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...

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

Surely you should be condemning both or neither.

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

What "crime" are you referring to?

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

Surely you should be condemning both or neither.

Yep - unless the argument is "Trump didn't do anything but the Democrats did" or "The Democrats didn't do anything but Trump did".

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

Surely you should be condemning both or neither.

Yep - unless the argument is "Trump didn't do anything but the Democrats did" or "The Democrats didn't do anything but Trump did".

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

I don't think you understand what I'm writing.
If I didn't think inciting rioting was bad thing (never stated or implied this- this is a misunderstanding on your part), why would I be defending Trump saying he didn't do it? Why would I be calling out democrats for inciting riots?
Come on! Basic logic please! Do better.

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

I don't think you understand what I'm writing.
If I didn't think inciting rioting was bad thing (never stated or implied this- this is a misunderstanding on your part), why would I be defending Trump saying he didn't do it? Why would I be calling out democrats for inciting riots?
Come on! Basic logic please! Do better.

MM is very right in what he's saying, you did imply that inciting a riot is not a bad thing. Do better, type what you mean.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

I don't think you understand what I'm writing.
If I didn't think inciting rioting was bad thing (never stated or implied this- this is a misunderstanding on your part), why would I be defending Trump saying he didn't do it? Why would I be calling out democrats for inciting riots?
Come on! Basic logic please! Do better.

MM is very right in what he's saying, you did imply that inciting a riot is not a bad thing. Do better, type what you mean.

No, I was spelling out his hypocrisy. Don't you think I would know what I was trying to imply? I mean, I wrote it. You thought I was implying rioting isn't bad. Now that might be either you not understanding, or me not being clear.

Now you know what I wanted to say and we can move on from this non-point.

Although, your gaping hole in logic is still amusing.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

I don't think you understand what I'm writing.
If I didn't think inciting rioting was bad thing (never stated or implied this- this is a misunderstanding on your part), why would I be defending Trump saying he didn't do it? Why would I be calling out democrats for inciting riots?
Come on! Basic logic please! Do better.

MM is very right in what he's saying, you did imply that inciting a riot is not a bad thing. Do better, type what you mean.

No, I was spelling out his hypocrisy. Don't you think I would know what I was trying to imply? I mean, I wrote it. You thought I was implying rioting isn't bad. Now that might be either you not understanding, or me not being clear.

Now you know what I wanted to say and we can move on from this non-point.

Although, your gaping hole in logic is still amusing.

Except there is no hypocrisy unless he believes the Democrats incited the BLM riots and then failed to condemn them. If he thinks those claims of incitement are false, then why would he condemn the Democrats for something he thinks they didn't do?

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

I don't think you understand what I'm writing.
If I didn't think inciting rioting was bad thing (never stated or implied this- this is a misunderstanding on your part), why would I be defending Trump saying he didn't do it? Why would I be calling out democrats for inciting riots?
Come on! Basic logic please! Do better.

MM is very right in what he's saying, you did imply that inciting a riot is not a bad thing. Do better, type what you mean.

No, I was spelling out his hypocrisy. Don't you think I would know what I was trying to imply? I mean, I wrote it. You thought I was implying rioting isn't bad. Now that might be either you not understanding, or me not being clear.

Now you know what I wanted to say and we can move on from this non-point.

Although, your gaping hole in logic is still amusing.

What you apparently meant and what you typed were two different things, or maybe you're now backtracking because you look like an idiot?

No, I was spelling out his hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy?

I called you out on Trump and you get all defensive and borderline abusive. You make rash comments then backpedal like mad when anyone has the temerity to address them.

I await with bated breath your next pearls of wisdom...

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Lol.

"Implies inciting riots is a bad thing"

So you think inciting riots ISN'T a bad thing?

And by association you admit Trump did in fact incite the crowd.

No. I'm showing how you accuse Trump of doing something he didn't do, but give the democrats a free pass on the thing you accuse Trump of doing.

It really wasn't that complicated.

Of course inciting riots is bad, hence me condemning the democrats. So is false accusations, that's why I'm calling you out.

You're in a hole(again) and continuing to dig. You said and I quote "Implies riots is a bad thing".

Keep going, its most amusing on a damp morning.

I don't think you understand what I'm writing.
If I didn't think inciting rioting was bad thing (never stated or implied this- this is a misunderstanding on your part), why would I be defending Trump saying he didn't do it? Why would I be calling out democrats for inciting riots?
Come on! Basic logic please! Do better.

MM is very right in what he's saying, you did imply that inciting a riot is not a bad thing. Do better, type what you mean.

No, I was spelling out his hypocrisy. Don't you think I would know what I was trying to imply? I mean, I wrote it. You thought I was implying rioting isn't bad. Now that might be either you not understanding, or me not being clear.

Now you know what I wanted to say and we can move on from this non-point.

Although, your gaping hole in logic is still amusing.

What you apparently meant and what you typed were two different things, or maybe you're now backtracking because you look like an idiot?

What I wrote was very clear. I was trying to be generous. Lesson learnt.

mountain man wrote:

No, I was spelling out his hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy?

I called you out on Trump and you get all defensive and borderline abusive. You make rash comments then backpedal like mad when anyone has the temerity to address them.

I await with bated breath your next pearls of wisdom...

I called you out on your lies around J6, not a peep from you on that. Glossed right over that one.

Lies? What lies?

Please repost any lies I have made.

the-goon2 wrote:

What I wrote was very clear. I was trying to be generous. Lesson learnt.

Now you're just lying. You're not nearly as smart as you wish you were*.

*That's me being mighty generous about your intellect.

mountain man wrote:Lies? What lies?

Please repost any lies I have made.

Trump incited a riot

5 ppl died

Surely whether Trump incited a riot or not is an opinion, unless you mean that it requires a criminal conviction for that to be the case?

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

What I wrote was very clear. I was trying to be generous. Lesson learnt.

Now you're just lying. You're not nearly as smart as you wish you were*.

*That's me being mighty generous about your intellect.

This is what you get when you offer an olive branch to move the conversation along from a pointless tangent.

The irony of calling someone stupid when you clearly can't understand basic English is hilarious.

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

What "crime" are you referring to?

Oh! So sorry. Alleged crimes....

JuliusHMarx wrote:Surely whether Trump incited a riot or not is an opinion, unless you mean that it requires a criminal conviction for that to be the case?

It's a stupid and completely ignorant opinion I guess.

I've linked his Tweets before and after, clearly calling for it to be a peaceful demonstration.

And we still don't know who Ray Epps is.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Surely whether Trump incited a riot or not is an opinion, unless you mean that it requires a criminal conviction for that to be the case?

It's a stupid and completely ignorant opinion I guess.

You previously said it was a lie. Now you say it's an opinion. Which is it?

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:No evidence? He was on live tv just before it happened and no doubt his words incited or if you like inspired those to riot where 5 people were killed.

Yes Democrats want to stop Trump, just as Republicans want to stop Biden.

How you can defend Trump is remarkable.

Name the 5 that died.

In fact only 1 person died. Her name was Ashley Babbit, she unarmed and shot by the police. No one else died. The fact you use this talking point shows you simply absorb and regurgitate lies from the media.

He told the protestors to protest peacefully numerous times, told them to go home. The fact you don't know this also shocking.

Interesting you don't condemn the democrats for inspiring the BLM riots, which were far worse.

Utter whataboutery. Irrelevant to whether Trump is a criminal, or not.

Eh? Mountain was bringing false claims that Trump instigated a riot, this implies that inciting riots is a bad thing. So I'm simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy when nothing is said about the democrats instigating the BLM riots.

It seems you don't like it when I hold up the mirror to you face.

Wrong. It's still whataboutery, but then you wouldn't understand that. Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal. Then again, guess you could say there might be a link - Trump is a nob, and his behaviour and support of white supremacist ideologues catalysed the BLM movement? I could go for that.

What "crime" are you referring to?

Oh! So sorry. Alleged crimes....

What alleged crimes are you referring to? When you said this:

Someone being hypocritical (in your opinion) has chuff all to do with whether any BLM riots are relevant to Trump being a criminal

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

What I wrote was very clear. I was trying to be generous. Lesson learnt.

Now you're just lying. You're not nearly as smart as you wish you were*.

*That's me being mighty generous about your intellect.

This is what you get when you offer an olive branch to move the conversation along from a pointless tangent.

The irony of calling someone stupid when you clearly can't understand basic English is hilarious.

I won't be accepting an olive branch from someone like you any time soon.

If you write in basic comprehensible English I might understand it.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:The regime is doing everything they can to stop Trump from winning in 2024.

Bogus impeachments
Constant smears and lies
Social Media censorship
Now prison time

All this does is undermine the democratic system in the US. Only a fool can't see that this is a political witch hunt.
Even the left wing partisans know it is, but since they are partisans, they don't care. But they'll lie about it being what it is.

It might be a political witch hunt but then again only a fool would defend Trump or think he's not guilty. He incited the riot on Capitol hill, he had documents he shouldn't have, he tried to "persuade" Raffensperger to find him votes, on tape admitting sexually abusing women etc etc etc.

All Presidents have documents they shouldn't have...Non Presidents like Clinton were done for taking home classified documents...It's BS...All Commanders in Chief hide stuff or try to..

DOJ and the rest of Biden's beat are scared of Trump and are targetting him.......Kennedy had Nixon and his family audited regularly....Roosevelt had his people follow President Hoover around because he was the leading anti war voice......"Old Men like Roosevelt always start wars but it is our Youth that pays the price"...

Wake up buddy...No "might" about it.....Trump is leading Biden in the polls !!...,,Trump didn't try to stop the riot but there is no evidence to say he incited it but he certainly may have been happy to see it go......Fox news and other GOP supporting media were more to blame..

What is it about this that you, and so many others, don't appear to understand?!?

This is not, primarily, about having the docs. It's about that bumhole's response to NARA requests, abiding by the PRA etc etc when he's asked to return what he shouldn't have had in the first place.

You don't understand that when Clinton had illegal documents nothing was done because Obama was in office and it was a Democratic DOJ...Plus 90% of the Client Legacy media is Democrat...

Try to be more objective and less subjective.......If Trump was a Democrat it wouldn't be a problem....

CBS poll...

76% of GOP voters think Trump's legal problems are politically motivated..

20% of GOP voters think if convicted he shouldn't be allowed to be President.

CBS poll

Trump 61%
Desantis 23%
Pence 4%...

So by that token 80% think if Trump is convicted he should still be allowed to not only run for President but in office as.

America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians.    I wonder what Americans think of Robert F Kennedy who has recently announced he will be running for the Democrat nomination.  We also have Dr Cornel West announcing he will be running for President on behalf of the People's Party.   Listening to the latter he seemed to be all over the place (not focused).  Typical philosopher perhaps.

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians.    I wonder what Americans think of Robert F Kennedy who has recently announced he will be running for the Democrat nomination.  We also have Dr Cornel West announcing he will be running for President on behalf of the People's Party.   Listening to the latter he seemed to be all over the place (not focused).  Typical philosopher perhaps.

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

Fair play, that's a cracker.

"America is more democratic than the British system..".

mountain man wrote:So by that token 80% think if Trump is convicted he should still be allowed to not only run for President but in office as.

Not 80%.....Always get not sures on these polls.....Think it was 60/70...

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians.    I wonder what Americans think of Robert F Kennedy who has recently announced he will be running for the Democrat nomination.  We also have Dr Cornel West announcing he will be running for President on behalf of the People's Party.   Listening to the latter he seemed to be all over the place (not focused).  Typical philosopher perhaps.

Kennedy has all sorts of weird positions......Soft on gun control......Anti vaccine.........But he is high on green issues....Pro choice wants gay couples to have equal adoption rights as straight....and he wants more regulation of big pharma..

Hard to unseat a sitting President from the same party (Pierce was the 1850s) but his name alone should guarantee a bigger slice of pie than any other candidate including Williamson.

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians.    I wonder what Americans think of Robert F Kennedy who has recently announced he will be running for the Democrat nomination.  We also have Dr Cornel West announcing he will be running for President on behalf of the People's Party.   Listening to the latter he seemed to be all over the place (not focused).  Typical philosopher perhaps.

And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person. With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

mountain man wrote:So by that token 80% think if Trump is convicted he should still be allowed to not only run for President but in office as.

Not 80%.....Always get not sures on these polls.....Think it was 60/70...

Yeah but still 60-70% think he could still be President if convicted of criminal charges.

I guess it's like Trump said previously, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters.

Pretty remarkable.

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

Nonsense. I'm an advocate of direct democracy and believe people should get a greater say. Plus I'm the antithesis of authoritarian. Answer me this, please: what chance does an ordinary independent person, of no great financial means, have of becoming US President?

mountain man wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

mountain man wrote:So by that token 80% think if Trump is convicted he should still be allowed to not only run for President but in office as.

Not 80%.....Always get not sures on these polls.....Think it was 60/70...

Yeah but still 60-70% think he could still be President if convicted of criminal charges.

I guess it's like Trump said previously, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters.

Pretty remarkable.

I guess some of them don't see the criminal charges as real/valid if they believe it's politically-motivated.

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

I was supporting that in bold. The rest is a discussion of process and a discussion of the psychology of the voter.

Duty281 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

mountain man wrote:So by that token 80% think if Trump is convicted he should still be allowed to not only run for President but in office as.

Not 80%.....Always get not sures on these polls.....Think it was 60/70...

Yeah but still 60-70% think he could still be President if convicted of criminal charges.

I guess it's like Trump said previously, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters.

Pretty remarkable.

I guess some of them don't see the criminal charges as real/valid if they believe it's politically-motivated.

I would have thought this would be so blindingly obvious....

Undoubtedly the Democrats are pushing for Trump to be charged but that is standard procedure in any country at any time but especially so pre election. Bit like in 2016 when less than 2 weeks before election James Comey suddenly announced he'd found Clinton had used non authorised email account etc. Timing was somewhat interesting, but it's what happens so politicians need to be squeaky clean so end of story.

However, whether politically motivated or not, the evidence seems to be stacking up against Trump.

But as we all know, he could be found guilty with no issue of doubt but his supporters will say he was wronged, he will say he was wronged blah blah. Just like when he lost last time to Biden, he STILL won't admit it neither will his deluded supporters.

Unless someone, anyone has actual evidence Trump won. I won't hold my breath.

mountain man wrote:Undoubtedly the Democrats are pushing for Trump to be charged but that is standard procedure in any country at any time but especially so pre election. Bit like in 2016 when less than 2 weeks before election James Comey suddenly announced he'd found Clinton had used non authorised email account etc. Timing was somewhat interesting, but it's what happens so politicians need to be squeaky clean so end of story.

Comey thought he was doing Clinton a favor believe it or not......She was way ahead in some polls and he thought it wouldn't stop her sealing the deal....and....that if it all came out after she was elected it would make her look illegitimate....Bizarre isn't it !!

It's not all to stop Trump standing this charging Trump saga......Also a way of diverting media attention from the crappy job Biden is doing at the moment reflected in his personal ratings...

He isn't popular..

Oh I agree Biden pretty hopeless and quite frankly he doesn't look fit and able enough for another term but if the alternative is Trump again then that's a diabolical choice.

I'm sure Trump's 'Lock Her up' campaign wasn't politically motivated - he just wanted to see justice done, 'cos that's the kind of honest, upstanding kinda guy he is.

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

Yet again unable to answer a simple question. Pseudointellectualism at its finest.

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:America is more democratic than the British system given the number of candidates that can run for President including non-politicians .....

How exactly does that make the US more democratic?

mountain man wrote:Fair play, that's a cracker. ....

Duty281 wrote: And what chance do any of them have unless they're loaded and in one of the two big parties?

I suspect a level of cynicism perhaps originating from the authoritarian mind that believes the people should not get to choose because they choose the "wrong" person.  With regard the two big parties the people effectively get to choose who gets nominated in the primaries.

Yet again unable to answer a simple question. Pseudointellectualism at its finest.

I expected a certain level of intelligence from you.  Bits in red.   I thought you knew  that in Britain we don't choose the prime-minister - the parties do.   The party leader of the party with the most seats forms the government.  In the USA the people directly appoint the President through a primary and secondary election process with non party independents also able to run for president.

Well indirectly we do which is why no one would vote labour whilst Corbyn was leader as nobody outside of Momentum could see him as PM.