Joe Biden will lose. There is no more disastrous option. "Who knows what will happen" is at least in the grouping of "maybe they won't lose".

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah-nagl fhtagn!

All the best Russian influence agents join servers that are in close proximity to their office. I moved from lemmy.world to sopuli after .world's performance was unreliable because they seemed to have a reasonable block list and were in the goldilocks zone of neither too big nor too small. And my mastodon account is hosted on an EU server because I don't think the US has good data privacy rules. Turns out internet services still work when it's overnight in their home time zone.

Well that sure instills confidence! He's good as long as he doesn't have any events at night or need to work late. This is fine for an elective job, where an old person has a task that will take 50 hours performed whenever they feel up to it, not for a candidate. All these excuses are just other ways in which he's not fit to be candidate. Can't change time zones within a WEEK of an event? Can't schedule anything after 8 pm? Cancel if he's got a cold (one of those colds that make you incoherent but involve no coughing or sniffling)?

We shouldn't be rolling the dice with an increasing list of restrictions needed for Biden to be up for public interaction.

If we're going to be ruled by Old Ones, they might as well be Great.

No Republicans. I don't know why people are chasing the center-right like they're the most important constituency there is, but Biden has been losing support from key minority and youth demographics. Crater those numbers even further and picking up whatever sliver of available Republican votes there is won't matter.

Elections are not a simple one-dimensional scale where whoever runs the most to the center wins.

Biden will pull more moderates and centrists, the key group in this election

Says fucking who?

I don't know why he wouldn't simply ignore this ruling. This is one of those situations where the executive has all the power and a judge is telling them to do something. Just don't.

If something illegal cannot be official then this protection never applies. Someone would prosecute him for an illegal act, he'd invoke the defense of doing an official act, and then the judge would say "but the conduct you're being prosecuted for is illegal, so if you did it, it couldn't have been an official act and immunity does not apply".

And again, none of the justices on either side of the ruling are making this absurd and nonsensical claim.

LOL, this is all just fantasy law, and the stuff that's real is stripped by this ruling. The president can use powers designated to them in the constitution with absolute immunity. Regular law can't change what those powers are, only constitutional amendments. They used to make using them in certain ways illegal, but that's exactly what this ruling gives immunity against. All the guys doing the order, they could still be liable for doing illegal actions, but the president is immune, and they may not actually have any reason to think the president has not determined that the correct circumstances exist to make it legal. And if they agreed with the president he could just pardon them so no one was liable.

Also, I have no idea why you think the FBI is a judicial organization. It's in the executive. It's normally, by custom, treated as semi-independent, but that's a custom, not a law, and the only non-constitutional act the ruling explicitly said is official is the president telling the justice department to do things. Again, the people doing the things may have to worry about the law, but the president ordering them does not and can pardon them if he wants to.

Why exactly do you think the Supreme Court made a whole ruling about former-presidents being immune to prosecution for official acts if you think breaking the law makes something not an official act? There would never be a case when the president would need this protection because they were either making an official act or making an illegal act, never both.

And just to be clear, you're wrong and all the justices on both sides are explicitly talking about doing illegal things while also doing official things.

I don't think you're quite getting the "he can kill anyone who would oppose him" issue.

And literally that he has absolute immunity for acts in his constitutional powers, which including telling the military to kill people. At best the order would be refused, but that's still not an illegal act. You don't need to trust me, you can just read the dissenting Supreme Court justices. The "Seal Team 6" hypothetical was never addressed by the majority, because it's a pretty direct consequence of the ruling, just something they hope wouldn't happen or wouldn't work.

There's some governors that matter in there, but I'm amused to see a quote from Hochul. She's not particularly popular and at least a couple weeks ago was even less popular than Biden among New Yorkers. Maybe she's popular with donors, it's not like New York is actually in play.

https://scri.siena.edu/2024/06/20/hochul-favorability-38-49-job-approval-44-50-ratings-lowest-ever-voters-hochul-doesnt-care-about-people-like-them-or-provide-decisive-leadership-small-pluralities-think-she-works-hard-a/

It's especially obvious in that the sentence could have just stopped at "will remain bloodless". We'll win through ideas and voting and law is enough of a statement. If someone else introduces violence then it's of course not bloodless. "My political movement will be bloodless unless someone commits violence against us" isn't a thing you need to say. The threat to violence is only meaningful if the right is initiating violence.

And our suicide and domestic violence rates. Plus all the gang violence. The nerve of a European to say we don't use our guns.

Yeah, this isn't some fringe extremists they can pretend are outside the movement. The Heritage Foundation IS the movement. They're "respectable" conservatives, transformed by Trumpism into full blown terrorists.

PRAISE THE ORB.

Sentiment polls absolutely do matter when the question is whether the sentiment is only coming from trolls and biased media.

There was a whole commission, likely designed to justify inaction, that made a report in December 2021. It's VERY easy to find lawyers who put a great deal of faith into the legal system as it is and despite evidence and their general political persuasion they get panicky at suggestions it's losing legitimacy or a political body.

The report was bad then. I imagine reading it now would be infuriating.

You can be impeached for basically anything. But you still need 67 votes in the senate to be removed. And senators can also be murdered. Being able to have immunity for murder as long as you murder anyone who would deny it is a self-empowering ability.