2024 Presidential Election thread

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

You keep coming back to this like it matters if he did something illegal or not.   I'm not sure if it's from a movie or what, but have you ever heard the phrase that a D.A. could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted too?  

 

They already did.

[The Ronz]

I still don’t get why various Secretaries of State simply don’t put Trump on the ballot.

Isn’t the United States based on “Federalism" and "States Rights"?

What can Trump do about it? Sue?

Sure, but then he would have to prove he didn’t cause an insurrection.

He would have to prove that he wasn’t an Officer of the United States.

He would have to prove that the Oath of Office, which he took, doesn’t state that he has to "support" the Constitution.

Put the burden of proof on him.

If he proves those things then he sure as heck doesn't have "Presidential Immunity."

 

[ewsieg]

21 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm certainly not saying a state process isn't subject to review at the federal level. But you seem to be saying the state can't possibly have the authority even if their process passes a review standard. I think that is a much more open question. The federal court give states wide leeway in running elections - look at the their reticence to take on the gerrymander issue. Which as an aside, makes me wonder were the western district in MI thinks they are going by throwing out the commission redistricting.......

As a practical matter, one outcome of this case would be that the court tosses what CO has done based on process defects without taking on the question of whether the state might have the authority or not.

Agreed that states have a wide leeway to run their elections, but they can not bypass the few requirements for being a president, 35 years of age, natural born citizen, has lived in the US for at least 14 years, and has not committed an insurrection.   Trump (legally) has not committed an insurrection, just as OJ and Casey Anthony are not murderers.  That said, I'd prefer to keep OJ away from white women and waiters, I'm not going to let Casey Anthony babysit my kids, and I'm going to do what I can to legally keep Trump out of office.

As for your last statement, absolutely could be what comes out of this.  Not uncommon for the court to do something like that.  

[Sports_Freak]

7 minutes ago, The Ronz said:

I still don’t get why various Secretaries of State simply don’t put Trump on the ballot.

Isn’t the United States based on “Federalism" and "States Rights"?

What can Trump do about it? Sue?

Sure, but then he would have to prove he didn’t cause an insurrection.

He would have to prove that he wasn’t an Officer of the United States.

He would have to prove that the Oath of Office, which he took, doesn’t state that he has to "support" the Constitution.

Put the burden of proof on him.

If he proves those things then he sure as heck doesn't have "Presidential Immunity."

 

Also, make him admit he lost the 2020 election. If he still says he won, he isn't eligible in '24.

[ewsieg]

8 minutes ago, The Ronz said:

I still don’t get why various Secretaries of State simply don’t put Trump on the ballot.

Isn’t the United States based on “Federalism" and "States Rights"?

What can Trump do about it? Sue?

Sure, but then he would have to prove he didn’t cause an insurrection.

He would have to prove that he wasn’t an Officer of the United States.

He would have to prove that the Oath of Office, which he took, doesn’t state that he has to "support" the Constitution.

Put the burden of proof on him.

If he proves those things then he sure as heck doesn't have "Presidential Immunity."

 

Democrats - We can't allow Trump to win because he'll destroy democracy under a guise that he's trying to save it.  This country was built on fundamentals that made us who we are today and that must be preserved. 

Also Democrats - This process to deal with Trump is taking too long and he has a chance to be president again, therefore, we need to bypass democracy in order to save democracy.  

[CMRivdogs]

11 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Democrats - We can't allow Trump to win because he'll destroy democracy under a guise that he's trying to save it.  This country was built on fundamentals that made us who we are today and that must be preserved. 

Also Democrats - This process to deal with Trump is taking too long and he has a chance to be president again, therefore, we need to bypass democracy in order to save democracy.  

A significant portion of the Republican Party - We certainly hope the Democrats can stop Trump because we don't have the balls to do so. And we'll be damn if we're voting for Biden and Harris.

We'll also complain because they're saying out loud what we're thinking because we're scared of him and his posse  

[CMRivdogs]

For the third or possibly the fifth time, the Colorado suit was brought by a group of Republicans or otherwise unaffiliated voters trying to keep the former president off the state's primary ballot. 
 

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION ONLY THE PRIMARY?

It seems that the QOP has decided to place the blame on Democrats basically because they refuse to take any responsibility.  And everything wrong with country is Joe Biden, Pamala Harris, Barrak OBama and The Clinton's fault

 

[ewsieg]

29 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

For the third or possibly the fifth time, the Colorado suit was brought by a group of Republicans or otherwise unaffiliated voters trying to keep the former president off the state's primary ballot. 
 

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION ONLY THE PRIMARY?

It seems that the QOP has decided to place the blame on Democrats basically because they refuse to take any responsibility.  And everything wrong with country is Joe Biden, Pamala Harris, Barrak OBama and The Clinton's fault

 

I readily admitted I don't know the full backstory of this issue, but it wasn't the QOP members of this board saying SCOTUS should do the 'right' thing and uphold Colorado's decision.  I was simply alarmed by where this might go because currently the biggest crazies in this country are MAGA's and while this might seem like a win against Trump short term, it could give MAGA a tool to screw up the country more.  From recent years we've seen that if you give Dems a hammer, they start building back better, if you give a GOP a hammer, they attack Pelosi's husband.  Same tool, wildly different uses.

My understanding is whoever was using the 14th amendment to keep him off of the primary, which still means my 'what if' remains.  The 14th amendment says nothing about if a state thinks someone attempts an insurrection, they can be removed from the primary, it simply states they can not be president.  Someone is going to argue that if SCOTUS allows this, they are essentially confirming Trump can not be president unless he somehow wins the election and gets 2/3's of congress to approve him taking office.  

 

[ewsieg]

she says it a lot better then me.  

[oblong]

It is worth noting that Colorado and MIchigan were not deciding the same thing. They were each answering different questions under different standards. Colorado said “you can’t put someone on a primary ballot who doesn’t meet the requirements to be president, like age and birthright,etc including insurrection”. Michigan said “you can put anyone on the primary ballot… , a dog. Mickey Mouse.  A 23 year old.  If they were to win that nomination then it’s your responsibility to resolve any eligibility requirements” 

[ewsieg]

While there were differences in them, I feel like Benson eloquently relayed my concerns, that ultimately it would lead to many more questions and possible abuses.

[oblong]

I don’t have a problem with her or the Michigan court or the Colorado court. She’s cleverly using both decisions to show her “non partisan” finding.  I don’t see them in conflict with each other. Both states have primaries but different rules in how they are run. 

[Edman85]

In fairness to Nikki, I grew up in the north and learned similar nuanced/overthought justifications for the Civil War. Still, yuck.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

In fairness to Nikki, I grew up in the north and learned similar nuanced/overthought justifications for the Civil War. Still, yuck.

Yup, bad answer.  I don't think that's simply a north thing either, throughout history you have the basic facts of an issue, and then you can go in depth to learn about how it got to those basic facts.  What started WW2, Germany invades Poland, yet you can dig into post WW1 and make strong arguments about steps taken which eventually led to Germany invading Poland.  

At the root of the Civil War was slavery, if you go in depth though, you can see other issues that played some role as well.  For a setting she was in, you can say 'That's a very complex question with many different factors, but slavery was at the heart of it' or go with the more traditional GOP answer of 'That's a very complex question with many different factors, but states rights to have slaves was at the heart of it'.

[Motor City Sonics]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

In fairness to Nikki, I grew up in the north and learned similar nuanced/overthought justifications for the Civil War. Still, yuck.

Involuntary Relocation.........

These people are ****ing sick

[CMRivdogs]

Let's not bury the lead. The subject of slavery was out there since the founding of the Republic. It's one of the main reasons why parts of the Constitution are wound up tighter than pretzels. The need to placate the smaller southern states like South Carolina and Georgia who depended on "free" labor. 

The words of Confederate VP Alexander Stephens could not be more clear ahead of starting the Civil War:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; it’s foundations are laid, it’s cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first , in its history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Folks like Nikki just want to rewrite history.

[Motor City Sonics]

10 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Let's not bury the lead. The subject of slavery was out there since the founding of the Republic. It's one of the main reasons why parts of the Constitution are wound up tighter than pretzels. The need to placate the smaller southern states like South Carolina and Georgia who depended on "free" labor. 

The words of Confederate VP Alexander Stephens could not be more clear ahead of starting the Civil War:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; it’s foundations are laid, it’s cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first , in its history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Folks like Nikki just want to rewrite history.

They want to flat out erase Africa from the world atlas too.     Like I said, they are mentally sick.  

[Tiger337]

If Haley wants to be President she needs to answer questions better.  Make it about yourself all the time.  

"If I was President, there would have been no civil war"

"I was a better president than Lincoln"

 

[CMRivdogs]

She could have at least mentioned that she removed the Confederate Flags from her state Capitol while governor. 

[RatkoVarda]

6 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

She could have at least mentioned that she removed the Confederate Flags from her state Capitol while governor. 

there's a reason she does not mention that

[romad1]

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

They want to flat out erase Africa from the world atlas too.     Like I said, they are mentally sick.  

And we are supposed to think Arab voters will decisively vote for Trump because of Gaza. 

[romad1]

Nikki is a bad person but not a terrible person like Trump is.  

She’s a known opportunist grasping climber.  She sold out her faith and tradition for the ersatz Christianity that would get her elected.  She and Bobbi Jindal seemed to be wearing their religious views like a costume.  It’s not unusual but that does add to her saccharine-ness.

 

[CMRivdogs]

51 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

there's a reason she does not mention that

A lot of folks still can't handle the truth from nearly 250 years ago. 

[romad1]

 

It was curious to hear Desantis trying to flex on this.

[smr-nj]

What the hell happened to us.