

I watched the beginning of the debate the other night and found Biden's performance lacking. During a debate, you're supposed to convince people why they should vote for you to lead the country. Instead, Biden seemed vacant and incoherent when he spoke.

Sadly, won't be surprised if Trump ends up winning.

Unfortunately, Trump's supporters do not believe he was the cause of the January 6th insurrection, and that 38 felony counts are a "witch hunt" against him. Subjective truth is the biggest undercurrent for why casual outside observers may scratch their heads to how Trump (as a now convicted felon) remains in the race. Indeed the Founding Fathers didn't think that would ever be capable of an American leader.

 

[InvertsAreMyJam]

Since the Supreme Court granted presidents immunity for “official actions,” that means Biden could do something to Trump without any consequences. Just saying…

 

[Hyde]

Since the Supreme Court granted presidents immunity for “official actions,” that means Biden could do something to Trump without any consequences. Just saying…

There's a lot of implication from this ruling, which sets the President, while in office, above the law. Embezzlement, homicide, wiretapping, kidnapping, child pornography, hate crimes, racketeering, counterfeiting, tax evasion, or damage of property (just to name a few) all have a legal possibility of being allowable while sitting President.

It's these moments, to be honest, when I find it best to set aside the hypothetical (it's how you burnout and lose hope, to be honest), and lean into what has kept America together; concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - however fleeting - do have a binding power to keep the country going.

(And don't get me started on overturning the Chevron deference, which allows the executive branch and agencies (as experts in their field) to fill in the gaps not expressly legislated and passed by Congress - equally has a lot of damning fallout that slows down government and creates bogging in the courts)

 

[InvertsAreMyJam]

There's a lot of implication from this ruling, which sets the President, while in office, above the law. Embezzlement, homicide, wiretapping, kidnapping, child pornography, hate crimes, racketeering, counterfeiting, tax evasion, or damage of property (just to name a few) all have a legal possibility of being allowable while sitting President.

It's these moments, to be honest, when I find it best to set aside the hypothetical (it's how you burnout and lose hope, to be honest), and lean into what has kept America together; concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - however fleeting - do have a binding power to keep the country going.

(And don't get me started on overturning the Chevron deference, which allows the executive branch and agencies (as experts in their field) to fill in the gaps not expressly legislated and passed by Congress - equally has a lot of damning fallout that slows down government and creates bogging in the courts)

The problem is, Trump winning isn’t a hypothetical. It has a good chance of actually happening. And that is my worst nightmare. I can’t live under Trump’s dictatorship.

 

[Hyde]

The problem is, Trump winning isn’t a hypothetical. It has a good chance of actually happening. And that is my worst nightmare. I can’t live under Trump’s dictatorship.

It’s gonna be a 50/50 shot (when you take a good long look at the polling, and how tight the last two elections have split). If you have friends on the fence for voting - get their butts to the polls November 5th. (which to be clear, they are welcome to vote for whomever - just be sure to vote!)

 

[IGwaziSolos]

Let's not forget that Biden also most definitely isn't innocent, he is a war criminal who is the cause of the death of many innocent civilians in foreign countries and US military soldiers. Both men are most definitely not fit in any way for government.

 

[Nitefly]

There's a lot of implication from this ruling, which sets the President, while in office, above the law. Embezzlement, homicide, wiretapping, kidnapping, child pornography, hate crimes, racketeering, counterfeiting, tax evasion, or damage of property (just to name a few) all have a legal possibility of being allowable while sitting President.

I’m not an expert in these matters and I haven’t tooth-combed the judgment, so I may well be wrong - but based on my current (basic) understanding that seems like a bit of a stretch…! The judgment is definitely not insignificant, but I’m also wary that it’s being subject to some pretty sensationalist journalism… like just about everything these days.

He has scope for full immunity in the context of official acts that form part of his core constitutional powers as president. Scope of what those powers are is not absolutely decided - beyond the principle - but it foreseeably ought to extent to matters such as signing/passed conventional laws and budgets (so he can’t be prosecuted ‘just because you didn’t like it’). There is, theoretically, scope to determine that acts were outside of his core constitutional powers if there is a conflict with other rights enshrined by the constitution.

He then has some partial immunity in respect of ancillary official acts - scope not decided (this is expressly confirmed in the judgment) but it’ll depend on the facts.

He has no immunity in respect of unofficial acts.

This means that to claim immunity a President should have to establish he is covered:

(1) was the act an official act?
(2) if so, was the act exercised in respect of his core constitutional duties?
(3) if an official act but not part of his core constitutional duties, why is the immunity appropriate / warranted?

It’s not immediately obvious how this immunity would extend to knowingly falsifying business records or grossly negligent acts… but I really don’t expect the immunity to extend to some of the things you mention in your post.

 

[Hyde]

I’m not an expert in these matters and I haven’t tooth-combed the judgment, so I may well be wrong - but based on my current (basic) understanding that seems like a bit of a stretch…! The judgment is definitely not insignificant, but I’m also wary that it’s being subject to some pretty sensationalist journalism… like just about everything these days.

He has scope for full immunity in the context of official acts that form part of his core constitutional powers as president. Scope of what those powers are is not absolutely decided - beyond the principle - but it foreseeably ought to extent to matters such as signing/passed conventional laws and budgets (so he can’t be prosecuted ‘just because you didn’t like it’). There is, theoretically, scope to determine that acts were outside of his core constitutional powers if there is a conflict with other rights enshrined by the constitution.

He then has some partial immunity in respect of ancillary official acts - scope not decided (this is expressly confirmed in the judgment) but it’ll depend on the facts.

He has no immunity in respect of unofficial acts.

This means that to claim immunity a President should have to establish he is covered:

(1) was the act an official act?
(2) if so, was the act exercised in respect of his core constitutional duties?
(3) if an official act but not part of his core constitutional duties, why is the immunity appropriate / warranted?

It’s not immediately obvious how this immunity would extend to knowingly falsifying business records or grossly negligent acts… but I really don’t expect the immunity to extend to some of the things you mention in your post.

But to your first point "was it an official act?", which validates these actions, you now need to prove it would have been a "personal act" too. It's really hard to untwine the two, and the Trump legal defense is already making this argument to have the New York case dismissed on the grounds that some evidence used in the case dates to his time as acting President, which they argue is now inadmissable as it was done as "official act".

So yes, you could take a bribe, as President, and deem it "official act", even if illegal, and you would have grounds of defense upon lawsuit.

 

[Nitefly]

But to your first point "was it an official act?", which validates these actions, you now need to prove it would have been a "personal act" too. It's really hard to untwine the two, and the Trump legal defense is already making this argument to have the New York case dismissed on the grounds that some evidence used in the case dates to his time as acting President, which they argue is now inadmissable as it was done as "official act".

So yes, you could take a bribe, as President, and deem it "official act", even if illegal, and you would have grounds of defense upon lawsuit.

I think in practice the courts will be able to make sense of whether actions were envisaged by ongoing constitutional duties of the President - taking a bribe (in the truly prohibited sense - noting that the US has some of the most aggressive anti-bribery laws in the world)… I think not. But, it’s just my opinion

Meanwhile, Trump’s team will continue to use every tedious defence available to filibuster all proceedings beyond the election, so it is rather inconvenient to say the least…

 

[RcTmix]

I think in practice the courts will be able to make sense of whether actions were envisaged by ongoing constitutional duties of the President - taking a bribe (in the truly prohibited sense - noting that the US has some of the most aggressive anti-bribery laws in the world)… I think not. But, it’s just my opinion

Meanwhile, Trump’s team will continue to use every tedious defence available to filibuster all proceedings beyond the election, so it is rather inconvenient to say the least…

I think you are giving the US Supreme Court too much credit. Three of the six justices who voted for this ruling were appointed by Trump. Two others (Alito and Thomas) have a well documented history of corruption, accepting bribes from parties directly involved with cases over which they presided. Furthermore, Thomas is married to a far right lobbyist who was directly involved with the January 6th insurrection. In other words, a majority of the nine justices can not possibly be expected to rule impartially when it comes to Trump's involvement with the same insurrection. Since Justices are appointed for life, and since congress is too dysfunctional to impeach and then convict anybody, the Justices essentially have no oversight and can blatantly rule to serve their own political agendas without consequence.

TLDR: sh*t's f*cked

 

[Sticky_T_Wicky]

But to your first point "was it an official act?", which validates these actions, you now need to prove it would have been a "personal act" too. It's really hard to untwine the two, and the Trump legal defense is already making this argument to have the New York case dismissed on the grounds that some evidence used in the case dates to his time as acting President, which they argue is now inadmissable as it was done as "official act".

So yes, you could take a bribe, as President, and deem it "official act", even if illegal, and you would have grounds of defense upon lawsuit.

No you couldn't.

You're just either reading the nonsensical dissent or some narrative of the nonsensical dissent and running with it.

It's fear mongering and you're taking it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Hyde]

No you couldn't.

You're just either reading the nonsensical dissent or some narrative of the nonsensical dissent and running with it.

It's fear mongering and you're taking it hook, line and sinker.

From Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the ruling (for context to @Sticky_T_Wicky):

“Make no mistake,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a passionate dissent from bench, “the majority gives President Trump all he asks for and more. ….Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a president’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution” under this decision, she said.

Even the most private and non-official act—like bribery, she said—is insulated because the president is commander in chief, and under the court’s rules laid down Monday, even if bribery charges are brought against a former president, prosecutors could not present evidence of a quid pro quo, she said. The money may have been the quid, but the quo was an official act which presumptively is insulated from prosecution.

This isn’t a wild interpretation, and something constitutional scholars have also been affirming as they weigh in.

 

[Sticky_T_Wicky]

From Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the ruling (for context to @Sticky_T_Wicky):



This isn’t a wild interpretation, and something constitutional scholars have also been affirming as they weigh in.

I am aware of Sotomayor's dissent. But its problem is that it ignores the limits of the majority's analysis. Chief Justice Roberts, "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today"

The implications of this ruling have been blown way out of proportion.