Trump Trial Time - banish all memories of Mueller.

[Spandauer]

Is this #132?
Still trying to rid the world of this troublesome twat.

Old thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4912378-trump-gets-gagged-mccarthy-gets-booted-whats-next-in-trumpworld

I mind me of the last time he called on his base for a massive protest, and a coule of dozen turned up (and were outnumbered by the press there for the "story" about them) instead of the many thousands he had hoped for and apparently expected. He tried to pretend they'd been kept away by the police, but that simply didn't hold any water because of the few who hadn't been. Just not very many at all.

Maybe the jailing of so many for criminal trespass and assault on the police, and his doing nothing at all for them except empty promises of pardons, has put people off laying their lives and liberty on the line for him?

and wiser 😀

Trump is a bully and a coward. All you need to do is stand up to him and he'll slink off to find someone weaker to pick on. Like they all do.

Hopefully...

It's early days but the polls are giving her a slight edge. Trump is not the messiah, hes very naughty boy, he can be beaten in this election.

Still a lot of variables with a 100 days to go. I don't know how this compares historically with other US elections and its about the distribution of votes rather than the voters themselves that determines the Presidency.

I guess since veterans are losers, this is all they deserve.

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-military-2668813632

Seeing the name Mark Kelly crop up as a possible VP candiate.

Former US-Navy Captain (Gulf War vet) and NASA astronaut he has been the junior senator from Arizona since 2020. He is also married to Gabby Giffords who survived an assassination attempt in 2011 and they are both vocal advocates for gun control.

An interesting option. Biden won Arizona by only 11,000 votes in 2020.

As a cover-the-bases-Harris-can't, he's almost too perfect.

However, the democrats, like the Rolling Stones, now have time on their side. Why rush ? A nice really upbeat and positive convention, confirming Harris as candidate with VP announced seems sensible.

Total kite-flying on my part, but if after that Biden were to receive strong medical advice to slow down, then a handover to Harris and her VP pick would certainly electrify things. Especially if they aggressively pushed a slightly disingenuous line of "you didn't really think we would put up a doddering old man as candidate ? That would be plain cruel. What idiot would do that ?"

Re the VP pick, Sarah Longwell still really likes Josh Shapiro, and I generally trust her judgement. She does say that getting it right isn't a formula and the most important thing is choosing someone that Harris is comfortable with. Tim Miller also thinks she needs someone who's a dynamic speaker/communication, which Kelly apparently isn't.

@SerendipityJane

I can't remember this exactly, but in that scenario, I don't think the VP pick would be able to function as the VP. I think it's the speaker of the house, so that would elevate Mike Johnson to replace Harris. Perish the thought.

DANG, this thread has done very well. One would think a whole bunch of us suffer TDS to care THIS much about Trump.

Only if Joe steps down which apparently he doesn't plan to. If Kamala wins the next election her VP will be 2nd in line.

Only if Joe steps down which apparently he doesn't plan to.

He also didn't plan to quit the candidacy for presidential candidate, yet here we are.

(He also said he'd only run for one term back in 2020)

He's still in the chair.

Yes. I was responding to the scenario that he steps down at or post-convention.

UK politics have calmed down so we get our hit from US politics now

Considering how apoplectic the Right in the US has become since naming Harris as the top Democrat candidate, yeah, it is going to be a wild ride.

Has anyone else seen this? This guy is a serious liability, even to Trump

https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1816492112713818382

I have friends and family stateside I care about very much.

It's already been noted.

If you were a conspiracy nut*, you'd be convinced that the Democrats tricked the Republicans into picking Vance to deliberately cause them to look stupid.

*Not that kind of conspiracy nut.

My comment was tongue in cheek, I much prefer boring politics.

US politics has always been of interest, the first president I remember was Jimmy Carter and he is still going strong.

Tricky dicky for me. Although I recall seeing some of the moon landings in 69 - everyone is aware this past week has been the 55th anniversary ?

"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon July 1969, A. D. We came in peace for all mankind"

To answer a question, if a VP becomes POTUS, that now-POTUS can choose to nominate a VP, to be approved by Congress. But there is no requirement that he/she do so. The Constitution is pretty silent on successor VPs. Case it point; Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller as his VP when Nixon resigned. Rockefeller was approved by Congress and served as Ford's VP. However in the period following JFK's assassination, LBJ never nominated a VP.

The Speaker of the House is 2nd in line to the Presidency, after the VP. There is no line of succession to the Vice Presidency.

Thus endeth the US political structure lesson for today.

I don't think, barring a medical catastrophe, that Joe will resign. Nor should he, he can do the job. Having him in office not only continues his wise leadership and completes his legacy, it frees up Kamala to hit the campaign trail hard. If Joe were to leave office, she'd be 'stuck' in DC.

I thought Joe's speech was wonderful last night. He made it clear that he was resigning for the good of the Country, not due to any 'inability' on his part to carry out his duties. He also made it clear that it was a very difficult decision for him and was made after a great deal of thought, discussion, and I'm sure, prayer. A great Statesman.

And for those unfamiliar with the use of the phrase 'passing the torch to a new generation', it comes from JFK's inaugural address, and I've underlined the bits that I feel are particularly a pointed, but unspoken, warning to Trump and his ilk: "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”.

JFK was 43 at the time of his inauguration, out-going POTUS Eisenhower was 70, a virtual 'spring chicken' by today's standards.

He was doing OK, in a nasty sort of way, until he named childless people like Kamala Harris (brought up stepchildren) and Pete Buttigieg (who has two adopted children).

He can't go with "people who haven't given birth" because that would disbar men from voting.

Can someone please tell me what this says.
I've been locked out of twitter for not remembering my own birthdate!

He can't go with "people who haven't given birth" because that would disbar men from voting.

Now that could potentially solve quite a few problems 😅