Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Kamala Harris  (Vice President of The United States)

14 (70%)

Gretchen Whitmer  (Governor of Michigan)

0 (0%)

Gavin Newsome  (Governor of California)

5 (25%)

J. B. Pritzker  (Governor of Illinois)

0 (0%)

Michelle Obama  (Former First Lady)

1 (5%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[JimH]

Biden bowed out.  Who should be the Democratic candidate for President?  Eligible voters only, please. 

And who did I miss?

[jmone]

And who did I miss?

These are the ones the bookies are tracking. Harris, Whitmer, Clinton, Biden, Newsom, Obama, Shapiro, Buttigieg.

[jkrzok]

I was ok with Kamala in 2020. I feel the need to support her now because of the timing of events; we really don't have the time to run a real campaign and overcome any divisions that might erupt before the convention. There's also the fact that as a national candidate four years ago and this year she is thoroughly vetted; there should be no surprises in her background. There's also the question of money; there's hundreds of millions of dollars in the Biden/Harris coffers that will most easily transfers to the Harris/?? campaign.

If Joe stepped down as candidate last year I would give Newsom a hard look. Clinton entices me too. I wonder if she would have run in '23-24 if Biden didn't.

We should add in Hunter Biden to the poll. After all, if felony convictions aren't enough to disqualify a candidate... 

[kr4]

Who should be the Democratic candidate for President?  Eligible voters only, please. 

And who did I miss?

Roy Cooper
Mark Kelly

[Skerik]

Andy Beshear & Josh Shapiro might be getting looks / vetted, too.

[kr4]

Andy Beshear & Josh Shapiro might be getting looks / vetted, too.

Shapiro has announced his support for Harris. 

[Bob Sorel]

My choice would be Gavin Newsom, but I have to qualify that choice. His viability as a candidate would depend on the number and severity of skeletons in his closet and how the MAGA supporters would magnify them to suit their purpose. Newsom is young, feisty, has a great memory and debating skills, and can dish out as much as he gets. I don't think that Trump would stand a chance against him in knowledge and intelligence, and Newsom would roll all over him in a debate. The weak points for Newsom would be the potential skeletons in his closet (I have no idea of what might be there), and the fact that he comes from California, a state which is already voting Democratic...It would be much better if he were from a swing state instead in order to pull independent voters into the Democratic camp. Also, remember that California has the fifth largest economy in the world, so he already has enough experience to run a country IMHO.

Kamala would be my second choice, as she also has youth, intelligence, feistiness, and many of the same qualities as Newsom. Also, with so many issues affecting women in this election, she would win over a big portion of the of women voters, both old and young. She has also most likely been well vetted, so there will be minimal problems there, but she suffers the same "weakness" that Newsom suffers from in that she is from California, a state that Democrats already have in their pocket. When Hilary ran in 2016, America wasn't quite ready for a woman president, a factor that helped get Trump elected, but I really think that NOW is the right time. And let's not forget that she has the incumbency factor on her side also, since she is currently serving as VP.

So Newsom is my pick, but Harris might be the better choice in this particular election cycle, especially considering the short time that any new campaign has before the election takes place.

[jmone]

Shapiro has announced his support for Harris.

So has Newsom.

Looks like it will be Harris.  But who knows!  More entertaining than "House of Cards" (but I'm getting sick of popcorn).

[kr4]

So has Newsom.

Looks like it will be Harris.  But who knows!  More entertaining than "House of Cards" (but I'm getting sick of popcorn).

Yup.  I get the impression that the Dems want to coalesce on a candidate ASAP and justifiably so.  No time to be lost.

[JimH]

Yup.  I get the impression that the Dems want to coalesce on a candidate ASAP and justifiably so.  No time to be lost.

But it wasn't the Dems.  It was just a few hundred people at the top of the heap.  And Harris was appointed to the VP job by Biden.  That isn't Democracy.

[mwillems]

But it wasn't the Dems.  It was just a few hundred people at the top of the heap.  And Harris was appointed to the VP job by Biden.  That isn't Democracy.

Respectfully, Jim, I disagree.  I understand what you mean, but she was elected vice president by the people of the United States in conjunction with Joe Biden in the last election, she wasn't appointed like Ford was.  She's the duly elected vice president of the United States.  If Biden had (god forbid) died instead of stepping down, she'd be president right now and very likely running for president in his place (because she was his running mate). 

I don't think her stepping into his shoes is anti-democratic, I think that's pretty much how the system is supposed to work with respect to vice presidents.  In a perfect world he would've reached a decision not to run before the primaries so the voters could weigh in, but there's no way to run new primaries in all 50 states now.  IMO picking any other candidate at an open convention without a primary would open up the party to accusations of elites plucking someone out of a hat.

[JimH]

Respectfully, Jim, I disagree.  I understand what you mean, but she was elected vice president by the people of the United States in conjunction with Joe Biden in the last election, she wasn't appointed like Ford was. 

Nothing against Harris.  She will be a fine candidate.

But the position of Vice President is chosen by the nominee for President at the conventions.  Vance was selected by Trump last week.

Harris was on the winning ticket, but she didn't win the right to be on the ballot by winning primaries.  That's not how it works.  It's an appointed position.

If Biden had (god forbid) died instead of stepping down, she'd be president right now and very likely running for president in his place (because she was his running mate). 

That could still happen and he doesn't have to die.  He could just leave office early, as Nixon did.  Then the VP becomes President and the VP chooses their Vice President.

[dtc]

Harris was on the winning ticket, but she didn't win the right to be on the ballot by winning primaries.  That's not how it works.  It's an appointed position.

The Democratic nominee will be selected at the Democratic National Convention, as always.  With Biden not running, those delegates can vote for whoever they want to. They do not have to vote for Harris.  So the delegates will choose the candidate. She is not being appointed.  Biden is simply making his recommendation. There is not enough time to redo the primaries so the Biden delegates will vote as they choose.

Nixon left office because it was clear he had committed a crime and he decided to leave rather than be removed through an impeachment process. Biden is not leaving office. He has simply elected not to run for another term.  The better analogy is Lyndon Johnson.

[JimH]

Nixon chose Ford to replace Spiro Agnew, who quit and was later convicted. 

So Nixon chose Agnew to be his VP in 1972, then chose Ford to replace Agnew, then quit.

Johnson filled out his first elected term (64 to 68), then did no seek re-election, so his VP, Humphrey, ran against Nixon.

[craigmcg]

As a Canadian, I want the USA to stay as a democracy that doesn't invade or annex it's neighbours and maintains its longstanding participation/leadership in NATO and other alliances. Extreme Republicans/MAGAts winning the Presidency, House, and Senate would preclude that especially since the Supremes' ruling on both immunity and the reversal of the Chevron ruling.

From a "fantasy football" perspective, the ticket that my wife and I would like to see is Harris-Buttigieg as they are both great communicators, would leave critical Senators/Governors in place where they are most needed in the near future, and would offer a California "progressive leaning"along with a midwest former "centrist mayor". If we could vote in USA elections, they would have our votes!

[Bob Sorel]

As a Canadian, I want the USA to stay as a democracy that doesn't invade or annex it's neighbours and maintains its longstanding participation/leadership in NATO and other alliances. Extreme Republicans/MAGAts winning the Presidency, House, and Senate would preclude that especially since the Supremes' ruling on both immunity and the reversal of the Chevron ruling.

From a "fantasy football" perspective, the ticket that my wife and I would like to see is Harris-Buttigieg as they are both great communicators, would leave critical Senators/Governors in place where they are most needed in the near future, and would offer a California "progressive leaning"along with a midwest former "centrist mayor". If we could vote in USA elections, they would have our votes!

Yeah, that would be a great combo! Pete maintains his cool under all circumstances and is very intelligent and well spoken. And the cherry on top is that the president would be a black/Asian woman with a gay vice president, MAGA's worst nightmare team....

[FenceMan]

Please tell me I am not the only conservative here.

To answer the question though - no one should have been chosen, they should have figured out a way to have real people vote on the new candidate -  you know Democracy and all.

Even BLM is calling this a dictatorship move, can't be good for Democrats when that happens.

[FenceMan]

Yeah, that would be a great combo! Pete maintains his cool under all circumstances and is very intelligent and well spoken. And the cherry on top is that the president would be a black/Asian woman with a gay vice president, MAGA's worst nightmare team....

Spoken by someone who I assume has never been to South Bend, IN lol.

[FenceMan]

As a Canadian, I want the USA to stay as a democracy that doesn't invade or annex it's neighbours and maintains its longstanding participation/leadership in NATO and other alliances. Extreme Republicans/MAGAts winning the Presidency, House, and Senate would preclude that especially since the Supremes' ruling on both immunity and the reversal of the Chevron ruling.

From a "fantasy football" perspective, the ticket that my wife and I would like to see is Harris-Buttigieg as they are both great communicators, would leave critical Senators/Governors in place where they are most needed in the near future, and would offer a California "progressive leaning"along with a midwest former "centrist mayor". If we could vote in USA elections, they would have our votes!

You do realize Trump was already president for 4 years and never invaded Canada.

I probably should stop responding since the thought of the US invading Canada because you think the Supreme Court somehow made that legal is beyond laughable and if you truly believe that you are beyond gulliable.

Did "extreme MAGA's" just participate in a coup against the sitting President?  No I don't think that was us....  Think about it, the reason this topic exists is because a duly elected President of the United States was forced off the ticket because......he might have lost.

[mwillems]

Did "extreme MAGA's" just participate in a coup against the sitting President?  No I don't think that was us....  Think about it, the reason this topic exists is because a duly elected President of the United States was forced off the ticket because......he might have lost.

So I'll probably regret responding because you seem to have a lot of assumptions baked into your posts that I don't share, but this just isn't a fair description of what happened at all. 

Joe Biden had the delegates bound to him.  No one was, legally, able to force him off the ticket.  All anyone could do was ask him to drop out and apply social pressure in public or in private.  Donors could also refuse to donate.  Which is to say, all those people could exercise their first amendment rights with respect to his candidacy, but no one could make him do anything.  He chose to step down for his own reasons, most probably because he didn't fancy his own chances without the support of his party, donors, and even his own friends. 

Calling it a "coup" is ridiculous hyperbole.  Coups are an illegal or extra-legal regime change prompted by violence or the threat of violence.  There's none of that here (Joe Biden, the duly elected president, is still president).  Just a lot of suasion (of the kind specifically protected by the first amendment) and a hard choice at the top. 

Was it a coup when Republican congressmen told Nixon behind closed doors that they'd impeach him if he didn't resign? 

[whoareyou]

...

Did "extreme MAGA's" just participate in a coup against the sitting President?  No I don't think that was us....  Think about it, the reason this topic exists is because a duly elected President of the United States was forced off the ticket because......he might have lost.

Just curious.  If you call this a coup, then I'm sure you remember what happened after President Elect Joe Biden won the election.  Remember Jan 6th, 2021 (at least you acknowledge Biden was duly elected) when MAGA's attempted to prevent the transfer of power?  I'm not sure what your definition for that is, but it certainly wasn't a group of tourists invited into the capital building for a group get together.  Everyone saw what that MAGA crowd was doing and saying, broadcast live to your living room. 

So, what happened in Washington DC and were you as upset about that as you are about Biden deciding to withdraw his candidacy?

And now back to the music .....

[FenceMan]

Just curious.  If you call this a coup, then I'm sure you remember what happened after President Elect Joe Biden won the election.  Remember Jan 6th, 2021 (at least you acknowledge Biden was duly elected) when MAGA's attempted to prevent the transfer of power?  I'm not sure what your definition for that is, but it certainly wasn't a group of tourists invited into the capital building for a group get together.  Everyone saw what that MAGA crowd was doing and saying, broadcast live to your living room. 

So, what happened in Washington DC and were you as upset about that as you are about Biden deciding to withdraw his candidacy?

And now back to the music .....

What does one have to do with the other?  Two wrongs make a right? 

[FenceMan]

So if someone with a different POV joins in all of a sudden it has to be moved? 

[whoareyou]

What does one have to do with the other?  Two wrongs make a right?

If Harris had a mob of people attack the convention hall in Chicago, to prevent Biden from accepting the nomination, I'd never vote for her.
I'd never vote for a Democrat again, until leadership was completely overhauled.

Ok, so let's assume that Harris shouldn't be the nominee (as if an insurrection and withdrawing a candidacy are the same thing) because Harris staged a "coup".

If this is the reason to not vote for Harris, then how can anyone vote for the guy who also attempted a coup, with an angry mob that attacked our police force while wanting to "hang Pence". 

And what's wrong with moving a topic to the proper forum area?

[JimH]

Anybody been swimming in the Seine?

[JimH]

So if someone with a different POV joins in all of a sudden it has to be moved? 

It was a random act.

[FenceMan]

If Harris had a mob of people attack the convention hall in Chicago, to prevent Biden from accepting the nomination, I'd never vote for her.
I'd never vote for a Democrat again, until leadership was completely overhauled.

Ok, so let's assume that Harris shouldn't be the nominee (as if an insurrection and withdrawing a candidacy are the same thing) because Harris staged a "coup".

If this is the reason to not vote for Harris, then how can anyone vote for the guy who also attempted a coup, with an angry mob that attacked our police force while wanting to "hang Pence". 

And what's wrong with moving a topic to the proper forum area?

Explain to me how "peacefully and patriotically" means that Trump "had a mob of people" attack?

Protesting something is not an attempted coup.  What happened on Jan 6 was disgraceful but it has no bearing on what happened to President Biden.  The man was elected President and then elected to be the nominee via his parties convention.  What gives anyone the right to push him out?  Are you really naive enough to think that he made the decision on his own?  I think anyone that is being honest knows that he was forced out, it has already been reported that he was given three weeks to do things "the easy way" and was about to be subjected to "the hard way" thus he finally relented.  If you are ok with this then by all means vote for Harris.  BTW I don't think anyone believes she had anything to do with this, she has no power yet to do such a thing, she may well be a fine candidate and / or President if elected but that will never change the face that the Democratic party took out President Biden.

[FenceMan]

It was a random act.

You will have to forgive me if I feel wronged here.  I am a paying customer just like everyone else here and if you are going to make a political post (which I wholeheartedly disagree with, it has no place where you put it) in your forum then you have to accept the discussion that ensues and you should not hide it when one of your (very supportive) customers says something you may not agree with.

[mwillems]

Explain to me how "peacefully and patriotically" means that Trump "had a mob of people" attack?

Protesting something is not an attempted coup.  What happened on Jan 6 was disgraceful but it has no bearing on what happened to President Biden.  The man was elected President and then elected to be the nominee via his parties convention. 

A point of clarification: the Democratic convention hasn't occurred yet (it won't happen until August).  I say this not to be pedantic, but because it actually matters for lots of legal reasons; the parties are ultimately the ones who choose their nominees using their internal processes (for example the Dem convention has a large slate of uncommitted "super-delegates" not awarded in primaries that could effectively choose a candidate other than the one who got the most primary delegates in some circumstances, etc.).

So Biden has not been chosen as the party's nominee at the convention because it hasn't happened yet (and he won't be chosen now).  He was the presumptive nominee because of the primary results, but the party had not yet formally chosen him as their candidate.  Harris will likely be the actual designee next month. 

[JimH]

Nobody forced Biden to leave.  He realized finally that he was likely to lose and take a lot of other people down with him.

His first instinct was to fight, but the opposition was overwhelming.  I've supported him in the past and still admire him.  I made a pretty serious donation early on, but I waited to give the second half because I wanted to see how things would play out.  I'm glad I waited and I'll now give it to Kamala Harris.

He just heard from too many old friends who very gently and diplomatically encouraged him to reconsider, and he finally did.  Nobody forced him out.  I've seen no evidence that anybody threatened him in any way.

And the money dried up.

[Awesome Donkey]

Ultimately, I don't think any of it really matters. Both parties are pretty terrible at this point and I personally wouldn't vote for any of them. No matter who wins or loses, it doesn't change the fact the country as a whole is basically permanently divided with no real resolution of the issues that keep it divided in sight.

[FenceMan]

Fenceman,
Let's relax.

Nobody forced Biden to leave.  He realized finally that he was likely to lose and take a lot of other people down with him.

His first instinct was to fight, but the opposition was overwhelming.  I've supported him in the past and still admire him.  I made a pretty serious donation early on, but I waited to give the second half because I wanted to see how things would play out.  I'm glad I waited and I'll now give it to Kamala Harris.

He just heard from too many old friends who very gently and diplomatically encouraged him to reconsider, and he finally did.  Nobody forced him out.  I've seen no evidence that anybody threatened him in any way.

And the money dried up.

Just so you understand what the other side is thinking that part in bold is exactly the point.

In our view Democrats are so power hungry right now that the mere thought of losing causes them to pressure the POTUS to give up his lifelong dream before he was ready.  Is staying in power really that important?  Is the thought of losing an election and having the other side govern for 4 years really so scary that being behind in a few polls 4 months before the election causes this epic meltdown and pushing aside of a man that clearly did not want to go?

Anyway larger point is I as your customer should be given the same courtesy to respond to your political post as everyone else.  Why do you tell me to relax and no one else?  Are we all not just having a spirited discussion here?

[JimH]

I'm sorry that you feel that way.  I don't mind a spirited discussion, but when you call someone gullible, you've stepped over the line, in my opinion.  Maybe I missed similar behavior from the other point of view.

[JimH]

Ultimately, I don't think any of it really matters. Both parties are pretty terrible at this point and I personally wouldn't vote for any of them. No matter who wins or loses, it doesn't change the fact the country as a whole is basically permanently divided with no real resolution of the issues that keep it divided in sight.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, and that public opinion expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters."

-- Winston Churchill

[JimH]

You will have to forgive me if I feel wronged here.  I am a paying customer just like everyone else here and if you are going to make a political post (which I wholeheartedly disagree with, it has no place where you put it) in your forum then you have to accept the discussion that ensues and you should not hide it when one of your (very supportive) customers says something you may not agree with.

It had nothing to do with you.

The thread started here, then I added a poll and moved it to the more frequented MC32 board.

Then BryanC suggested moving it back.  I did that and removed his post because it made no sense after the move.

I'm afraid you misunderstood what happened.

[FenceMan]

I'm sorry that you feel that way.  I don't mind a spirited discussion, but when you call someone gullible, you've stepped over the line, in my opinion.  Maybe I missed similar behavior from the other point of view.

Saying that my chosen candidate is going to invade Canada isn't stepping over the line?

Do you really honestly believe that if Trump is elected we are going to invade Canada? Sorry I said I was out and now I am being a hypocrite but this is so very important that these lies should not go unchallenged.

Really what did you think was going to happen when you brought politics into the forum that everyone reads?  Is the current climate not charged enough that it now has to be injected into our hobbies? 

[JimH]

OK, you're right. 

[craigmcg]

Hi,

As the Canadian who seems to have started the sh#tsh@w that this thread turned into, I apologize for expressing my concerns about the potential for the USA to slip into autocracy if someone's preferred candidate is re-elected as President after the Supreme Court's recent absolute immunity decision makes him above the Law and his former appointees in co-ordination with the Heritage Foundation have prepared and distributed online an instruction manual for him (since his name is mentioned a few hundred times in the 900+ pages) to seize almost all the powers of the Executive Branch. I also apologize for using the pejorative term MAGAts for Trump supporters as it was inflammatory and what seems to be most needed is the return of courtesy/civility in political discourse.

FenceMan, as you presume I am not a Conservative in my own country much less yours, but there are clear historical precedents of autocratic leaders either annexing or invading their neighbours as Putin is currently doing in Ukraine and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was prevalent for many years in the USA. I can however, say with complete honesty that I have never had the concerns that I raised in this thread with the elections of George W  Bush, George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, or Dwight Eisenhower.

I wish you all well and that your upcoming election is free, fair, and provides whomever wins with a strong mandate to govern in keeping with the post WWII  alliances.

I'm now out as I have no vote to cast in this election!

[jmone]

At some point US Politics went from "West Wing" to "House of Cards".  Both Red and Blue have done an "excellent" job in demonizing the other.  No more "let the best man win" rather we "need to stop the evil other from winning".  Both sides are wrong. 

If you acted and spoke like either candidate at work you would be fired.  If you did it at home you would be arrested for abuse.  It's all just bitter personal attacks.  Unfortuanly, this appalling behavior from the top gets filtered down creating political zealots on both sides. 

I need to get same caps printed with.  "Relax, The end of the world is (not) neigh" aka in Aussie "She'll be right mate"

[FenceMan]

Hi,

As the Canadian who seems to have started the sh#tsh@w that this thread turned into, I apologize for expressing my concerns about the potential for the USA to slip into autocracy if someone's preferred candidate is re-elected as President after the Supreme Court's recent absolute immunity decision makes him above the Law and his former appointees in co-ordination with the Heritage Foundation have prepared and distributed online an instruction manual for him (since his name is mentioned a few hundred times in the 900+ pages) to seize almost all the powers of the Executive Branch. I also apologize for using the pejorative term MAGAts for Trump supporters as it was inflammatory and what seems to be most needed is the return of courtesy/civility in political discourse.

FenceMan, as you presume I am not a Conservative in my own country much less yours, but there are clear historical precedents of autocratic leaders either annexing or invading their neighbours as Putin is currently doing in Ukraine and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was prevalent for many years in the USA. I can however, say with complete honesty that I have never had the concerns that I raised in this thread with the elections of George W  Bush, George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, or Dwight Eisenhower.

I wish you all well and that your upcoming election is free, fair, and provides whomever wins with a strong mandate to govern in keeping with the post WWII  alliances.

I'm now out as I have no vote to cast in this election!

All I am saying is you shouldn't believe whatever crazy media you are reading that is giving you the impression that invading Canada is something that would ever happen.

You think an if we truly did elect an authoritarian dictator that person would care what the courts say about anything?  If a person was truly so evil that they would just start invading Canada that any court would be able to stop them?  Do you also not understand the US has a system of checks and balances and that if a President ever did attempt to do such a thing they could be removed from office very quickly?

Do you really think that a man that has already been President for four years is going to get reelected and then just decide on a whim in his fifth year in office hmmm maybe I should invade Canada?

Your argument is just so absurd that it's difficult to not react as I have.  Ther world didn't end under Trump 1, it didn't end under Biden, it won't end under Trump 2 or Harris.

I strongly disagree with the policies of Harris / Biden, I would like to elect someone whose policies I agree with simple as that.  It is very difficult to discuss with someone who thinks that a vote for my candidate will result in an unprovoked invasion of Canada - that is such an outlandish and crazy point of view.

BTW didn't your government freeze the personal assets of people who protested COVID lockdowns?  Isn't that far more authoritarian than anything Trump has ever done?  I would be far more afraid of a government that would stop me from feeding my family because of my beliefs that I would be of any US administration.

[JimH]

If we want to see a less confrontational future in the U.S., it might start by avoiding "crazy" or by not dismissing what someone else said.  Why not say, "I don't agree." ? 

I'm leaving this thread open in the hope that it heads toward higher ground.

craigmcg,
I commend you for dialing the rhetoric back and for an apology.  It doesn't often happen here.  Thank you.

[FenceMan]

If we want to see a less confrontational future in the U.S., it might start by avoiding "crazy" or not dismissing what someone else said.  Why not say, "I don't agree." ? 

I'm leaving this thread open in the hope that it heads toward higher ground.

craigmcg,
I commend you for dialing the rhetoric back and for an apology.  It doesn't often happen here.  Thank you.

Come on now.  Saying we are going to invade Canada goes far beyond "I don't agree", that is clearly a crazy statement.  Not only is the statement crazy it's the exact kind of rhetoric that has been used to dehumanize Donald Trump which really isn't helpful in a world where people literally try to murder the man.  You can't call someone Hitler and say they are going to ruin Democracy and invade Canada without consequences.  If you demonize someone so much that people get the idea that he HAS to be stopped to save the world than anything is on the table for some people (I am not saying that is what happened, we don't know that).

I watch and listen to both liberal and conservative media and I don't hear anyone on the conservative side calling the President names like Hitler or threat to democracy or anything of the sort.  He has certainly been called inept, old, a bad President, etc but no one is saying he needs to be stopped at all costs - that rhetoric comes exclusively from the liberal side so while I appreciate that the rhetoric should be toned down on BOTH sides you have to recognize the damage your side has done by dehumanizing a father, a grandfather, to the point that someone thinks he is going to get elected and just start invading countries to try and take over the world.

Liberals say we need to put Trump in jail or have him removed from the ballot because he has to be stopped at all costs.

Conservatives say we need to win Michigan.

See the difference?

[JimH]

Has Trump agreed to abide by the outcome of the election?

Is his word any good?

He is "slightly" self centered.  And has a few loose screws.

Strikes 1, 2, & 3.  And 4.

5.  Convicted Felon.

6.  On the verge of bankruptcy.  Court judgements totalling close to a billion dollars.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/donald-trump-legal-cases-charges/675531/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/how-will-trump-pay-trial-penalties

Giuliani, his now-under-the-Trump-bus "lawyer" owes $148 million for lies he spread about two election workers.

His Fox News cheerleaders settled the Dominion (voting machines) case for $787 million.

Wherever he goes, he takes people down and walks away.

He's a thief, a liar, a con man, has no sense of ethics or decency.

What did I leave out?  Crazy?

I look forward to reading the news without the mention of his name.  I'm afraid it will be a while.

[JimH]

Closing this now.