she is objectively terrible. her interviews are about as cringeworthy as bidens, and she has negative charisma. she would get beaten worse than Joe would. not worth the hassle of drafting her this late in the game

not sure if dems really do have their heads this far up their ass that they didn't know this would be the outcome. seen it suggested they wanted to let Joe faceplant on purpose so that the calls for him to step aside would be too loud for him to ignore. he's a stubborn old guy by all accounts and won't step aside by choice

I mean the worst thing is this is what most people feared, right? Like you could see it coming a mile off. What on earth are the Dems thinking?

    These are actually the two guys vying for the most powerful position in the world. I watched the first half hour or so and neither of them managed to utter a single coherent sentence. And that's not even an exaggeration. It's just crazy beyond belief.

      goon reality appeared to start creeping in when the Biden team refused that softball superbowl interview. seems innocuous, but it's something most presidents have done, and it's a chance to get alot of eyeballs. they ducked it, and for the first time I started to detect rising unease among the corporate commentariat about bidens fitness, as well as an uptick in propaganda from the dems about how he was still sharp as a tack

      • goon replied to this.

          No difference between Genocide Joe and Trump. Both wings of the same bird.

          Mirth Is Kamala Harris that much worse?

          Why do you think the Democrats are panicking?

          TambourineMan At least we're seeing some honest reflection from the Dems post debate. They know Biden was awful. Let's see what they do now.

          They've known for a long time but people around him have just strung this out longer than they should. I saw Biden's wife talking about him and she comes across as someone who isn't going to leave her position without a fight. She should be the one dragging him away and saying enough is enough.

              Gazza M

              I mean if this is the reality they should have ducked the debates too. At least they would have had plausible deniability!

                  goon Biden hasn't been seen for a week, there were already rumours they were getting him mentally ready for this debate!

                  Farcical situation the Democrats have got themselves into. All of their own making as well. A good candidate here and they'd have been in for another 10 years.

                    if biden's true priority was the health of the country and "preserving democracy" he wouldnt have even run for re-election. he is a vain shithead, just like 99% of politicians.

                    the problem is, the democratic party is filled with weak, ineffective stooges who have zero backbone and zero courage. there wont be a goldwater moment here, with powerful dems going to biden and basically telling him its over and he needs to exit the race.

                    ultimately democrats are fine with losing in 2024. it will then give them what they want: a bogeyman for them to fight against as the minority, so they dont actually have to govern the country or try to solve any of the massive problems we face.

                      Daz It's just crazy beyond belief.

                      Makes sense when you realise the people who are actually running things are basically going to loot the joint at zero risk over the next few decades.

                        lol SCOTUS just wiped out chevron deference, which is basically the first step in the republican plan to dismantle the federal government. this country, despite being less than 250 years old, is basically a hollowed out tree at this point. now just swing the axe a few times and the tree should fall. really dark times on the horizon

                          mdgoonah41 there will obviously be consequences, potentially very damaging ones, but the technocrats that chevron deference enabled don't exactly embody my idea of good governance, either. There is a logic to the idea that bureacrats and cops should not be allowed to define the laws they enforce or execute. Theres no reason I can see that the judicial system can't avail themselves of the same expert opinions in the course of due process. Of course, it requires that we maintain an independent judiciary that isn't corrupt...

                              Coombs what this decision does is essentially say that some lunatic on the 5th circuit is better equipped to set clean water standards than the EPA.

                              its going to be an unmitigated disaster

                                  I've only watched a few clips but the 2 of them arguing about Bidens golf handicap was just insane.

                                  mdgoonah41 — it’s a touch “chicken and egg” in that we don’t really know if Biden wanted to run, or if the DNC though he was the best candidate.

                                  Regardless, whoever made the decision got it wrong.

                                  The challenge is that the Dems need to find someone who can win the swing states. There’s little that unites Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. However, I’m not sure a gay nominee (no matter how qualified and intelligent both are) will resonate to moderate voters in most of those states. From there you look to Newsom or Whitmer, and neither feels that strong either.

                                      MistaT newsom probably has the most name recognition nationally (not sure its good recognition) and i think shapiro would be maybe the best candidate on merits. hes got a good record here in PA

                                        mdgoonah41 I don't love what's happening, but this is a chicken little take. Interpretation of law is the job of the judiciary. I don't really see how this transfers any power from congress or any lawmaker - in fact, it seems to me it should do just the opposite. The executive branch gets hobbled, but that doesn't seem all that bad to me, especially considering who generally gets to be president...

                                            Coombs there is nothing chicken little about it.

                                            In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

                                            Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

                                            Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a masterwork of alarm and despair. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.” The justice pulled no punches, bemoaning the majority’s reckless arrogance with outrage and contempt. “In one fell swoop,” the justice explained, “the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar."

                                            https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/elena-kagan-dissent-supreme-court-john-roberts-chevron-disaster.html