[Poll] Will Joe Biden be on the ballot in November? - Nope, Biden's out

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:52 am

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:36 am

Funny side note: I have a neighbor who hoists a new anti-Biden flag every couple weeks. Last week’s was “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go”. His truck is covered in “Lets Go Brandon” and other anti-Biden stickers and flags.

I truly love this development for him.

I didn't know that Justice Alito had a house in Utah.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:11 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:18 am I believe they are one and the same.

In August 2020, Newsweek published an op-ed by Eastman questioning 2020 vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris's eligibility for the office. He asserted she could not be a U.S. citizen by birth despite being born in Oakland, California, if neither of her parents was a permanent resident at the time of her birth. Eastman said that she could have subsequently obtained citizenship derived from the naturalization of her parents if one of them had become a citizen prior to her 16th birthday in 1980, which would have allowed Harris to fulfill the nine-year citizenship requirement necessary to become a senator

All prominent legal scholars disagreed with Eastman's position, and many compared it to the birtherism theory against President Barack Obama. Newsweek defended the column, while acknowledging that they were "horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris". They stated there was no connection between the op-ed and the birther movement. Rather, the op-ed focused on the "long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate about the precise meaning of the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment", also known as the jus sanguinis or jus soli debate.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, told the BBC, "Under section 1 of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. The Supreme Court has held this since the 1890s. Kamala Harris was born in the United States."

(Taken from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eastman)

Of course with this current Supreme Court…. Who can say?

In precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, any child born in the United States is a US citizen from birth, with the sole exception of children born to a parent or parents with diplomatic immunity, since such parent is not a "subject to the US law". More broadly, the court characterized the statement, All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States as "the broad and clear words of the Constitution," ruling that Wong's U.S. citizenship had been acquired by birth and had not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.

Yeah, for the Stephen Millers / white nationalists of the world, their case to get rid of birthright citizenship is a really bizarre tortured reading of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. There's not much they can do with "born in the United States" aside from fringe cases like people born in the Panama Canal Zone (like John McCain) and the like. So they have to argue that people born to illegal immigrants or foreign nationals are somehow excluded by the jurisdiction clause.

Which is of course absurd. "Jurisdiction" is the ability to act on someone. As the Wong Kim Ark case shows, that only excludes diplomats that are not subject to punishment under U.S. (or international) law. Of course, what's also funny about the argument is that if accepted it implies that illegal immigrants are immune from punishment under U.S. law.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:26 am

"The first party to retire its 80 year old candidate is going to be the one who wins this election."
-Nikki Haley,
Jan, 2024

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:30 am

BTW, where are those "experts" that claimed it is impossible to change the candidate because it is too late or too close to the election?

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:33 am

All anyone ever said was that it was entirely up to Biden.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:36 am

Victoria Raverna wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:30 am BTW, where are those "experts" that claimed it is impossible to change the candidate because it is too late or too close to the election?

There were quite a few. I also believed it would be more difficult than it turns out it can be.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:36 am

I believed it would be difficult and still do, though it appears at least not nearly as difficult (unto unfeasible) as has been stated by many, except for, I guess, speaker Johnson, go figure. We'll see what happens. I will be hopeful.

Dogstar · Post by **Dogstar** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:37 am

Between this thread, and Twitter, and elsewhere, I'm part of an unusual phenomenon as Aaron Rupar noted called... "hope scrolling."

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:42 am

Yes, by all accounts it seems like they came up with a way to put a positive spin on it (making it a noble, selfless final act) and with just enough party unity behind him naming her (as he should have) there's a chance to build some momentum. Just need to figure out how to sustain it for the next 2+ months, but maybe this will prove that American's respond better to short election campaigns rather than ones that seemingly drag on for years.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:52 am

hepcat wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:36 am
Victoria Raverna wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:30 am BTW, where are those "experts" that claimed it is impossible to change the candidate because it is too late or too close to the election?
There were quite a few. I also believed it would be more difficult than it turns out it can be.

If they went with any other option besides Harris, it likely would be.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:57 am

It's pretty funny watching Trump have an aneurysm about Biden dropping out. Then add the check and the old campaign ad and it makes me smile. I'm still worried that democrats are going to make things worse (though less so since they seem to be on the same page with giving the nomination to Harris). I'm still worried that she can carry enough swing states to win. But the fact that Trump is throwing such a fit is a good sign. Having him lose to a black woman that he donated money to would be perfect. Well that and being convicted of the many, many crimes he's committed.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:58 am

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:42 am Yes, by all accounts it seems like they came up with a way to put a positive spin on it (making it a noble, selfless final act) and with just enough party unity behind him naming her (as he should have) there's a chance to build some momentum. Just need to figure out how to sustain it for the next 2+ months, but maybe this will prove that American's respond better to short election campaigns rather than ones that seemingly drag on for years.

I am thinking this as well. If the nomination had been a contested one between candidates running close, there would be no candidate until after the convention, so shorter campaigns are not unheard of. Also attention spans are at an all time low. Not enough time for Harris fatigue to set in while Agent Orange fatigue is definitely a thing.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:32 am

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 7:30 am I must say that though I expected if Biden dropped out there would be a quick rally around Harris, I was quite unprepared for the level of enthusiasm for her. She really is the anti-Trump in almost every way, and that seems to have really poured gasoline on the dying embers of the female/youth vote.

Seeing Dems go from demoralized to energized overnight is gratifying.

Harris's strongest suit has been her advocacy for reproductive rights, so that's going to work in her favor. And I hope she gets enough opportunities to go head-to-head with TFG to make his dementia clear to everyone. I would expect the former prosecutor to mop the floor with the convicted felon.

Looking past the election, Harris is more progressive than BIden, which I like, but she's not the Congress Whisperer that Joe is, so Dems will need majorities in both houses for Kamala to get anything positive done at all.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:45 am

Just got through reading a few days of posts here, so I'm going to drop my random thoughts.

I was long on the "Biden will be the candidate barring death or medical situation" train. Question whether the debate debacle qualifies as a medical situation or not, but in any event I'll eat crow. I didn't foresee bombing at the debate so poorly, and then I was surprised that the Dem's failed to unify behind Biden and instead set out to undermine him. I think they did Biden wrong, but hopefully it will end up with a positive end result.

Unity ticket with Romney, Cheney, Baker, Kinzinger, or any other R is a bad, bad idea. Just because they may have some integrity with respect to recognizing the evil of Trump doesn't mean they share enough D values to join a ticket with a D. Baker and Kinzinger are probably the most moderate of the group, but even they would likely vote overwhelmingly for R positions. Alienating the progressive wing by adding an R candidate in the hopes of winning over the few NeverTrumpers remaining who aren't going to vote for a D anyway seems foolish.

The VP picks I've seen floated who I think have potential have largely been governors - Beshear (KY), Shapiro (PA), and Pritzker (IL). Not sure if the last one is because I'm in Illinois so I'm seeing local buzz about him, but he'd be an intriguing pick. He's a pretty good campaigner and he's a legit billionaire (as opposed to Trump's questionable billionaire status) who would likely provide a personal financial jolt to the campaign. I kind of hate that I like Pritzker as I really didn't want to have another political leader who inherited great wealth and thinks he's entitled to leadership because of that, but he's done a really good job here. Maybe Shapiro could help solidify the Ds in PA, but I keep reading that the home state of the VP candidate rarely if ever makes a difference in elections.

Like a few others, I'm cautiously optimistic at this point. I think the Ds are rallying behind Harris as they should. If they do have an open convention, it should be open in name only and heavily orchestrated to praise Harris and ensure her nomination.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:46 am

https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/stat ... 0029869298

Not that he was ever going to get anywhere.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:48 am

The very idea was just asininely annoying right on par for this timeline.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:52 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:11 am Which is of course absurd. "Jurisdiction" is the ability to act on someone. As the Wong Kim Ark case shows, that only excludes diplomats that are not subject to punishment under U.S. (or international) law. Of course, what's also funny about the argument is that if accepted it implies that illegal immigrants are immune from punishment under U.S. law.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:55 am

Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:32 am I hope she gets enough opportunities to go head-to-head with TFG

I'm thinking that there is absolutely NO WAY that Trump and Co. agree to any debates with her.

Or, rather, I think it would likely be a massive mistake if they did.

I can't wait to hear them protest and squirm out of the September debate (which they have every right to, and so - will)

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:58 am

That's fine. I'm sure she can use that time for a special presentation to the nation from the Office of the Vice President.

Daveman · Post by **Daveman** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:21 pm

I wonder if those who ordered assorted "Fuck Biden!" merch can get a refund?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:22 pm

I predicted earlier that Trump would refuse to debate Harris, and as we all know my predictions have a stellar track record.

That's part of the reason why the Ds need to formally unite behind Harris as quickly as possible. That way they can start the formal messaging right away that Harris is looking forward to debating Trump, and that they assume that he would not try to get out of such a debate. The informal messaging would be heavily that Trump backing out would be cowardly and make him look weak and like he fears Harris. If they can get ahead of it, it's a win-win for the Ds. He stays in and she gets to debate him with a very high likelihood of destroying him. He opts out and they've already laid the groundwork for Trump's cowardliness and weakness.

Of course, the media would need to play along and not try to sabotage Harris' campaign strategy, so that might prove tricky.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:25 pm

JD Vance, Menstrual Surveillance Hawk

This spring, HHS finalized new regulations under HIPAA to limit law enforcement access to medical records tied to reproductive health. The rule was first proposed in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision as a way to limit the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to access medical records to stymie or criminalize access to legal reproductive health services, most specifically abortions, but not only abortions. It also applies to contraception and the full range of other endangered reproductive care.

So for instance, consider the ability of a woman from an abortion-ban state to travel to another state to get a legal abortion, or her ability to receive legal abortion drugs through the mail. The news has been filled with proposed or actual laws which would attempt to restrict travel to receive abortions in other states, charge those who travel or criminalize those who might facilitate such travel or facilitate the legal shipment of prescribed abortion drugs through the mail. Of course, local police agencies might simply take it upon themselves to pull records to see who had unexplained disruptions to their menstrual cycles.

Your local sheriff might just want to know.

And so does JD Vance, it turns out.

But to enforce these laws or know when there’s something to enforce you really need access to medical records. You need to know and be able to prove when a woman was pregnant and then, before the end of normal gestation, stopped being pregnant. So if you live in Texas and you’re pregnant, can you go to your OB-GYN or will that be held against you if you’re found to have ceased being pregnant after a visit to Kansas? Does your OB have to report you to law enforcement if they believe there’s a real and present risk that you’ll go out of state to get an abortion or seek a prescription from an out of state doctor for mifepristone? And what about contraception, which some states are now also making moves to limit? Or how about IVF? This was the context of the HHS rule which was proposed in spring of 2023 and came into effect this spring. It applies to all of those questions.

Now when this rule was first proposed back in 2023, a group of 28 members of Congress wrote to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra demanding he withdraw the proposed rule “immediately.” (I was reminded of this letter when I saw this write up this morning.) They argued that the proposed rule “unlawfully thwarts the enforcement of compassionate laws” and “creates special protections for abortion that limit cooperation with law enforcement, undermine the ability to report abuse, restrict the provision of public health information … erase the humanity of unborn children” and “interfere with valid state laws protecting life.”

Now, I said 28 members of Congress. That’s not very many. You’ll remember there are 535 of them, or which 100 are senators. Vance was one of only eight Republican senators willing to go this hard for menstrual surveillance by state law enforcement agencies. The other 20 signatories are members of the House and a quick review of the names shows they are mostly hardcore Freedom Caucus types.

But think about it: even in the House GOP caucus, they could only get 20 people to sign this thing. That’s how extreme it is. But JD Vance signed.

This aspect of the post-Dobbs world is often treated as hyperbole in mainstream news coverage, something that might be theoretically possible but not something that’s actually going to happen. But Vance was one of only eight senators who thought this rule was a bridge too far and endangered “valid state laws protecting life” and would “limit cooperation with law enforcement.” That’s not just a campaign gotcha. He’s for real about this stuff.

This is the stuff that Harris needs to hammer Trump / Vance on. Very real for people and just super extreme and viscerally creepy and unsettling.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:36 pm

On the question of whether Red states could block Harris from being on their ballots:

Surely this is nonsense, right? The Dems haven't had their convention, and thus they don't yet have a nominee. Ballot access is by parties, not by individuals. States grant ballot access to the candidates of all "major parties," the latter usually being defined by having received a certain percentage (often 5%, but sometimes even lower) of the vote in the most recent statewide election.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:38 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:36 pm Surely this is nonsense, right?

Yes, but have you been following national politics lately? I have no doubts we live in a timeline where this (somehow) needs to go to the Supreme Court.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:40 pm

Vance knows that the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to have protected sex with your couch.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:41 pm

I wonder if Trump is already regretting the choice of JD Vance.

Vance really brings nothing to the ticket that wasn't already there, and he seems to have been chosen to double down on the MAGA rather than to broaden Trump's appeal. Presumably he was also picked in the expectation that he would somehow serve as a counter to Harris as VP, but that's out the window now.

(I was generally worried that Trump would pick a woman, perhaps even one with some appeal outside of the MAGA base. Apparently he was more interested in absolute fealty.)

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:47 pm

Exhibit A:

Can Harris take over Biden's campaign funds? We asked the FEC's Trump-appointed chair

The agency will likely need to sign off on Harris taking over those funds, Cooksey said. He added that the move is subject to debate and will likely draw official complaints and even legal challenges from Republicans, though the short lead-up to the election will be an issue.

"One of the problems with those processes is they can take a lot of time and we don't have a lot of time up until the election," Cooksey said.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:53 pm

Of course Harris is already collecting donations this week at a record-breaking clip.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:01 pm

I have no doubts TFG is making a "perfect call" this morning to the FEC chair.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:05 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:38 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:36 pm Surely this is nonsense, right?
Yes, but have you been following national politics lately? I have no doubts we live in a timeline where this (somehow) needs to go to the Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1815054787626312036

FWIW this is a thread from a law professor and elections law expert (I gather) making the case that this is not something to be super worried about. Not sure I'm totally convinced, but comforting at least.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:10 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:05 pm FWIW this is a thread from a law professor and elections law expert (I gather) making the case that this is not something to be super worried about. Not sure I'm totally convinced, but comforting at least.

Meritless nonsense you say? A case that didn't even exist? I guess we'll wait and see.

NOTE: I'm being intentionally insane here because I've learned that laws and precedence don't matter anymore. If someone is willing to bankroll it, I have no doubts we'll hear from various Supreme Court Justices why VP Harris can't possibly claim access to that money.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:14 pm

A national treasure has said, "Vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery."

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:22 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:14 pm A national treasure has said, "Vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery."

ref:
https://heavy.com/news/2016/10/read-don ... ork-times/

of course, Trump is the personification of meritless thuggery....

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:24 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:53 pm Of course Harris is already collecting donations this week at a record-breaking clip.

$83 million (and counting) in 24 hours, to be exact.

https://twitter.com/harris_wins/status/ ... 7588210087

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:25 pm

Victoria Raverna wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:30 am BTW, where are those "experts" that claimed it is impossible to change the candidate because it is too late or too close to the election?

"impossible" as in impossible to make the substitution and win the election. Obviously it was always "possible" to do. If Drumpf dies, is that it? Is the GOP out of luck? Of course not. So any talk of "impossible" was rhetoric and that should be obvious.

That said, I'm your huckleberry.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:45 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:10 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:05 pm FWIW this is a thread from a law professor and elections law expert (I gather) making the case that this is not something to be super worried about. Not sure I'm totally convinced, but comforting at least.
Meritless nonsense you say? A case that didn't even exist? I guess we'll wait and see.

NOTE: I'm being intentionally insane here because I've learned that laws and precedence don't matter anymore. If someone is willing to bankroll it, I have no doubts we'll hear from various Supreme Court Justices why VP Harris can't possibly claim access to that money.

I don't disagree, just presenting the counter-argument. FWIW this professor's argument about the Roberts court making a lawless ruling is essentially "well they can do that anyway, even if Biden remained on the ballot." I think the odds of that with a candidate switch are still higher than without making one, but he's not wrong all the same.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:40 pm

Its really late in the race to change jockies but I hope and pray the best for Mrs Harris and our nation. Gods not the only one who knows we dont need and cant have that orange hate bag scum ball win and destroy us.

And Yellowking thank you for that info. Its heartening to see. I hope it holds true. and I hope everyone that can vote and wants a better country for themselves go out and vote for madame President Harris. Women, men, kids, sexual orientations of all types , all real religions, and colors of people NEED the Democrat to win so that maybe..maybe the orange POS will finally age out and die getting off our precious Earth and letting his cult scatter to the winds for a better tomorrow for all of us together.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:54 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:24 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:53 pm Of course Harris is already collecting donations this week at a record-breaking clip.
$83 million (and counting) in 24 hours, to be exact.

https://twitter.com/harris_wins/status/ ... 7588210087

For perspective, the Biden campaign had just under $100M in the bank on Saturday, vs. about $120M for trump. They've nearly doubled their bank account (assuming SCOTUS lets Harris-Whoever access the Biden-Harris account -- the law is whatever SCOTUS wants it to be).

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 3:00 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:25 pm
Victoria Raverna wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:30 am BTW, where are those "experts" that claimed it is impossible to change the candidate because it is too late or too close to the election?
"impossible" as in impossible to make the substitution and win the election. Obviously it was always "possible" to do. If Drumpf dies, is that it? Is the GOP out of luck? Of course not. So any talk of "impossible" was rhetoric and that should be obvious.

That said, I'm your huckleberry.

I don't think anyone actually said impossible. Difficult, chaotic, and uncertain, but not impossible. But VR has to be petty.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 3:03 pm

Kraken wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:54 pm
Skinypupy wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:24 pm
Holman wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:53 pm Of course Harris is already collecting donations this week at a record-breaking clip.
$83 million (and counting) in 24 hours, to be exact.

https://twitter.com/harris_wins/status/ ... 7588210087
For perspective, the Biden campaign had just under $100M in the bank on Saturday, vs. about $120M for trump. They've nearly doubled their bank account (assuming SCOTUS lets Harris-Whoever access the Biden-Harris account -- the law is whatever SCOTUS wants it to be).

If SCOTUS puts any kind of slow play or hold on that money, it will be the second time I donate to political campaign and a much bigger donation than I made to Obama on his first run. I also shudder to think about the political violence that ensues. 100 million is no small amount of money in "free speech"