This time next year, President Trump moves back into the Whitehouse...

[Slenver]

Are the Democrats able to actually change their Presidential candidate at this point? Assuming they wanted to, of course...

He's not the official candidate yet, so yes. Though it would likely require him to step aside voluntarily without causing a huge mess.

[Slenver]

That's already been 100% debunked.

You can't 'debunk' things that happen, just rumours and theories.

You can certainly argue one way or the other by interpreting his words however you like, but one thing's for sure, that Capitol tour group went horribly wrong

[wheelnut]

Are the Democrats able to actually change their Presidential candidate at this point? Assuming they wanted to, of course...

He's not the official candidate yet, so yes. Though it would likely require him to step aside voluntarily without causing a huge mess.

Pretty much that. He’s not the formal nominee until August, but he already has enough pledged votes to get the nomination.

[Horse]

Are the Democrats able to actually change their Presidential candidate at this point? Assuming they wanted to, of course...

According to the radio yesterday, unlike here, the US parties can't dump the candidates. (I don't think they're elected as party leader by the party, just as candidate by the voters. Given the nature of US politics, I could be wrong).

Auntie says:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wv821nljwo

[Count Steer]

I get the impression that Trump has realised his worst case scenario is if Biden does stand down. If the Democrats come up with a half decent candidate (ie not Newsom) he's got a harder job on.

[irie]

Are the Democrats able to actually change their Presidential candidate at this point? Assuming they wanted to, of course...

According to the radio yesterday, unlike here, the US parties can't dump the candidates. (I don't think they're elected as party leader by the party, just as candidate by the voters. Given the nature of US politics, I could be wrong).

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution could be used to remove Biden, I think.

[Slenver]

I get the impression that Trump has realised his worst case scenario is if Biden does stand down. If the Democrats come up with a half decent candidate (ie not Newsom) he's got a harder job on.

It would be pretty funny if they found somebody else and the polls suddenly shrank trump to nothing!

[Ian]

If Biden is just the puppet of the deep state, Obama, big pharma, big tech and arms dealers it beggars belief that they only just noticed he's a liability and that big pharma hasn't found a drug to keep him awake or the arms dealers haven't bumped him off. I'm seriously doubting the competence of these people

[Saga Lout]

If Biden is just the puppet of the deep state, Obama, big pharma, big tech and arms dealers it beggars belief that they only just noticed he's a liability and that big pharma hasn't found a drug to keep him awake or the arms dealers haven't bumped him off. I'm seriously doubting the competence of these people

I think one of the main reasons he hasn't been bumped off (or 25th amendmented) is that nobody in their right mind wants President Kamala Harris.

[DefTrap]

Love to see them both fail a rudimentary cognitive test.

[Horse]

Biden showed up at the campaign event a bit late, clearly full of Adderal & able to follow the prompter.

So why didn't they dose him up on the stuff for the debate

[Screwdriver]

So let me get this straight, the mainstream media and big tech allow Biden to reveal himself as an empty headed puppet and suddenly the rest of the world can see it?

Never mind that I guess, I am quite used to being ignored, vilified, called a conspiracy theorist etc. what is more interesting is WHY. Why are the people behind the facade allowing their puppet to fail so publicly? They are not fools, be in no doubt they knew exactly what would happen: without a fully stage managed show, Biden would fall on his arse.

Obviously they have some sort of backup plan and were never going to allow Biden to run for office. I suspect part of the problem being there's no way they're letting Kamala get anywhere near becoming president. I seem to recall some sort of legal manoeuvre which involves competency and allows for the removal of a president, to be replaced by the speaker of the house.

It amazes me that they're not allowing Robert Kennedy junior anywhere near mainstream media. He's a very sensible Democrat. Perhaps that's why. My guess is Gavin Newsome is the next best useful idiot. Not sure how they're going to do it before the election cycle but they most certainly will.

This debacle was certainly part of the plan, whatever that plan may be.

[Slenver]

...the mainstream media and big tech allow Biden to reveal himself...

...the people behind the facade allowing their puppet to fail...

...be in no doubt they knew exactly what would happen...

...his debacle was certainly part of the plan...

I am quite used to being called a conspiracy theorist etc

Can't think why.

[ZRX61]

That's already been 100% debunked.

You can't 'debunk' things that happen, just rumours and theories.

You can certainly argue one way or the other by interpreting his words however you like, but one thing's for sure, that Capitol tour group went horribly wrong

There is video of him clearly telling the people to protest peacefully, Feel free to explain how that interprets to "go have a riot"

[ZRX61]

It amazes me that they're not allowing Robert Kennedy junior anywhere near mainstream media. He's a very sensible Democrat. Perhaps that's why. My guess is Gavin Newsome is the next best useful idiot. Not sure how they're going to do it before the election cycle but they most certainly will.

This debacle was certainly part of the plan, whatever that plan may be.

I'd like to think that Democrats outside of Calizuela aren't stupid enough to vote for Benito Newsolini after the disaster he's been in his home State.... but they elected Biden once & selected him to run again.

[Slenver]

That's already been 100% debunked.

You can't 'debunk' things that happen, just rumours and theories.

You can certainly argue one way or the other by interpreting his words however you like, but one thing's for sure, that Capitol tour group went horribly wrong

There is video of him clearly telling the people to protest peacefully, Feel free to explain how that interprets to "go have a riot"

You are missing the point pretty dramatically, I'm just not sure if it's deliberately or not.

Look, here are the basic facts that, I'm sure, we can all agree on.

1. Trump made an impassioned speech to his followers
2. A large number of them then stormed the Capitol

Now, you an analyse his speech and decide for yourself whether you think he directed them to do what they did or not, but people – especially in large groups, especially when angry, and especially when ill-educated and lied to – aren't quite that simple or predictable.

Did Trump tell them to violently storm the Capitol? No, of course he didn't.

Did Trump fire them up in such a way that they then did actually storm the Capitol? Yes, of course he did.

So yes, you're 100% correct in that he (at one point) told the crowd to 'march over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'. However, he also fired them up, lied repeatedly to them about the election and Biden, told them 'You don't concede when there's theft involved', that 'you're not going to have a country anymore', that 'Our country has had enough', that 'We will not take it anymore', and, as we all know, to 'fight like hell!'

You can cherry pick the one bit where he used the word 'peaceful', but even if you ignore all the other extreme rhetoric, you surely can't ignore the plain and simple fact that they then went on to violently smash their way into the Capitol. So whether they ignored the word 'peaceful', whether they decided he didn't mean it, whether they chose to focus more on the other words, or whether they were all too stupid to understand anything at all he said is sort of immaterial really.

[Screwdriver]

Can't think why.

Thinking is not your strong point.

[Count Steer]

Can't think why.

Thinking is not your strong point.

If you can't discuss in a civilised manner, you may find your opportunities to discuss at all shrink rapidly.

[Screwdriver]

You are missing the point pretty dramatically, I'm just not sure if it's deliberately or not.

Look, here are the basic facts that, I'm sure, we can all agree on.

1. Trump made an impassioned speech to his followers
2. A large number of them then stormed the Capitol

Your "point" being that Trump is guilty of insurrection which you then back up with opinions.

1. Tump made a speech which in your opinion was impassioned, alluding to getting them "fired up"

2. A large number had been planning to march on the capitol, not under the direction of Trump.

All of this after what was (in my opinion) one of the most corrupt elections in history.

The crowd was infiltrated by multiple FBI agents, one of whom is seen and heard encouraging the crowd to go into the building. The crowd was then allowed into the building.

Why would Nancy Pelosi, allow the doors to be flung open. Probably the same reason she denied Trumps request to have the National Guard on standby.He knew that a large crowd + the proximity of the capitol building would not be a good mix under the circumstances.

So did Nancy Pelosi.

Then there are years of mainstream media churning out the same outrageous dramatically over edited footage of basically nothing happening. Crowds wandering around the building under the direction of the capitol police like they're on a bus tour. That footage was withheld for years for security reasons. Probably because of all the embedded FBI agents!

Please call me a conspiracy theorist nutjob again. It will tell me how little you really know of the actual factual events from that day.

[Screwdriver]

If you can't discuss in a civilised manner, you may find your opportunities to discuss at all shrink rapidly.

Fuck off.