The favorability ratings do not take into account factors such as the 'admission of guilt" effect of actually making this switch. Not unlike an unfaithful woman who is obviously lying, Biden is lying about being able to perform his duties. Essentially no one believes him, but so the logic goes, so long as he "doesn't change his story" then he is not guilty. If someone tells a lie and then changes their story, they are essentially pleading guilty to lying and even those who wish to believe the lie will no longer be able to pretend that he is anything other than guilty. We've seen this effect at play when woke American jackals attempt to end the career of individuals in Hollywood for making politically incorrect or racist statements. It's only after the person apologizes that they really begin the attacks in earnest.
For now, the White House denies that there is a plan to drop out of the race.
So, if he were to drop out, the first poll conducted after the actual act of dropping out would reflect that Harris' numbers plunge as a consequence of the revelation that Biden had been lying about his competence.
Also not taken into consideration is the cost of re-shooting new TV advertisements which refer to Harris as running for President (not exactly cheap) and the reluctance of donors to make contributions after having already made the decision to suspend making contributions. If they don't believe that Harris can win (private polls have both Biden and Harris down by much more than the public polls) then they're not going to part ways with their money in vain. Suspending advertising for the two weeks leading up to the Republican National Convention, the week of the convention itself and likely weeks afterward will be an unmitigated disaster. Trump is raising record amounts of money and was even able to raise 6.8 Million dollars, as mentioned in his speech last night, for the family of the deceased victim of the July 13 shooting.
When they have the DNC in August, the nominators, as per the Democratic Party rules, could take the opportunity to officially throw Biden off the ballot. If they used the DNC as the mechanism to forcibly throw him off the ticket, it would only make the Democrats look worse, look crooked, look as if they're stabbing their own guy in the back.
Thus, the Democrats are checkmated. They may choose from a variety of maneuvers, but ANY move will only make things worse, like pulling a knife out of the torso of a stabbing victim.
People in my community are talking openly, for a change, about politics and there is consensus that action must be taken, namely that we must vote and encourage others to vote in the affirmative for Trump.
25th Amendment, they lose points. DNC betrayal, they lose points. The longer they wait, the more money they lose, but as I said, if the donors don't think that Harris can put a
out of her hat, they will simply save their money. The donors in question oftentimes give to both parties and do not care who wins. The Democrats sure and hell care who wins because make of them will go to jail. They attempted to murder a former President who was a candidate in the current election and the consensus is, at least among Trump's supporters (the religious ones) that God is directly intervening in this matter. It is unusual in America for large numbers of Americans to begin taking actions predicated upon the literal belief that the candidate for whom they are voting is favored by a deity. There are many historical cases in which regimes have fallen because a group of people have decided that it is the will of God. Joan of Arc comes to mind. Christian and Muslims in the Crusades also come to mind. Trump die-hards, although they are not wealthy, are willing to spend their last dollar to maximize his chances.
The question now is what it will mean for the Senate and House of Representatives. Control of both houses of Congress, even if by a margin of one vote in the Senate, would essentially allow any agenda to be pushed through with little wrangling, particularly if a two thirds majority can be reached, although this is easier said than done. Republicans had a supermajority in the 1980s and 1990s and were able to entirely gut the Great Society programs and in a short span of time, fill the prisons to 200% capacity with drug dealers. Trump used his first term to grant parole to something like 50% of all federal inmates, a decision with which his base did not agree. It is not clear what Republicans would do with their majority if they managed to get one as there's a disconnect between what the conservative "base" wants i.e. what the common man wants and what the politicians, themselves, intend to do. I think that if you're Trump and if you're the Republicans, you have to spend the first 100 days rolling back the Biden changes, obviously, reverse any decisions which weren't favorable to Trump and, here's a critical thing: Make it illegal for a tech company to engage in censorship of any sort on the Internet. Republicans know that the inability of average people to use the Internet to reach moderates and pull them over to our side, a consequence of censorship on platforms such as YouTube which are used by both right and left, is hurting the ability of the party to get their message out. The Democrats have all of the television networks at their disposal constantly spewing leftist propaganda. If this propaganda machine could be simply switched 'off,' it would enhance Republican odds in future elections, not to mention, it would move our country closer to operating in accordance with our Constitution, which is supposed to make censorship unlawful. The problem is, the Constitution states that the government may not censor, but it makes no mention of wealthy private companies. Ideally, we'd have a Constitutional Amendment which forces corporations to be subject to the Constitution and if we had this, the tech companies would no longer be able to enact government-desired censorship. Much like the way that Osama Bin Laden agreed to take the fall for September 11, tech companies have agreed to take the backlash for these censorship regimes. They say, "We're a private company, we can make whatever rules we want" but the reality is that many E-Mails between members of the Biden campaign have leaked which expose how White House people make direct requests for content removal from admins at Google and Twitter, etc. The beginning of the use of "shadow bans" and AI-based detection of so-called spam in 2017 makes it all the more urgent that we have a 28th Amendment which extends all of the protections of the Constitution to those interfacing with corporations.
The Republicans have the opportunity of a lifetime and will likely win by a wider margin than anyone since Reagan. Look at this this way, Trump was down by five points in the average poll in 2016 and won a majority of electoral votes. Now he's up by a minimum of 5 points and this gap will likely widen and Democrats continue to stick their foot in their mouth, meaning that they will at minimum have a Congressional majority in both houses and have at least a 40% chance of a supermajority in both houses. For those who do not know the significance of supermajority under our law, a two thirds vote is required to repeal any law. Thus, if Republicans get 67 Senate seats (out of a possible 100) they can literally repeal any law already passed. 51 votes (the Vice President acts as a tiebreaker) can enable a bill to become law, but repeal of a law requires two thirds. Furthermore, two-thirds majority enables the Congress to bypass any veto. Trump, being a liberal, is likely to veto any legislation which, for example, says that we should take radical action against immigrants. If we somehow got 67 Senate seats, Trump could be prevented from stopping the Congress from instituting the needed reforms. The MAGA movement, the movement which Trump essentially started (despite his being a huge liberal) is not pretending to be conservative, as Trump is. They wish to enact extremely xenophobic policies, get the negroes off the streets, etc. For instance, they'd override the states and bring federal troops in to enforce a marijuana ban even if individual states continue to allow the use of the drug. This sort of thing can't succeed without a supermajority because the second Trump gets into office, he'll once again start vetoing actual conservative policies as we attempt to make them law. For one thing, I'd like to see English made the official language as the United States is one of few countries on Earth lacking an official language and which prints official, government-issued documents in dozens of languages. It's actually a law here that companies must make accommodations for people who do not speak English. Schools in the United States must teach mathematics, science, history and other subjects in the Spanish language in addition to English at taxpayer expense. Many of the Spanish speakers do not pay any taxes and depsite being in this country for multiple generations, many Hispanics refuse to assimilate into our culture by learning English. It would make more sense for them to learn English first and then learn math and science in English rather than the way things are now done. So-called English-as-a-Second-Language classes in taxpayer-funded public schools are definitely on the chopping block if Republicans get a supermajority. Although I doubt it will happen, I think there is appetite for stripping states and municipalities of power in favor of a stronger federal government, particularly when it comes to the desire of states and municipalities to restrict the right to keep firearms as well as the unwillingness of those same states and municipalities to enforce the most common-sense laws such as those prohibiting drug use.
I am concerned that this opportunity will be wasted and that Marjorie Taylor-Greene and her followers will waste their time making it a felony for a man to walk into a woman's bathroom or some such nonsense and address none of the real issues such as balancing the budget, restoring the American family by disincentivizing divorce and things of that nature. Something like 25% of American children are now adopted and 60% have parents who have been divorced at least once. I see it every day in my drive-through window, there are mixed families where half-siblings who are clearly of different ethnicities will be sitting the same car and for the mother, it is like carrying around a neon sign saying, "Hey look at me, I cheated on my husband with a negro and I'm not even a little ashamed of it." When I was a kid, if someone had a mixed family and walked into a restaurant, they'd get glared at. Now, no one even bats an eyelash. Of course, the main problem is not the fact that these mixed families have a varied racial composition, it's the fact that a divorce occurred whatsoever. This is what creates the societal dysfunction. It simply makes it more obvious when the children look very different from one another. It's sort of like meeting a disgustingly overweight person (we have many of them in America) and finding out that they didn't get fat by eating delicious, high quality food, but instead are in the habit of reaching into a tub of lard with their bare hand and that this is from whence the calories are coming. Yes, being fat is in poor taste, but poor taste has many shades of gray and can be taken to an extreme. In America, shamelessness is a problem, selfishness is a problem. Americans have a deficit of a values system. They used to conform to social convention even if it wasn't codified into law but now they shamelessly ignore the old conventions and obey no convention, using the fact that it's not explicitly against the law as an excuse to do it. They have entirely dispensed with a focus on rights such as free speech, bearing arms and even the right to keep custody of their own children and are now obsessed only with their "right to buy consumer goods." People in America actually think that if they have $10 with which to buy a meal from a fast food restaurant, that it entitles them to be rude to the staff of the restaurant. They see parting ways with their money as some sort of euphoric experience rather than taking pleasure from slowly saving their money for a rainy day. They have brand new cars all over the road which are $60,000 each and 98% of them are "financed" and not owned by the driver. A small fraction actually make it to the end of their automobile loans because the loans drive up the ultimate cost of a $60,000 automobile to $120,000 with the interest payments added. They think they're getting something out of being in debt and not actually owning anything. A year ago, they started advertising a payday loan scheme in which customers of a local supermarket are encouraged to buy groceries "on credit."
I could list hundreds of such things which would shock you and this is the reason I think the problems here are irreparable. Donald Trump, a supposed conservative, sat in the audience of a freak show last night in which obscene performances from "singers" such as Kid Rock were used to usher in the candidate being advanced by a convention of supposedly tight-laced traditionalists. Amongst those saying nice things about him to warm him up were a washed-up professional wrestler from 30 years ago and the CEO of the UFC, another disgusting organization. Trump's name was advertised in the middle of the stage as if he were an entertainment act, in and of himself, and not a political candidate. It had the feel of the "Flesh Fair" from the motion picture A.I.: Artificial Intelligence or show someone might see in Las Vegas. I was seriously offended by the circus-like atmosphere at the RNC last night as I think it demonstrates that whatever the Republican Party now is, it does not have respect for the fore-bearers of the party. They even, at one point in last night's proceedings, edited footage of Ronald Reagan, who has been dead for 20 years, to create the illusion that he is endorsing Donald Trump. Anyone who knows anything about Reagan knows that he never would have endorsed Donald Trump, whom he would have dismissed as nothing but a lecherous beauty pageant organizer. Many people in Trump's own base find it to be in beyond poor taste for a Presidential candidate to create the illusion of an endorsement from a well-respected deceased person who cannot speak for themselves. It was sickening beyond belief.
https://youtu.be/sJOm5itvQD8?t=6281Despite all of this, he's going to win because most people don't have the sense to identify these things as being in poor taste and I suppose that when you hold it up against the certainty of Biden causing WWIII, a person simply has to "hold their nose" and vote for the one who doesn't want to exterminate the whole human race.
