FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
“Bold shout”?
His statement is based on the fact that Trump is consistently underachieving what the polls say he’ll do.
Yours is based on nothing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
His statement is based on the fact that Trump is consistently underachieving what the polls say he’ll do.
Yours is based on nothing.
Alvin-blue-qhd
Well-Known Member
US Green Berets reportedly permanently based in Taiwan for 1st time American military advisors permanently stationed in Army amphibious bases in Kinmen and Penghu
By Keoni Everington, Taiwan News, Staff Writer
By Keoni Everington, Taiwan News, Staff Writer
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Jesus wept
The alternative is simply not voting, which a lot of people right now are suggesting they’ll do, and is the only way Trump can winIt wont be. The alternative to Joe Biden is voting for that prick. People wont do it
i mean as said many times, I hope your belief that it’s fine to put your head in the sand and say it’ll never happen is correct, equally though it’s based on your belief that polls are nonsense rather than anything factual.“Bold shout”?
His statement is based on the fact that Trump is consistently underachieving what the polls say he’ll do.
Yours is based on nothing.
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
Some speculation that the SCOTUS will release their 14th Amendment decision today. They have given an unusually short window of notice that they are going to release “a decision” but they don’t tell anybody which decision. Plus it is the day before Super Tuesday so the timing would make sense.
The verdict is almost certainly going to be that Trump stays on the ballot (I would say 95%+ with a decent chance that the decision is unanimous). The more interesting bit is what guidance they’d offer on how somebody committing insurrection can be removed from the ballot and what the mechanism for that looks like.
The verdict is almost certainly going to be that Trump stays on the ballot (I would say 95%+ with a decent chance that the decision is unanimous). The more interesting bit is what guidance they’d offer on how somebody committing insurrection can be removed from the ballot and what the mechanism for that looks like.
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 10,357
I know you know but he could win the election with far fewer votes than last time.I think the gap will be larger than 2020. Can’t see how Trump would gain more votes than four years ago in demographics alone, whatever the result of his court cases.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
The hyperbole and motive-assumption you use to "support" your arguments is getting really aggravating.The alternative is simply not voting, which a lot of people right now are suggesting they’ll do, and is the only way Trump can win
i mean as said many times, I hope your belief that it’s fine to put your head in the sand and say it’ll never happen is correct, equally though it’s based on your belief that polls are nonsense rather than anything factual.
Where is the data that says "a lot of people" won't vote?
I'm not putting my head in the sand, I'm not saying it will never happen -- I am asking for the DATA that supports YOUR argument.
I don't believe the polls are "nonsense" -- but I have data that shows Trump's been underperforming what the polls say in the primaries. It's been posted many times by others here.
Where's yours?
SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
SCOTUS have predictably moved unanimously in deciding that individual states don’t have the right to keep somebody off the ballot under 14(3). This overturns the Colorado decision.
They went further though, stating that only an act of Congress can make a determination as to whether a person is ineligible under section 3. This part of the issued opinion is not unanimous but landed at 5-4 (Barrett was the dissenting GOP voice), with the other judges mostly contending that it is an error for the court to rule on a question it has not been asked and that Congress may not be the only mechanism for enforcing 14(3).
This second part of the ruling is really problematic because it rules out the possibility that some other process such as federal conviction alone would be sufficient to stop somebody holding office under 14(3). Congress are now the only ones who can make that determination.
Therefore the US finds itself in a situation where somebody can be federally charged and convicted of insurrection and still be eligible for the ballot providing that Congress supports them.
They went further though, stating that only an act of Congress can make a determination as to whether a person is ineligible under section 3. This part of the issued opinion is not unanimous but landed at 5-4 (Barrett was the dissenting GOP voice), with the other judges mostly contending that it is an error for the court to rule on a question it has not been asked and that Congress may not be the only mechanism for enforcing 14(3).
This second part of the ruling is really problematic because it rules out the possibility that some other process such as federal conviction alone would be sufficient to stop somebody holding office under 14(3). Congress are now the only ones who can make that determination.
Therefore the US finds itself in a situation where somebody can be federally charged and convicted of insurrection and still be eligible for the ballot providing that Congress supports them.
bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 24,211
- Team supported
- City
Please tell me that this utter **** wont win the fucking election
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
He wontPlease tell me that this utter **** wont win the fucking election