A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution which this wouldn't be
It overrides state law on strictly defined Federal matters. Outwith certain restrictions in the Constitution voting is not a federal matter.
(If Federal law overrode state law in all things abortion would be legal, wouldn’t it?)
The current Supreme Court is quite capable of ruling that any state level impediments to Trump being a candidate (such as being imprison) violate federal law on voting rights or some such.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
That isn't correct.
Article 2 of the Constitution provides that the person receiving a majority of electoral college votes "shall" be President. Because this is a state rights point (as the electors are appointed and meet within each state) it is vanishingly unlikely any federal law restricting that would survive challenge, certainly with the Supreme Court but probably even a more liberal one.
There are restrictions within the Constitution itself on eligibility (age, two terms already served etc), but I think it's clear they'd be considered exhaustive by the courts. This is not least because the Constitution itself sees fit to deal with the matter. So it's very likely further restrictions would require constitutional amendment.
I know there is some debate over whether section 3 of the 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump anyway if convicted in Georgia and/or DC (it almost certainly wouldn't apply to the Florida case which is involves a serious felony but doesn't involve "insurrection or rebellion"). I don't think it does apply as the disqualification lists Senators, Representatives and "electors of President" as being affected, but not the President himself. It does refer to "any office, civil or military, under the United States" and this has been argued to be a catch all. But the fact it lists other specific offices but NOT President, even though the Constiution is peppered with references to that office, suggests the framers at the time (this was 1860s reconstruction rather than original framers) didn't intend it to be covered.
It will possibly have blown over by then but there are few issues in British and European politics as visceral as apartheid. And since South Africa this is seen (certainly on the left) as the next great injustice.
I'm sure Starmer will water down his intemperate comments but if he doesn't there will be a backlash. A lot will depend what happens in the next few months. Blair was able to lose his support in a short time with a wrong decision on Iraq and so could Starmer over Palestine
I'm always fascinated by the way the british Left decides it can willy nilly tell other people how to run their countries . Its just imperialism by other means.
But as imperialisms go I'd say campaigning against apartheid beats invading Iraq.
In South Africa, there was an obvious good guy, and an obvious bad guy.
Despite what Roger and the Corbynistas think, Israel doesn't fill the role of obvious bad guy, nor do the Palestinians fill the role of obvious good guy.
Yup. The talk of a “ceasefire” is a good example. In most conflicts when we say “ceasefire” we mean both sides. In this case, people seem to mean unilateral from Israel, and for Israel to just sit there and take continued rocket strikes during it, because it is the baddie and it deserves it.
What makes you say most people want a unilateral ceasefire?
Because I assume no one is silly enough to entertain the thought that Hamas would respect one.
If Hamas won't respect a ceasefire then Israel surely have nothing to lose by calling a ceasefire knowing Hamas will break it anyway. An easy propaganda victory. But Israel doesn't want a ceasefire.
What a perverted logic. Hamas started the fight, and Israel haven't got in their retaliation yet.
So your logic is that Israel should just have a ceasefire giving Hamas an opportunity to strike them with no recourse? How does that make any sense whatsoever?
Israel should have a ceasefire once Hamas have been destroyed.
Umm, you seem to 100% agree with me that Israel doesn't want a ceasefire.
I very strongly object to the insinuation that Israel should want a ceasefire, or there's anything wrong with them not wanting one, while Hamas still exists and holds hostages.
When the hostages are free and Hamas have been eradicated, that would be the time for a ceasefire, would it not?
Is there a tipping point to your opinion? How many Palestinians would need to be bombed to death?
..just asking...
Yes there is a tipping point. Two binary ones of them in fact.
Are the hostages free? Yes, or no?
Have Hamas been eradicated? Yes, or no?
In war you need to proportionately try to reduce the other sides civilian casualties while still seeking to achieve your objectives, and Israel quite rightly are doing that. Once the objectives are complete, with as few civilian casualties as is realistically feasible, the war should end.
If other nations want to offer refuge to civilians to avoid the conflict while it rages, then that would keep civilians alive, if they don't, then more civilians will die but that's not Israel's fault. Israel has to achieve its objectives first and foremost.
So it's the "other nations" fault if the bombing of civilians result in their death? Surely as Israel occupied Gaza they are responsible for the wellbeing of the residents there?
Two questions their so to take them one by one. Yes, its Hamas fault if the bombing of Gaza leads to Gazan civilians deaths, because Hamas were the ones who caused this war. All fatalities on both sides of the ledger are entirely and solely the fault of Hamas, so long as Israel sticks to the rules of law and proportionality (which remember is proportional to the objective [both eliminate Hamas and rescue all hostages] and not 1:1 proportional to the casualties that Israel has lost).
Secondly QTWAIN, Israel is not responsible. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005. All troops were withdrawn and all settlements were demolished. Palestinians were encouraged by Israel, the USA and the EU (and provided tens of millions of dollars of funding) to develop under Palestinian leadership with Israel encouraging and supporting the development of the Port of Gaza.
Unfortunately then Hamas "won" the Gazan elections and a war against Fatah, which destroyed the Roadmap to Peace that Bush was trying to encourage and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was supposed to be a part of. As a result Gaza had to be blockaded, due to Hamas, a blockade which has continued to this day.
America wants peace, Europe wants peace, Israel wants peace. Democracies want peace. There is one party here that does not.
Israel has tried for peace, repeatedly. Via Carter with Egypt. Via Clinton with Arafat. Via Clinton with Jordan. Via Bush with Fatah. Via Trump with UAE. Via Biden with Saudi Arabia until Hamas blew up those talks.
It is Arafat that rejected peace with the talks with Clinton, something Clinton has spoken about as bitterly regretting. It was Hamas that killed Bush's attempted Roadmap to peace, even after Sharon withdrew Israel from Gaza. It is Hamas that caused this latest upsurge of violence.
If you want peace, then support the eradication of Hamas, and hopefully new Palestinian leadership can arise that will actually put Palestinians first. Or support Israel actually occupying Gaza like you claimed they were, and being responsible for Gaza, rather than any Palestinian authorities, but Israel don't want that and nor should anyone else really.
Trump price drifting. Always a morale boost when that happens.
You can rest assured kinabalu. Trump will not become President again or even get the nomination. It's not happening!
Who will get the nomination? And do you think he will pull out, or the primary voters will, gods forbid, actually choose someone else?
I still think Mike Pence has an outside chance but I know some others disagree. It doesn't look like it will be DeSantis now. Maybe someone else will come through maybe Haley (is she still in it?). I don't know but I do think that a new candidate will come through, lots of time yet.
I think if Trump drops out for one reason or another (20% chance) and Haley gets the nomination (currently 8% chance but 50% chance if Trump drops out) then I think Biden will also drop out. He's only hanging in out of duty to defeat Trump.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution which this wouldn't be
It overrides state law on strictly defined Federal matters. Outwith certain restrictions in the Constitution voting is not a federal matter.
(If Federal law overrode state law in all things abortion would be legal, wouldn’t it?)
The current Supreme Court is quite capable of ruling that any state level impediments to Trump being a candidate (such as being imprison) violate federal law on voting rights or some such.
Put money on that.
It’s possible. The catch would be that while the Constitution says who ‘must’ be allowed to vote, it’s rather vague on the circumstances where that right can be withdrawn.
The catch for SCOTUS is that in ruling Trump as a state felon is entitled to run, would be saying, in effect, all felons in state penitentiaries should be entitled to vote.
Which might be rather an awkward sell to the Republican base.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution which this wouldn't be
It overrides state law on strictly defined Federal matters. Outwith certain restrictions in the Constitution voting is not a federal matter.
(If Federal law overrode state law in all things abortion would be legal, wouldn’t it?)
The current Supreme Court is quite capable of ruling that any state level impediments to Trump being a candidate (such as being imprison) violate federal law on voting rights or some such.
Put money on that.
I do think a good number of even Trump appointed judges up and down the country discharge their duties fairly. Many have ruled against him after all. It's one reason Cannon in Florida both stands out and has avoided being subject to attack by Trump, in that she really does feel the need to show gratitude.
The Supreme Court on the other hand I don't think feel a need to show gratitude - they are already appointed for life, and are pretty clear no other branch of government is allowed to hold them to task, even if they did something potentially corrupt, so much for equal branches I guess - but are far more political animals than judges lower down the scale, since they have no incentive not to indulge their political instincts above the law, as no court above will slap them down if they do.
So they will not universally vote along party lines, and won't always do what Trump or the GOP wants, but they are more willing to egregiously do so if they think it is a good idea.
Trump price drifting. Always a morale boost when that happens.
You can rest assured kinabalu. Trump will not become President again or even get the nomination. It's not happening!
Who will get the nomination? And do you think he will pull out, or the primary voters will, gods forbid, actually choose someone else?
I still think Mike Pence has an outside chance but I know some others disagree. It doesn't look like it will be DeSantis now. Maybe someone else will come through maybe Haley (is she still in it?). I don't know but I do think that a new candidate will come through, lots of time yet.
I think if Trump drops out for one reason or another (20% chance) and Haley gets the nomination (currently 8% chance but 50% chance if Trump drops out) then I think Biden will also drop out. He's only hanging in out of duty to defeat Trump.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
In that scenario Haley would surely win easily.
Don’t agree with many of her views but she has both guts and principles. Moreover she’s clearly very shrewd.
Newsom’s a bit meh by comparison.
But I am not convinced he would be the nominee, for that reason alone.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him. I suspect if he is actually in jail on election day however Trump would lose the election but it is not impossible he wins still
Trump price drifting. Always a morale boost when that happens.
You can rest assured kinabalu. Trump will not become President again or even get the nomination. It's not happening!
Who will get the nomination? And do you think he will pull out, or the primary voters will, gods forbid, actually choose someone else?
I still think Mike Pence has an outside chance but I know some others disagree. It doesn't look like it will be DeSantis now. Maybe someone else will come through maybe Haley (is she still in it?). I don't know but I do think that a new candidate will come through, lots of time yet.
I think if Trump drops out for one reason or another (20% chance) and Haley gets the nomination (currently 8% chance but 50% chance if Trump drops out) then I think Biden will also drop out. He's only hanging in out of duty to defeat Trump.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
Haley has about as much chance of being next GOP nominee as Hunt does of being next Tory leader, she is too moderate for the MAGA crowd and evangelicals who dominate GOP caucuses and primaries
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
Yes, DC is Federal. It's somewhat arguable as to whether one can self-pardon at all but it'd probably be worked through.
In Georgia, I believe not only can the Governor not pardon, but the State Board of Pardons and Paroles can't even consider it until a certain proportion of the sentence has been served.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
I don't think it will come to a shoot-out between State Police and the Secret Service, but if it did, I'd expect the Federal forces to prevail.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
Since we're going down this rabbit hole I think we can be fairly confident that the state authorities would allow Trump release in order to serve as President, without vacating his sentence.
It's be completely barmy if ever got to that point (I don't think he will be in jail come the election even if he was convicted of something), but ways would be found.
Trump price drifting. Always a morale boost when that happens.
You can rest assured kinabalu. Trump will not become President again or even get the nomination. It's not happening!
Who will get the nomination? And do you think he will pull out, or the primary voters will, gods forbid, actually choose someone else?
I still think Mike Pence has an outside chance but I know some others disagree. It doesn't look like it will be DeSantis now. Maybe someone else will come through maybe Haley (is she still in it?). I don't know but I do think that a new candidate will come through, lots of time yet.
I think if Trump drops out for one reason or another (20% chance) and Haley gets the nomination (currently 8% chance but 50% chance if Trump drops out) then I think Biden will also drop out. He's only hanging in out of duty to defeat Trump.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
In that scenario Haley would surely win easily.
Don’t agree with many of her views but she has both guts and principles. Moreover she’s clearly very shrewd.
Newsom’s a bit meh by comparison.
But I am not convinced he would be the nominee, for that reason alone.
If it's not Newsom then it's Kamala and you have the same problem, -assuming Michelle refuses to stand if it's not Trump.
I think female president is a value bet at 8 on Betfair as it covers both Nikki, Michelle and Kamala.
Trump price drifting. Always a morale boost when that happens.
You can rest assured kinabalu. Trump will not become President again or even get the nomination. It's not happening!
Who will get the nomination? And do you think he will pull out, or the primary voters will, gods forbid, actually choose someone else?
I still think Mike Pence has an outside chance but I know some others disagree. It doesn't look like it will be DeSantis now. Maybe someone else will come through maybe Haley (is she still in it?). I don't know but I do think that a new candidate will come through, lots of time yet.
I think if Trump drops out for one reason or another (20% chance) and Haley gets the nomination (currently 8% chance but 50% chance if Trump drops out) then I think Biden will also drop out. He's only hanging in out of duty to defeat Trump.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
I think that's poor value - they're not as related contingencies as that.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
I don't think it will come to a shoot-out between State Police and the Secret Service, but if it did, I'd expect the Federal forces to prevail.
Legally State Police would be obliged to enforce state law and if he was in jail in a blue state and convicted in DC or New York especially no guarantee Federal agents could get him out given the mobs that would gather to help State Police keep him in jail.
If he was in a red state jail and convicted in Florida or Georgia by contrast he has a better chance as mobs would be helping the Federal agents get him out of jail (by this stage the US would be near civil war most likely anyway)
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
The problem will be empanelling a jury.
There are a limited number of objections that the defence can use. Even if it is a hundred, they will still get a jury.
Trump price drifting. Always a morale boost when that happens.
You can rest assured kinabalu. Trump will not become President again or even get the nomination. It's not happening!
Who will get the nomination? And do you think he will pull out, or the primary voters will, gods forbid, actually choose someone else?
I still think Mike Pence has an outside chance but I know some others disagree. It doesn't look like it will be DeSantis now. Maybe someone else will come through maybe Haley (is she still in it?). I don't know but I do think that a new candidate will come through, lots of time yet.
I think if Trump drops out for one reason or another (20% chance) and Haley gets the nomination (currently 8% chance but 50% chance if Trump drops out) then I think Biden will also drop out. He's only hanging in out of duty to defeat Trump.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
Haley has about as much chance of being next GOP nominee as Hunt does of being next Tory leader, she is too moderate for the MAGA crowd and evangelicals who dominate GOP caucuses and primaries
She's second favourite as nominee ahead of DeSantis on Betfair (just). You can lay her at 14s if you're so certain.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
There have been Supreme Court decisions saying that States can't insert extra qualifications beyond what's in the Constitution.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
Since we're going down this rabbit hole I think we can be fairly confident that the state authorities would allow Trump release in order to serve as President, without vacating his sentence.
It's be completely barmy if ever got to that point (I don't think he will be in jail come the election even if he was convicted of something), but ways would be found.
Why? Blue state judges in New York especially will uphold the law and sentence applies to everyone including Republican Presidents
Inflation = not sorted NHS waiting lists = soaring Boats = not under control Borrowing = out of control Economy = ****ed
Overall no hope no chance and I say this as a CON! 😡
None of those will improve under Starmer.
None.
You don't mind if we don't just take your word for it?
Tell me which then.
Go on. Which will improve under Starmer?
They aren't just a mess because the Tories are a mess. They are a mess because they are damned near impossible for ANY party to fix. Especially if Starmer is in a rainbow coalition, which is a significant likelihood.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him. I suspect if he is actually in jail on election day however Trump would lose the election but it is not impossible he wins still
"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
Since we're going down this rabbit hole I think we can be fairly confident that the state authorities would allow Trump release in order to serve as President, without vacating his sentence.
It's be completely barmy if ever got to that point (I don't think he will be in jail come the election even if he was convicted of something), but ways would be found.
Why?
The idea a state would try to keep the democratically elected president of the united states in prison, thus preventing him from being able to be president, is so ridiculous I don't even know how to respond. It's bloody stupid if the voters elected a convicted criminal, but they apparently have the right to do so, what would be the point of such a right if the person elected was not allowed to then actually serve?
There are occasions when people are able to leave prison during their sentence, compassionate release that sort of thing, perfectly legal (though I imagine in the US the rules vary from state to state), they could probably find a way to do it whilst still 'following the law'.
Lets hope that Ms Regan leads a sizeable split in the SNP. Wouldn't that be fun!
She had one SNP endorser in the leadership election, Joanna Cherry. I’d enjoy it if she did, but JC is too self important to shackle herself to under (non really) performers like Alba.
SNP are already in tatters and circling the drain, devoid of talent and run by fcukwits of teh highest order. Destruction is too good for them, be nice if they were wiped out.
Its utterly depressing as an English supporter of Scottish Independence just what a mess of the situation the SNP made. They had a golden opportunity to concentrate on independence, and instead politicians like Sturgeon and Yousaf have just become the worst of any other kind of politician, seeking personal success and development over furthering the course of Scottish Independence. Engaging with Twitter and wild cultural war issues over independence and unifying Scotland behind their agenda.
A sane SNP could and should have been laying the groundwork for independence by concentrating on running the economy as well as they could with the powers they have, developing Scotland as well as they could, encouraging investment etc to show that Scotland could be better run by Holyrood than by Westminster. Instead of running on a platform of "Scotland is failing due to Westminster" versus Westminster's inevitable (and equally ridiculous "Scotland would fail independently" say that "Scotland is thriving and can thrive even more independently".
Instead the party chose to spend its time arguing over whether someone with a penis is a man or a woman.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
That's a good point - I may have lost track of a detail.
(Checks)
Yes, I think you are correct.
The State ones in view at present are Georgia Election Fraud, Florida classified documents (and potentially disclosing classified information to eg Mr Pratt from Australia and others) where the Judge is being helpful to Trump, and the New York Civil Fraud case.
Washington Electoral Interference is Federal.
Judges are in different ways holding him to account for his behaviour in Georgia (Judge Scott McAfee), Washington (Judge Tanya Chutkan) and NY (Judge Arthur Engoron). In NY he is on a Bench Trial, as his lawyer did not request a Jury Trial, and has already been found guilty on a couple of counts.
He is under gag orders (supplemental to release conditions which afaics he has violated all over the place) in New York on the Civil Fraud trial (plus I think things extant from the pornstar-payoff trial), Washington (Trump currently appealing, but Prosecution has asked for a wider gag order as he threatened a witness again whilst it was suspended).
He has been sanctioned in NY twice for violation of the order.
I think that is most of it, and I think that is a correct summary.
There are other cases around, such as a Civil Suit from Election Staff who Trump and friends accused of being corrupt, and a potential further State case in I think Alabama (?).
I think there's also one from one of his former lawyers who did not get paid.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
Since we're going down this rabbit hole I think we can be fairly confident that the state authorities would allow Trump release in order to serve as President, without vacating his sentence.
It's be completely barmy if ever got to that point (I don't think he will be in jail come the election even if he was convicted of something), but ways would be found.
Why?
The idea a state would try to keep the democratically elected president of the united states in prison, thus preventing him from being able to be president, is so ridiculous I don't even know how to respond. It's bloody stupid if the voters elected a convicted criminal, but they apparently have the right to do so, what would be the point of such a right if the person elected was not allowed to then actually serve?
There are occasions when people are able to leave prison during their sentence, compassionate release that sort of thing, perfectly legal (though I imagine in the US the rules vary from state to state), they could probably find a way to do it whilst still 'following the law'.
Why? The judges are there to uphold the rule of law in their state, not to make it easy to be President. If Trump ran for President knowing he faced the risk of trying to be President from jail if convicted of state criminal charges but still elected as far as they would be concerned that is his problem.
If even an elected President broke state criminal law they cannot pardon themselves from judges will put upholding the rule of law and the sentence they imposed first
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution which this wouldn't be
It overrides state law on strictly defined Federal matters. Outwith certain restrictions in the Constitution voting is not a federal matter.
(If Federal law overrode state law in all things abortion would be legal, wouldn’t it?)
Congress can legislate on abortion, but that is much harder in terms of legislating to allow abortion than to ban it.
This is because, if the federal government legislates to enable access to abortion, states can effectively pass laws making it impossible to operate an abortion clinic. Roe v Wade used to be use to strike down all such state-level efforts. That's not possible now due to Dobbs v Jackson. There are limits to state powers - the federal government would probably be able to prevent states from restricting free movement of people to neighbouring states for the purposes of obtaining an abortion for instance.
In terms of banning abortion, that's much easier to ban at the federal level as you'd be likely to effectively be able to do it under the commerce clause, where federal law has supremacy. It's relatively unlikely to happen, though, as Republicans aren't as one on it. There are pro-choice Republicans, and also plenty who aren't extreme on rape, incest, access to morning after pills etc. Even those who are solidly anti-abortion are also often very strongly pro-state rights, and don't want it enacted at federal level. And some just realise it isn't a popular cause to get involved in outside the heartlands. So it's mooted a lot in Presidential primaries, but it's far from certain it would prove a priority.
Inflation = not sorted NHS waiting lists = soaring Boats = not under control Borrowing = out of control Economy = ****ed
Overall no hope no chance and I say this as a CON! 😡
None of those will improve under Starmer.
None.
As a very dry ex-Tory voter I have to say that's not a reason not to want a change in Government.
Even if things get no better under Starmer, they're definitely not getting better under Sunak.
Time to shake the kaleidoscope of politics and see what comes up. Hopefully (unlikely) Starmer gets things better, in which case that's an improvement over Sunak anyway.
And if not, the Tories need a much-deserved time in Opposition to sort themselves out, refresh themselves, and rethink about why they should be in office and become worthy of it again.
That sort of reflection isn't happening today and can only realistically happen after a defeat, and boy under Sunak do they deserve a defeat.
Lets hope that Ms Regan leads a sizeable split in the SNP. Wouldn't that be fun!
She had one SNP endorser in the leadership election, Joanna Cherry. I’d enjoy it if she did, but JC is too self important to shackle herself to under (non really) performers like Alba.
SNP are already in tatters and circling the drain, devoid of talent and run by fcukwits of teh highest order. Destruction is too good for them, be nice if they were wiped out.
Its utterly depressing as an English supporter of Scottish Independence just what a mess of the situation the SNP made. They had a golden opportunity to concentrate on independence, and instead politicians like Sturgeon and Yousaf have just become the worst of any other kind of politician, seeking personal success and development over furthering the course of Scottish Independence. Engaging with Twitter and wild cultural war issues over independence and unifying Scotland behind their agenda.
A sane SNP could and should have been laying the groundwork for independence by concentrating on running the economy as well as they could with the powers they have, developing Scotland as well as they could, encouraging investment etc to show that Scotland could be better run by Holyrood than by Westminster. Instead of running on a platform of "Scotland is failing due to Westminster" versus Westminster's inevitable (and equally ridiculous "Scotland would fail independently" say that "Scotland is thriving and can thrive even more independently".
Instead the party chose to spend its time arguing over whether someone with a penis is a man or a woman.
Its so ridiculous, you couldn't make it up.
Instead it marginalised Kate Forbes, SNP's star talent. What she does next is an interesting question.
Unless the SNP see that she is their future quite soon I suspect she will join the crowd of politically first tier figures who get out of front line politics.
Politically this suits me fine - I am a unionist. From the wider demos point of view, it is a disaster.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution which this wouldn't be
It overrides state law on strictly defined Federal matters. Outwith certain restrictions in the Constitution voting is not a federal matter.
(If Federal law overrode state law in all things abortion would be legal, wouldn’t it?)
Congress can legislate on abortion, but that is much harder in terms of legislating to allow abortion than to ban it.
This is because, if the federal government legislates to enable access to abortion, states can effectively pass laws making it impossible to operate an abortion clinic. Roe v Wade used to be use to strike down all such state-level efforts. That's not possible now due to Dobbs v Jackson. There are limits to state powers - the federal government would probably be able to prevent states from restricting free movement of people to neighbouring states for the purposes of obtaining an abortion for instance.
In terms of banning abortion, that's much easier to ban at the federal level as you'd be likely to effectively be able to do it under the commerce clause, where federal law has supremacy. It's relatively unlikely to happen, though, as Republicans aren't as one on it. There are pro-choice Republicans, and also plenty who aren't extreme on rape, incest, access to morning after pills etc. Even those who are solidly anti-abortion are also often very strongly pro-state rights, and don't want it enacted at federal level. And some just realise it isn't a popular cause to get involved in outside the heartlands. So it's mooted a lot in Presidential primaries, but it's far from certain it would prove a priority.
Various defendants have tried to get their cases transferred to Federal Courts on the basis that they were Federal Officials doing their normal job; that fails because criminal activity cannot be part of an official Federal Job activity.
Similarly various lawyers' private records have been opened up because client privilege does not protect when the lawyer is likely to be engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
A former Trump aid called Jessica Denson won a case on 11 Oct which has taken from 2016 to now to get a ruling that NDAs signed by former Trump Campaign Workers from employees can be set aside. That may open a further can of worms for Trump.
I can identify with Sunak’s position, from my lifelong experience of local government.
In a leadership position, any public authority is only able to devote its full attention to the myriad external issues that demand such, if everyone inside the tent is on the same page and happily p*ssing out of the tent.
Any public administration beset with internal issues or conflict will inevitably be giving this most of its attention, with at best trying to give external plates the bare minimum just to avoid any of them falling off.
It’s why the voting public, despite generally not paying all that much attention to politics, don’t vote for divided parties. Instinctively, we all know that a team of politicians divided amongst themselves will be giving most of their attention to their internal differences while our genuine concerns about good government are left to go hang.
Inflation = not sorted NHS waiting lists = soaring Boats = not under control Borrowing = out of control Economy = ****ed
Overall no hope no chance and I say this as a CON! 😡
None of those will improve under Starmer.
None.
As a very dry ex-Tory voter I have to say that's not a reason not to want a change in Government.
Even if things get no better under Starmer, they're definitely not getting better under Sunak.
Time to shake the kaleidoscope of politics and see what comes up. Hopefully (unlikely) Starmer gets things better, in which case that's an improvement over Sunak anyway.
And if not, the Tories need a much-deserved time in Opposition to sort themselves out, refresh themselves, and rethink about why they should be in office and become worthy of it again.
That sort of reflection isn't happening today and can only realistically happen after a defeat, and boy under Sunak do they deserve a defeat.
Indeed.
People fresh in the job are, initially at least, both more assiduous and more conscientious.
66 cents for first class letters, which must weigh no more than an ounce. Thanks to tech advances, that means that you can include a small USB drive in a first class letter.
(The rate will be going up to 68 cents soon, but you can buy "forever" stamps now that will still be good after the increase.)
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution which this wouldn't be
It overrides state law on strictly defined Federal matters. Outwith certain restrictions in the Constitution voting is not a federal matter.
(If Federal law overrode state law in all things abortion would be legal, wouldn’t it?)
The current Supreme Court is quite capable of ruling that any state level impediments to Trump being a candidate (such as being imprison) violate federal law on voting rights or some such.
Put money on that.
It’s possible. The catch would be that while the Constitution says who ‘must’ be allowed to vote, it’s rather vague on the circumstances where that right can be withdrawn.
The catch for SCOTUS is that in ruling Trump as a state felon is entitled to run, would be saying, in effect, all felons in state penitentiaries should be entitled to vote.
Which might be rather an awkward sell to the Republican base.
(Except for those who are in jail, obviously.)
You’ve got no future as a Supreme Court Justice.
It would be a ruling that putting an Orange Republican candidate for President, called Donald Trump, in state prison would uniquely violate the Civil Rights Act.
The same ruling would mandate that all Democrat candidates for President go straight to Federal jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
That's a good point - I may have lost track of a detail.
(Checks)
Yes, I think you are correct.
The State ones in view at present are Georgia Election Fraud, Florida classified documents (and potentially disclosing classified information to eg Mr Pratt from Australia and others) where the Judge is being helpful to Trump, and the New York Civil Fraud case.
Washington Electoral Interference is Federal.
Judges are in different ways holding him to account for his behaviour in Georgia (Judge Scott McAfee), Washington (Judge Tanya Chutkan) and NY (Judge Arthur Engoron). In NY he is on a Bench Trial, as his lawyer did not request a Jury Trial, and has already been found guilty on a couple of counts.
He is under gag orders (supplemental to release conditions which afaics he has violated all over the place) in New York on the Civil Fraud trial (plus I think things extant from the pornstar-payoff trial), Washington (Trump currently appealing, but Prosecution has asked for a wider gag order as he threatened a witness again whilst it was suspended).
He has been sanctioned in NY twice for violation of the order.
I think that is most of it, and I think that is a correct summary.
There are other cases around, such as a Civil Suit from Election Staff who Trump and friends accused of being corrupt, and a potential further State case in I think Alabama (?).
I think there's also one from one of his former lawyers who did not get paid.
Georgia is probably the one that will get Trump - can’t see a way out of that one for him. Apart from jury nullification.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
That's a good point - I may have lost track of a detail.
(Checks)
Yes, I think you are correct.
The State ones in view at present are Georgia Election Fraud, Florida classified documents (and potentially disclosing classified information to eg Mr Pratt from Australia and others) where the Judge is being helpful to Trump, and the New York Civil Fraud case.
Washington Electoral Interference is Federal.
Judges are in different ways holding him to account for his behaviour in Georgia (Judge Scott McAfee), Washington (Judge Tanya Chutkan) and NY (Judge Arthur Engoron). In NY he is on a Bench Trial, as his lawyer did not request a Jury Trial, and has already been found guilty on a couple of counts.
He is under gag orders (supplemental to release conditions which afaics he has violated all over the place) in New York on the Civil Fraud trial (plus I think things extant from the pornstar-payoff trial), Washington (Trump currently appealing, but Prosecution has asked for a wider gag order as he threatened a witness again whilst it was suspended).
He has been sanctioned in NY twice for violation of the order.
I think that is most of it, and I think that is a correct summary.
There are other cases around, such as a Civil Suit from Election Staff who Trump and friends accused of being corrupt, and a potential further State case in I think Alabama (?).
I think there's also one from one of his former lawyers who did not get paid.
Georgia is probably the one that will get Trump - can’t see a way out of that one for him. Apart from jury nullification.
Has Georgia got a jury yet? I half-expected the jury selection process to take forever as Trump's lawyers would argue anyone who has ever said anything in public either pro-Democrat or pro-mainstream Republican, or independent, or any other excuse would have to be stricken off.
Seattle Times ($) - The zombie that’s eating politics comes to King County
by Danny Westneat - The news that an election denier is vying to run the vote-counting operation in King County is a little startling, in a “really, here?” kind of way. But it’s also a fitting symbol for the state of Republican politics right now.
They’ve gone into the zombie zone. . . .
. . . Seth Keshel last month, in Black Diamond, [spoke] at a fundraiser for local candidate Doug Basler, of Kent, who is running for King County elections director.
Keshel is sort of a traveling conspiracy salesman. A former military officer, he goes around with a statistical presentation for how the 2020 election not only was rigged against Trump, but how Washington state was the most fraudulent of all.
“Trump could have won Washington state,” he tells the small crowd . . .“Somebody decided that no matter how many votes Trump gains, we’re going to turn Washington to the left by three more points.”
Keshel’s claims have been repeatedly debunked . . . On this night it animated this group of Republicans to donate to Basler’s outsider campaign for elections director in the state’s biggest county.
“They tell me I can’t win, because they cheat,” Basler tells the crowd. “Well guess what? If I can’t win, then I can say anything I want.”
That’s one of the tropes of this conspiracy: Losing is the main evidence of it. The losing makes it self-reinforcing. . . .
Keshel seemed to get that this is a bit of a downer, so he suggests a rebrand.
“We are not election deniers,” he says. “We are fraud affirmers.” [!!!]
That affirming part is proving elusive. . . . Basler filed a lawsuit contending that “6,000 votes were flipped, over 400,000 votes were added and/or thousands of votes were removed in one or more statewide races.”
. . . Basler’s lawsuit was tossed by a judge last summer . . . .
At the fundraiser, Basler dismissively calls her “this girl, Julie Wise, running King County elections,” though she’s 43 and is seeking her third term. . . .
If Republicans were going to flee this zombie, they would have done so by now. Instead it is consuming them. It feels inevitable, because the madman who unleashed it, Trump, remains the leader of the party. . . .
It’s fine to prod the vote-counting system for weaknesses, to demand recounts and to challenge election results in court. But after three years of continuously claiming fraud when none has been found, you become the fraud.
During the fundraiser, Basler shows a cartoon TV ad he made for his campaign. It features a zombie clutching a ballot, with “Democrat” checked off three times. The zombie says: “In life, I voted Republican.” The ad shows Biden’s vote total passing Trump’s with the words “it’s a miracle!!!” . . .
At the close of the 30-second spot, Basler pops up and says: “Well? Somebody’s lyin’.”
Those are all normalisation agreements with countries Israel was not at war with (and some, had never been at war with). They are all welcome. But they are not attempts at peace with the Palestinians and the resolution of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza.
I can identify with Sunak’s position, from my lifelong experience of local government.
In a leadership position, any public authority is only able to devote its full attention to the myriad external issues that demand such, if everyone inside the tent is on the same page and happily p*ssing out of the tent.
Any public administration beset with internal issues or conflict will inevitably be giving this most of its attention, with at best trying to give external plates the bare minimum just to avoid any of them falling off.
It’s why the voting public, despite generally not paying all that much attention to politics, don’t vote for divided parties. Instinctively, we all know that a team of politicians divided amongst themselves will be giving most of their attention to their internal differences while our genuine concerns about good government are left to go hang.
One thing that seems to be a problem in government - local and national - is getting any sense of a team working together.
When you include the Civil Service trying to run its own policies, chaos seems inevitable
Those are all normalisation agreements with countries Israel was not at war with (and some, had never been at war with). They are all welcome. But they are not attempts at peace with the Palestinians and the resolution of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza.
That is not one but four successful agreements reached, and a fifth that was close to being reached before Hamas blew it all up.
There can be no peace with the Palestinians while Hamas exist, surely even you know that? Israel was trying for peace, repeatedly, with the Palestinians even withdrawing from Gaza even after Arafat blew up the peace accords.
The blockade of Gaza came after Hamas took over, not before it. You need to learn your history better.
Once Hamas are destroyed, hopefully then there might be a chance of peace with the Palestinians but as long as the Palestinians are led by people like Hamas, there's no chance. While the Palestinians are led by people like Fatah there's slim chance.
Israel is trying for peace wherever it can, its not Israel's fault Hamas hates the idea of peace and wants jihad instead.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
That's a good point - I may have lost track of a detail.
(Checks)
Yes, I think you are correct.
The State ones in view at present are Georgia Election Fraud, Florida classified documents (and potentially disclosing classified information to eg Mr Pratt from Australia and others) where the Judge is being helpful to Trump, and the New York Civil Fraud case.
Washington Electoral Interference is Federal.
Judges are in different ways holding him to account for his behaviour in Georgia (Judge Scott McAfee), Washington (Judge Tanya Chutkan) and NY (Judge Arthur Engoron). In NY he is on a Bench Trial, as his lawyer did not request a Jury Trial, and has already been found guilty on a couple of counts.
He is under gag orders (supplemental to release conditions which afaics he has violated all over the place) in New York on the Civil Fraud trial (plus I think things extant from the pornstar-payoff trial), Washington (Trump currently appealing, but Prosecution has asked for a wider gag order as he threatened a witness again whilst it was suspended).
He has been sanctioned in NY twice for violation of the order.
I think that is most of it, and I think that is a correct summary.
There are other cases around, such as a Civil Suit from Election Staff who Trump and friends accused of being corrupt, and a potential further State case in I think Alabama (?).
I think there's also one from one of his former lawyers who did not get paid.
Georgia is probably the one that will get Trump - can’t see a way out of that one for him. Apart from jury nullification.
Has Georgia got a jury yet? I half-expected the jury selection process to take forever as Trump's lawyers would argue anyone who has ever said anything in public either pro-Democrat or pro-mainstream Republican, or independent, or any other excuse would have to be stricken off.
Those are all normalisation agreements with countries Israel was not at war with (and some, had never been at war with). They are all welcome. But they are not attempts at peace with the Palestinians and the resolution of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza.
The theory is that if the Arab world makes peace with Israel, that this will leave just the Palestinian/Israel issue…. Yes, I agree, but that’s the theory.
I can identify with Sunak’s position, from my lifelong experience of local government.
In a leadership position, any public authority is only able to devote its full attention to the myriad external issues that demand such, if everyone inside the tent is on the same page and happily p*ssing out of the tent.
Any public administration beset with internal issues or conflict will inevitably be giving this most of its attention, with at best trying to give external plates the bare minimum just to avoid any of them falling off.
It’s why the voting public, despite generally not paying all that much attention to politics, don’t vote for divided parties. Instinctively, we all know that a team of politicians divided amongst themselves will be giving most of their attention to their internal differences while our genuine concerns about good government are left to go hang.
One thing that seems to be a problem in government - local and national - is getting any sense of a team working together.
When you include the Civil Service trying to run its own policies, chaos seems inevitable
Especially given how many civil service policies are very stupid policies.
Incidentally @Leon you we're taking earlier about the fears in Sicily. The Cretans are worried they've had no major rainfall in seven months, and sweltering heat.
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
The Washington case is a Federal one, is it not?
Georgia must terrify him, even the Governor cannot pardon him if convicted there (even though he's spent years criticising Kemp, he would probably still receive a pardon from him if possible).
That's a good point - I may have lost track of a detail.
(Checks)
Yes, I think you are correct.
The State ones in view at present are Georgia Election Fraud, Florida classified documents (and potentially disclosing classified information to eg Mr Pratt from Australia and others) where the Judge is being helpful to Trump, and the New York Civil Fraud case.
Washington Electoral Interference is Federal.
Judges are in different ways holding him to account for his behaviour in Georgia (Judge Scott McAfee), Washington (Judge Tanya Chutkan) and NY (Judge Arthur Engoron). In NY he is on a Bench Trial, as his lawyer did not request a Jury Trial, and has already been found guilty on a couple of counts.
He is under gag orders (supplemental to release conditions which afaics he has violated all over the place) in New York on the Civil Fraud trial (plus I think things extant from the pornstar-payoff trial), Washington (Trump currently appealing, but Prosecution has asked for a wider gag order as he threatened a witness again whilst it was suspended).
He has been sanctioned in NY twice for violation of the order.
I think that is most of it, and I think that is a correct summary.
There are other cases around, such as a Civil Suit from Election Staff who Trump and friends accused of being corrupt, and a potential further State case in I think Alabama (?).
I think there's also one from one of his former lawyers who did not get paid.
Georgia is probably the one that will get Trump - can’t see a way out of that one for him. Apart from jury nullification.
Has Georgia got a jury yet? I half-expected the jury selection process to take forever as Trump's lawyers would argue anyone who has ever said anything in public either pro-Democrat or pro-mainstream Republican, or independent, or any other excuse would have to be stricken off.
There are limits. Can't block it forever.
Indeed, but they can try it on.
I'm guessing the prosecution similarly will want to strike off anyone who is openly MAGA, but not sure if they'd be able to.
Seems that jury selection hasn't happened yet though? Not 100% sure.
Stuff like this reassures me. On the main square of Piazza Armerina
“City against all mafias”
All towns should do this to make visitors feel a tiny bit safer
Newent should have a whacking big placard on the road towards the main Tesco saying
“Newent says No to random arson attacks!”
Or Rotherham could have
“No rapes here, we’re Yorkshire!” With a cheery picture of a waving cab driver welcoming you
There is no Tesco in Newent. The nearest is in Ledbury eight miles away.
“Ledbury! We don’t slot you with lead and bury you! The name is just a coincidence, honest!”
That should be on all their tourist literature
It gets worse. It's named after the river 'Leadon.'
My landlord here has just cheerfully admitted “yeah ok it’s a really mafia town, lots of murders, but they only kill each other, so you’re probably fine. They don’t steal from cars”
Which is kinda cool. I like Italians. They have a proper sense of humour
On topic, possibly: Ramesh Ponnuru asks why American are disatisfied with Biden's economy: 'The economy expanded at a nearly 5 percent annual rate during the most recent quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and inflation is falling. Yet people are still unhappy about the economy. Gallup’s latest numbers show only 20 percent of Americans consider the economy excellent or good, while 48 percent consider it poor.'
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.' (Links omitted.) source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
On topic, possibly: Ramesh Ponnuru asks why American are disatisfied with Biden's economy: 'The economy expanded at a nearly 5 percent annual rate during the most recent quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and inflation is falling. Yet people are still unhappy about the economy. Gallup’s latest numbers show only 20 percent of Americans consider the economy excellent or good, while 48 percent consider it poor.'
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.' (Links omitted.) source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
Could something similar be true in the UK?
I think we're back in the black since 2019, just. But down since 2020-2022:
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after Super Tuesday most GOP delegates would still not yet have been picked (Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and California yet to vote for example) and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtaken. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it. While the US constitution does not prevent convicted felons in jail from running for President, it doesn't say they have a constitutional right to run either, so Congress could in theory pass a law banning them from doing so
If Trump is in jail, no one is going to bother if he tries to run. He won't win anyway.
On topic, possibly: Ramesh Ponnuru asks why American are disatisfied with Biden's economy: 'The economy expanded at a nearly 5 percent annual rate during the most recent quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and inflation is falling. Yet people are still unhappy about the economy. Gallup’s latest numbers show only 20 percent of Americans consider the economy excellent or good, while 48 percent consider it poor.'
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.' (Links omitted.) source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
Could something similar be true in the UK?
I think we're back in the black since 2019, just. But down since 2020-2022:
Factor in Sunak's fiscal drag tax rises and we're absolutely down even on 2019 I'm pretty certain.
Which is part of the point of why Sunak deserves to lose the next election, because its not inflation that has hurt us as much as Sunak putting up taxes which has. Unless you're so fabulously rich that fiscal drag doesn't affect you.
[And yes, Starmer may do the same, and I don't intend to vote for his party, but if Sunak is no better then that's no reason to want Sunak to win]
I can identify with Sunak’s position, from my lifelong experience of local government.
In a leadership position, any public authority is only able to devote its full attention to the myriad external issues that demand such, if everyone inside the tent is on the same page and happily p*ssing out of the tent.
Any public administration beset with internal issues or conflict will inevitably be giving this most of its attention, with at best trying to give external plates the bare minimum just to avoid any of them falling off.
It’s why the voting public, despite generally not paying all that much attention to politics, don’t vote for divided parties. Instinctively, we all know that a team of politicians divided amongst themselves will be giving most of their attention to their internal differences while our genuine concerns about good government are left to go hang.
One thing that seems to be a problem in government - local and national - is getting any sense of a team working together.
When you include the Civil Service trying to run its own policies, chaos seems inevitable
Especially given how many civil service policies are very stupid policies.
There is a paucity of smart policies in general. The civil service and politicians are quite similar. In both careers, some care is taken to preventing actual experts getting the job.
On topic, possibly: Ramesh Ponnuru asks why American are disatisfied with Biden's economy: 'The economy expanded at a nearly 5 percent annual rate during the most recent quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and inflation is falling. Yet people are still unhappy about the economy. Gallup’s latest numbers show only 20 percent of Americans consider the economy excellent or good, while 48 percent consider it poor.'
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.' (Links omitted.) source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
The BBC just queried whether “from the river to the sea” is calling for genocide….
I genuinely don’t think they are doing it on purpose. I just think they are running on kids and no one has done the reading.
Did they ? I heard them reporting only that the protestors claimed it isn't.
Yes. So they treated that claim seriously, and validated it. Facts matter. That chant is calling for genocide - you don’t have to uncritically report the person that says it doesn’t. Just like you don’t have to report some statements from Israel uncritically.
TwiX is telling me 300,000-500,000 marched in London today for Palestine
That’s huge if so. Is it true? Hard to gauge the accuracy
"Tens of thousands" reported.
Sounds more reasonable
There’s a photo of a very impressive crowd crossing Westminster bridge and - sign of the times - I can’t tell if it’s AI or not. AI would find that really easy to fake. No difficult details
If Trump were to be in jail and won the election my assumption is that his VP would assume the office under the 25th amendment, but would essentially be Trump’s proxy and representative in Washington.
That assumes that Trumps ego allows him to declare himself incapable of serving though.
On topic, possibly: Ramesh Ponnuru asks why American are disatisfied with Biden's economy: 'The economy expanded at a nearly 5 percent annual rate during the most recent quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and inflation is falling. Yet people are still unhappy about the economy. Gallup’s latest numbers show only 20 percent of Americans consider the economy excellent or good, while 48 percent consider it poor.'
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.' (Links omitted.) source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
I think that here and in the US (and other countries) that the economy is seen very differently by different groups. Some people are doing very well - luxury goods places packed etc. At the same time, other people are in the shit.
The credentialed professional classes are generally in the “OK/doing well” section. And PB is heavily biased towards that group.
TwiX is telling me 300,000-500,000 marched in London today for Palestine
That’s huge if so. Is it true? Hard to gauge the accuracy
In my expertise, every march in London ever claims at least half a million. I’ve given up trying to guess is it’s true.
However, a friend told me it was quite intimidating. I think it was the swastikas they found most intimidating mind.
Remember,
1) Anti-senitism is just in your mind. 2) Those were probably Jewish swastikas anyway. 3) Bit like how this guy wasn’t a Nazi. No sir
Indeed. Though of course I do understand that I take my mate’s first hand report at fact value, but people on here should question me l because I’m just some bloke on the internet. I am sure there will be photos though. You don’t wave that flag and not want to be photographed. Ask Trump’s mates.
TwiX is telling me 300,000-500,000 marched in London today for Palestine
That’s huge if so. Is it true? Hard to gauge the accuracy
In my expertise, every march in London ever claims at least half a million. I’ve given up trying to guess is it’s true.
However, a friend told me it was quite intimidating. I think it was the swastikas they found most intimidating mind.
Interestingly, these days, with drones (or an helicopter) and the right software, you could count the crowd quite accurately. Sort of thing the BBC could and should do.
TwiX is telling me 300,000-500,000 marched in London today for Palestine
That’s huge if so. Is it true? Hard to gauge the accuracy
In my expertise, every march in London ever claims at least half a million. I’ve given up trying to guess is it’s true.
However, a friend told me it was quite intimidating. I think it was the swastikas they found most intimidating mind.
Remember,
1) Anti-senitism is just in your mind. 2) Those were probably Jewish swastikas anyway. 3) Bit like how this guy wasn’t a Nazi. No sir
Indeed. Though of course I do understand that I take my mate’s first hand report at fact value, but people on here should question me l because I’m just some bloke on the internet. I am sure there will be photos though. You don’t wave that flag and not want to be photographed. Ask Trump’s mates.
Quite a few people who are more recent immigrants don’t really “get” why Hitler & Co. are such a taboo.
The BBC just queried whether “from the river to the sea” is calling for genocide….
I genuinely don’t think they are doing it on purpose. I just think they are running on kids and no one has done the reading.
Did they ? I heard them reporting only that the protestors claimed it isn't.
And they should very clearly state it is. Fuckwits.
If the police won’t even treat it as an arrestable offence, I don’t think that’s true. FWIW, they also reported the Home Secretary saying it is antisemitic.
It’s a contentious point (FWIW I agree that it is meant as a call for the destruction of Israel), but that’s not the business of the BBC to adjudicate.
On topic, possibly: Ramesh Ponnuru asks why American are disatisfied with Biden's economy: 'The economy expanded at a nearly 5 percent annual rate during the most recent quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Economic growth is strong, unemployment is low, and inflation is falling. Yet people are still unhappy about the economy. Gallup’s latest numbers show only 20 percent of Americans consider the economy excellent or good, while 48 percent consider it poor.'
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.' (Links omitted.) source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
The BBC just queried whether “from the river to the sea” is calling for genocide….
I genuinely don’t think they are doing it on purpose. I just think they are running on kids and no one has done the reading.
Did they ? I heard them reporting only that the protestors claimed it isn't.
And they should very clearly state it is. Fuckwits.
If the police won’t even treat it as an arrestable offence, I don’t think that’s true. FWIW, they also reported the Home Secretary saying it is antisemitic.
It’s a contentious point (FWIW I agree that it is meant as a call for the destruction of Israel), but that’s not the business of the BBC to adjudicate.
There are a variety of statements that are, on face value, quite unobjectionable. But are actually racist. This is one of them.
Yousaf has said Ash Regan’s defection is “not a particularly great loss.”
I don’t know, but even if she only got 11% of the vote in the leadership contest, that’s still 11% of your membership you’re backhandedly insulting isn’t it? It feels like the SNP leadership have forgotten how to do politics recently…
A Biden dream scenario of course is that Trump then narrowly fails to get the GOP nomination but almost half of Republicans still back him and then Trump takes those with him with an Independent candidacy from jail.
Biden then wins with just 40-45% of the vote, 35% for the official GOP candidate and 20-25% for Trump
The first case starts the day before Super Tuesday. That alone should ensure he wins those states handily, if he were not going to already.
Of course the delegates formally pick the nominee at the convention I believe, but it's a fiddly process - some of them might be required to nominate Trump by law, given he won the primaries in various states. I presume they have some kind of process to theoretically get around that, but unless Trump's support craters upon conviction (neither conviction nor cratering guaranteed) would the party bother, given the risk as you point out of a solo Trump run?
Even after super Tuesday most delegates would still not yet have been picked and as the GOP primaries run until June plenty of time for Trump to still be overtake. He would literally need to have won every state up to and including Super Tuesday to be near certain of the nomination even if convicted and jailed in his March criminal trial.
There is of course also the chance Congress passes a law signed by Biden banning those in jail from running for President in the event of a Trump criminal conviction and jail sentence, if say 20-30 GOP representatives defected and a few GOP Senators like Romney and Collins too vote for it
Would such a law be Constitutional?
There is no constitutional right to run for President from jail, just no bar to doing so but a law passed by Congress and signed by the President could override that
The reason I ask is because - besides the qualifications in the constitution itself - it would seem to be a State matter who they allow on the ballot, rather than a Federal matter.
So I'd expect a State law to bar a convicted felon from the ballot would be Constitutional, but a Federal law I'm less sure about.
US Federal law overrides State law unless it is expressly against the Constitution or beyond its powers which this wouldn't be, certainly if he was convicted in a Federal rather than State court eg in DC where his first trial is.
Even if it was decided to be state only Trump could only be certain of being on the ballot in states where Republicans hold both the governor's mansion and state legislature, which is only a minority of states and not enough to win the EC
"Overrides" does not mean that State Law can be applied.
eg a President cannot issue a pardon for State convictions, which is why Trump is wetting his pants over the Washington and Georgia criminal cases (the Florida Judge is taking all the actions to prove herself a patsy).
He could still be President from jail though even if convicted in a State court if elected, even if unable to pardon himself. There is currently no constitutional bar to that or Federal or State law against it
One of my nightmare scenarios is that Trump wins the election while imprisoned and the Secret Service subsequently walk him out of jail. It would start his second term with a huge boost for impunity, and a great big raspberry for the rule of law.
State police could then rearrest him and send him back to jail.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him
Since we're going down this rabbit hole I think we can be fairly confident that the state authorities would allow Trump release in order to serve as President, without vacating his sentence.
It's be completely barmy if ever got to that point (I don't think he will be in jail come the election even if he was convicted of something), but ways would be found.
Why?
The idea a state would try to keep the democratically elected president of the united states in prison, thus preventing him from being able to be president, is so ridiculous I don't even know how to respond. It's bloody stupid if the voters elected a convicted criminal, but they apparently have the right to do so, what would be the point of such a right if the person elected was not allowed to then actually serve?
There are occasions when people are able to leave prison during their sentence, compassionate release that sort of thing, perfectly legal (though I imagine in the US the rules vary from state to state), they could probably find a way to do it whilst still 'following the law'.
Is there any reason his cabinet can't meet him in his cell or that he shouldnt do presidential addresses in an orange jump suit and shackles. It doesn't interfere with his duties particularly
TwiX is telling me 300,000-500,000 marched in London today for Palestine
That’s huge if so. Is it true? Hard to gauge the accuracy
In my expertise, every march in London ever claims at least half a million. I’ve given up trying to guess is it’s true.
However, a friend told me it was quite intimidating. I think it was the swastikas they found most intimidating mind.
Interestingly, these days, with drones (or an helicopter) and the right software, you could count the crowd quite accurately. Sort of thing the BBC could and should do.
I was on one of the earlier anti-Iraq War marches, before the big one, but I was late and we joined the march part way through, and ended up leaving it before the end. Bit of a fiasco really, so the sense in which there is one true number of people on a march is quite fluid, quite apart from all the bystanders.
I don't think software would really get you that much better a count then simply measuring the length of the march and estimating its density.
Comments
Put money on that.
Article 2 of the Constitution provides that the person receiving a majority of electoral college votes "shall" be President. Because this is a state rights point (as the electors are appointed and meet within each state) it is vanishingly unlikely any federal law restricting that would survive challenge, certainly with the Supreme Court but probably even a more liberal one.
There are restrictions within the Constitution itself on eligibility (age, two terms already served etc), but I think it's clear they'd be considered exhaustive by the courts. This is not least because the Constitution itself sees fit to deal with the matter. So it's very likely further restrictions would require constitutional amendment.
I know there is some debate over whether section 3 of the 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump anyway if convicted in Georgia and/or DC (it almost certainly wouldn't apply to the Florida case which is involves a serious felony but doesn't involve "insurrection or rebellion"). I don't think it does apply as the disqualification lists Senators, Representatives and "electors of President" as being affected, but not the President himself. It does refer to "any office, civil or military, under the United States" and this has been argued to be a catch all. But the fact it lists other specific offices but NOT President, even though the Constiution is peppered with references to that office, suggests the framers at the time (this was 1860s reconstruction rather than original framers) didn't intend it to be covered.
Secondly QTWAIN, Israel is not responsible. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005. All troops were withdrawn and all settlements were demolished. Palestinians were encouraged by Israel, the USA and the EU (and provided tens of millions of dollars of funding) to develop under Palestinian leadership with Israel encouraging and supporting the development of the Port of Gaza.
Unfortunately then Hamas "won" the Gazan elections and a war against Fatah, which destroyed the Roadmap to Peace that Bush was trying to encourage and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was supposed to be a part of. As a result Gaza had to be blockaded, due to Hamas, a blockade which has continued to this day.
America wants peace, Europe wants peace, Israel wants peace. Democracies want peace. There is one party here that does not.
Israel has tried for peace, repeatedly. Via Carter with Egypt. Via Clinton with Arafat. Via Clinton with Jordan. Via Bush with Fatah. Via Trump with UAE. Via Biden with Saudi Arabia until Hamas blew up those talks.
It is Arafat that rejected peace with the talks with Clinton, something Clinton has spoken about as bitterly regretting. It was Hamas that killed Bush's attempted Roadmap to peace, even after Sharon withdrew Israel from Gaza. It is Hamas that caused this latest upsurge of violence.
If you want peace, then support the eradication of Hamas, and hopefully new Palestinian leadership can arise that will actually put Palestinians first. Or support Israel actually occupying Gaza like you claimed they were, and being responsible for Gaza, rather than any Palestinian authorities, but Israel don't want that and nor should anyone else really.
If Haley is the GOP candidate then Michelle won't stand (she'll only stand if Trump is the candidate and Biden has to drop out) so it will be Newsom (70% chance if Biden drops out). Then 50/50 who will win between Haley and Newsom.
I think Haley/Newson as nominees is a value bet at 65 on Betfair.
The catch for SCOTUS is that in ruling Trump as a state felon is entitled to run, would be saying, in effect, all felons in state penitentiaries should be entitled to vote.
Which might be rather an awkward sell to the Republican base.
(Except for those who are in jail, obviously.)
The Supreme Court on the other hand I don't think feel a need to show gratitude - they are already appointed for life, and are pretty clear no other branch of government is allowed to hold them to task, even if they did something potentially corrupt, so much for equal branches I guess - but are far more political animals than judges lower down the scale, since they have no incentive not to indulge their political instincts above the law, as no court above will slap them down if they do.
So they will not universally vote along party lines, and won't always do what Trump or the GOP wants, but they are more willing to egregiously do so if they think it is a good idea.
Don’t agree with many of her views but she has both guts and principles. Moreover she’s clearly very shrewd.
Newsom’s a bit meh by comparison.
But I am not convinced he would be the nominee, for that reason alone.
The nuclear button would have to be in Trump's jail cell with him. I suspect if he is actually in jail on election day however Trump would lose the election but it is not impossible he wins still
In Georgia, I believe not only can the Governor not pardon, but the State Board of Pardons and Paroles can't even consider it until a certain proportion of the sentence has been served.
It's be completely barmy if ever got to that point (I don't think he will be in jail come the election even if he was convicted of something), but ways would be found.
I think female president is a value bet at 8 on Betfair as it covers both Nikki, Michelle and Kamala.
If he was in a red state jail and convicted in Florida or Georgia by contrast he has a better chance as mobs would be helping the Federal agents get him out of jail (by this stage the US would be near civil war most likely anyway)
Go on. Which will improve under Starmer?
They aren't just a mess because the Tories are a mess. They are a mess because they are damned near impossible for ANY party to fix. Especially if Starmer is in a rainbow coalition, which is a significant likelihood.
How little things have changed.
There are occasions when people are able to leave prison during their sentence, compassionate release that sort of thing, perfectly legal (though I imagine in the US the rules vary from state to state), they could probably find a way to do it whilst still 'following the law'.
A sane SNP could and should have been laying the groundwork for independence by concentrating on running the economy as well as they could with the powers they have, developing Scotland as well as they could, encouraging investment etc to show that Scotland could be better run by Holyrood than by Westminster. Instead of running on a platform of "Scotland is failing due to Westminster" versus Westminster's inevitable (and equally ridiculous "Scotland would fail independently" say that "Scotland is thriving and can thrive even more independently".
Instead the party chose to spend its time arguing over whether someone with a penis is a man or a woman.
Its so ridiculous, you couldn't make it up.
(Checks)
Yes, I think you are correct.
The State ones in view at present are Georgia Election Fraud, Florida classified documents (and potentially disclosing classified information to eg Mr Pratt from Australia and others) where the Judge is being helpful to Trump, and the New York Civil Fraud case.
Washington Electoral Interference is Federal.
Judges are in different ways holding him to account for his behaviour in Georgia (Judge Scott McAfee), Washington (Judge Tanya Chutkan) and NY (Judge Arthur Engoron). In NY he is on a Bench Trial, as his lawyer did not request a Jury Trial, and has already been found guilty on a couple of counts.
He is under gag orders (supplemental to release conditions which afaics he has violated all over the place) in New York on the Civil Fraud trial (plus I think things extant from the pornstar-payoff trial), Washington (Trump currently appealing, but Prosecution has asked for a wider gag order as he threatened a witness again whilst it was suspended).
He has been sanctioned in NY twice for violation of the order.
I think that is most of it, and I think that is a correct summary.
There are other cases around, such as a Civil Suit from Election Staff who Trump and friends accused of being corrupt, and a potential further State case in I think Alabama (?).
I think there's also one from one of his former lawyers who did not get paid.
If even an elected President broke state criminal law they cannot pardon themselves from judges will put upholding the rule of law and the sentence they imposed first
This is because, if the federal government legislates to enable access to abortion, states can effectively pass laws making it impossible to operate an abortion clinic. Roe v Wade used to be use to strike down all such state-level efforts. That's not possible now due to Dobbs v Jackson. There are limits to state powers - the federal government would probably be able to prevent states from restricting free movement of people to neighbouring states for the purposes of obtaining an abortion for instance.
In terms of banning abortion, that's much easier to ban at the federal level as you'd be likely to effectively be able to do it under the commerce clause, where federal law has supremacy. It's relatively unlikely to happen, though, as Republicans aren't as one on it. There are pro-choice Republicans, and also plenty who aren't extreme on rape, incest, access to morning after pills etc. Even those who are solidly anti-abortion are also often very strongly pro-state rights, and don't want it enacted at federal level. And some just realise it isn't a popular cause to get involved in outside the heartlands. So it's mooted a lot in Presidential primaries, but it's far from certain it would prove a priority.
Makes Catania look like Venice
Absolute Mafia central. Has to be
Even if things get no better under Starmer, they're definitely not getting better under Sunak.
Time to shake the kaleidoscope of politics and see what comes up. Hopefully (unlikely) Starmer gets things better, in which case that's an improvement over Sunak anyway.
And if not, the Tories need a much-deserved time in Opposition to sort themselves out, refresh themselves, and rethink about why they should be in office and become worthy of it again.
That sort of reflection isn't happening today and can only realistically happen after a defeat, and boy under Sunak do they deserve a defeat.
Unless the SNP see that she is their future quite soon I suspect she will join the crowd of politically first tier figures who get out of front line politics.
Politically this suits me fine - I am a unionist. From the wider demos point of view, it is a disaster.
Similarly various lawyers' private records have been opened up because client privilege does not protect when the lawyer is likely to be engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
A former Trump aid called Jessica Denson won a case on 11 Oct which has taken from 2016 to now to get a ruling that NDAs signed by former Trump Campaign Workers from employees can be set aside. That may open a further can of worms for Trump.
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/victory-jessica-denson-2016-trump-ndas/
In a leadership position, any public authority is only able to devote its full attention to the myriad external issues that demand such, if everyone inside the tent is on the same page and happily p*ssing out of the tent.
Any public administration beset with internal issues or conflict will inevitably be giving this most of its attention, with at best trying to give external plates the bare minimum just to avoid any of them falling off.
It’s why the voting public, despite generally not paying all that much attention to politics, don’t vote for divided parties. Instinctively, we all know that a team of politicians divided amongst themselves will be giving most of their attention to their internal differences while our genuine concerns about good government are left to go hang.
People fresh in the job are, initially at least, both more assiduous and more conscientious.
So it’s time for a change.
“City against all mafias”
All towns should do this to make visitors feel a tiny bit safer
Newent should have a whacking big placard on the road towards the main Tesco saying
“Newent says No to random arson attacks!”
Or Rotherham could have
“No rapes here, we’re Yorkshire!” With a cheery picture of a waving cab driver welcoming you
https://www.usps.com/ship/first-class-mail.htm
66 cents for first class letters, which must weigh no more than an ounce. Thanks to tech advances, that means that you can include a small USB drive in a first class letter.
(The rate will be going up to 68 cents soon, but you can buy "forever" stamps now that will still be good after the increase.)
The US Post Office claims to be "self funded", but that is only half true: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/24/american-postal-workers-union/postal-service-claim-not-fully-target/
It would be a ruling that putting an Orange Republican candidate for President, called Donald Trump, in state prison would uniquely violate the Civil Rights Act.
The same ruling would mandate that all Democrat candidates for President go straight to Federal jail, do not pass go and do not collect $200.
“Piazza Armerina, corruzione e truffa: carabinieri arrestano prete”
https://tg24.sky.it/palermo/2022/05/24/piazza-armerina-corruzione-truffa
by Danny Westneat - The news that an election denier is vying to run the vote-counting operation in King County is a little startling, in a “really, here?” kind of way. But it’s also a fitting symbol for the state of Republican politics right now.
They’ve gone into the zombie zone. . . .
. . . Seth Keshel last month, in Black Diamond, [spoke] at a fundraiser for local candidate Doug Basler, of Kent, who is running for King County elections director.
Keshel is sort of a traveling conspiracy salesman. A former military officer, he goes around with a statistical presentation for how the 2020 election not only was rigged against Trump, but how Washington state was the most fraudulent of all.
“Trump could have won Washington state,” he tells the small crowd . . .“Somebody decided that no matter how many votes Trump gains, we’re going to turn Washington to the left by three more points.”
Keshel’s claims have been repeatedly debunked . . . On this night it animated this group of Republicans to donate to Basler’s outsider campaign for elections director in the state’s biggest county.
“They tell me I can’t win, because they cheat,” Basler tells the crowd. “Well guess what? If I can’t win, then I can say anything I want.”
That’s one of the tropes of this conspiracy: Losing is the main evidence of it. The losing makes it self-reinforcing. . . .
Keshel seemed to get that this is a bit of a downer, so he suggests a rebrand.
“We are not election deniers,” he says. “We are fraud affirmers.” [!!!]
That affirming part is proving elusive. . . . Basler filed a lawsuit contending that “6,000 votes were flipped, over 400,000 votes were added and/or thousands of votes were removed in one or more statewide races.”
. . . Basler’s lawsuit was tossed by a judge last summer . . . .
At the fundraiser, Basler dismissively calls her “this girl, Julie Wise, running King County elections,” though she’s 43 and is seeking her third term. . . .
If Republicans were going to flee this zombie, they would have done so by now. Instead it is consuming them. It feels inevitable, because the madman who unleashed it, Trump, remains the leader of the party. . . .
It’s fine to prod the vote-counting system for weaknesses, to demand recounts and to challenge election results in court. But after three years of continuously claiming fraud when none has been found, you become the fraud.
During the fundraiser, Basler shows a cartoon TV ad he made for his campaign. It features a zombie clutching a ballot, with “Democrat” checked off three times. The zombie says: “In life, I voted Republican.” The ad shows Biden’s vote total passing Trump’s with the words “it’s a miracle!!!” . . .
At the close of the 30-second spot, Basler pops up and says: “Well? Somebody’s lyin’.”
Yes, somebody is. . . .
When you include the Civil Service trying to run its own policies, chaos seems inevitable
That should be on all their tourist literature
There can be no peace with the Palestinians while Hamas exist, surely even you know that? Israel was trying for peace, repeatedly, with the Palestinians even withdrawing from Gaza even after Arafat blew up the peace accords.
The blockade of Gaza came after Hamas took over, not before it. You need to learn your history better.
Once Hamas are destroyed, hopefully then there might be a chance of peace with the Palestinians but as long as the Palestinians are led by people like Hamas, there's no chance. While the Palestinians are led by people like Fatah there's slim chance.
Israel is trying for peace wherever it can, its not Israel's fault Hamas hates the idea of peace and wants jihad instead.
Near enough evens atm.
I'm guessing the prosecution similarly will want to strike off anyone who is openly MAGA, but not sure if they'd be able to.
Seems that jury selection hasn't happened yet though? Not 100% sure.
Which is kinda cool. I like Italians. They have a proper sense of humour
Manchester, city against football.
Belfast, city against puritanical divides.
Cardiff, city against sheep shaggers.
Lincolnshire, county against incest.
And suggests this may be one reason: 'The truth might be simpler: Wages haven’t kept up with prices. Average wages are down in real terms — adjusted, that is, for inflation — since President Biden took office. They are roughly 3 percent lower than their peak in April 2020.'
(Links omitted.)
source$ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/27/why-americans-unhappy-biden-economy/
Could something similar be true in the UK?
He won't win anyway.
Maidenhead, Berkshire
Which is part of the point of why Sunak deserves to lose the next election, because its not inflation that has hurt us as much as Sunak putting up taxes which has. Unless you're so fabulously rich that fiscal drag doesn't affect you.
[And yes, Starmer may do the same, and I don't intend to vote for his party, but if Sunak is no better then that's no reason to want Sunak to win]
I genuinely don’t think they are doing it on purpose. I just think they are running on kids and no one has done the reading.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/27/general-motors-stellantis-uaw-00124021
That’s huge if so. Is it true? Hard to gauge the accuracy
Former premier Li Keqiang's sudden death 'a total surprise' to China's top leaders
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=362050
However, a friend told me it was quite intimidating. I think it was the swastikas they found most intimidating mind.
I heard them reporting only that the protestors claimed it isn't.
There’s a photo of a very impressive crowd crossing Westminster bridge and - sign of the times - I can’t tell if it’s AI or not. AI would find that really easy to fake. No difficult details
1) Anti-senitism is just in your mind.
2) Those were probably Jewish swastikas anyway.
3) Bit like how this guy wasn’t a Nazi. No sir
That assumes that Trumps ego allows him to declare himself incapable of serving though.
The credentialed professional classes are generally in the “OK/doing well” section. And PB is heavily biased towards that group.
Go/Stop GreenFWIW, they also reported the Home Secretary saying it is antisemitic.
It’s a contentious point (FWIW I agree that it is meant as a call for the destruction of Israel), but that’s not the business of the BBC to adjudicate.
That's fitting.
I don’t know, but even if she only got 11% of the vote in the leadership contest, that’s still 11% of your membership you’re backhandedly insulting isn’t it? It feels like the SNP leadership have forgotten how to do politics recently…
Cue Halloween tabloid front pages about 'nightmare on Downing Street if Red Keir wins today' and 'Blair Witch Project' etc etc.
I don't think software would really get you that much better a count then simply measuring the length of the march and estimating its density.
Very much so at this rate.
Clever for the half term holidays too.
Half term in Northumberland next year.