U.S. Politics

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Massive clearing in the woods Alex Jones is already telling people that he takes measures against being poisoned - he claims he gets his staff to collect hundreds of meals and then he picks one at random.

This is the kind of shit you're dealing with.

Thats paranoia at highest level. Just cook your own food 

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Thats paranoia at highest level. Just cook your own food 

But that’s what they’d expect you to do

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[nick76]

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by nick76

[ml1dch]

Next eleven months of politics in the US is going to be wild.

[maqroll]

Yeah, bend over and spread those giant mud flaps, Trump!

[maqroll]

This will get bounced up to the U.S. Supreme Court, so we'll see how it unfolds. Nonetheless, great news.

[LondonLax]

The Colorado judges were all Democrat appointed. It will be overturned by Trump’s Supreme Court. 

[maqroll]

30 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The Colorado judges were all Democrat appointed. It will be overturned by Trump’s Supreme Court. 

Maybe. 

[il_serpente]

So the person who got the permit for the January 6 rally at the Ellipse lied to the National Park Service and told them there would be no march after the rally when asked.  But they planned it all along but kept it a secret so that it would appear spontaneous.  She even told Trump’s Chief of Staff to keep it close to their vest or they could be in trouble with the NPS.   The preparations and security for a known plan to march would have been very different and may have prevented the breach of the capitol.   This is a pretty big deal.  Trump and his enablers have been trying to blame Pelosi and the Capitol Police for failing to provide sufficient security.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/group-planned-jan-6-rally-lied-capitol-march-plans-government-report-s-rcna130343

[nick76]

6 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The Colorado judges were all Democrat appointed. It will be overturned by Trump’s Supreme Court. 

Conservative legal analysts aren’t convinced it was the wrong decision 

 

[LondonLax]

Regardless of any legal argument I expect it will fall on partisan lines as usual. 

As a point of principle though does anyone think it would be a good idea to bar the most popular challenger to Biden from running against Biden on a legal technicality?

I think that would be a pretty terrible outcome. It is far better to have the people reject Trump than a judge. 

[desensitized43]

You have to think the nut jobs Trump injected into the US Supreme Court are going to overturn this.

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Regardless of any legal argument I expect it will fall on partisan lines as usual. 

As a point of principle though does anyone think it would be a good idea to bar the most popular challenger to Biden from running against Biden on a legal technicality?

I think that would be a pretty terrible outcome. It is far better to have the people reject Trump than a judge. 

I can see both sides.

Without doubt the people should decide who leads them.

With that though it’s US law that has raised this question which Americans have complete allegiance to through the Constitution and rule of law. 

So in this case those two premises (based on this ruling) is at conflict.  

So you either let anybody run for President or you adhere to the rules set out.  Americans choose and adhere to having some rules, like this where Trump is currently off the ballot for insurrection and decades ago Arnold Schwarzenegger was denied to run because he wasn’t a natural-born citizen who himself was popular.

(I also argue Americans don’t get to pick their President because it’s based on the Electoral College rules than popular vote so a person in one state has more voting power than a person in another state but that’s just my personal gripe with their voting format.  It just means that the President isn’t always the candidate with the most votes that wins, so the American public doesn’t always get the most popular candidate but again that’s the LAW that Americans follow…so again following their laws as in the above discussion.)

[nick76]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

You have to think the nut jobs Trump injected into the US Supreme Court are going to overturn this.

I think this probably helps Trump.  If it gets overturned, imagine how energised this will be to his base that will be viewed as “The Swamp” taking away their vote and you can be sure Trump and co will lean into that for their base.  Democrats have Roe to lean into, now Trump and co can lean into this. Hmmmm….

[Straggler]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

I can see both sides.

Without doubt the people should decide who leads them.

With that though it’s US law that has raised this question which Americans have complete allegiance to through the Constitution and rule of law. 

So in this case those two premises (based on this ruling) is at conflict.  

So you either let anybody run for President or you adhere to the rules set out.  Americans choose and adhere to having some rules, like this where Trump is currently off the ballot for insurrection and decades ago Arnold Schwarzenegger was denied to run because he wasn’t a natural-born citizen who himself was popular.

(I also argue Americans don’t get to pick their President because it’s based on the Electoral College rules than popular vote so a person in one state has more voting power than a person in another state but that’s just my personal gripe with their voting format.  It just means that the President isn’t always the candidate with the most votes that wins, so the American public doesn’t always get the most popular candidate but again that’s the LAW that Americans follow…so again following their laws as in the above discussion.)

It's already well established that there are some restrictions on who can run and who cannot.  You already sited the born in the USA rule, you would also have to be over 35.  The both sides argument on this on is really either you are in favour of the rule of law or you are not.

[LondonLax]

31 minutes ago, Straggler said:

It's already well established that there are some restrictions on who can run and who cannot.  You already sited the born in the USA rule, you would also have to be over 35.  The both sides argument on this on is really either you are in favour of the rule of law or you are not.

Well no not exactly. So far Michigan and Minnesota have ruled in the opposite direction and the case was thrown out in Florida (though for different reasons). 

At the moment the (Democrat appointed) judges in Colorado are the outlier on this issue, not the final say. The Supreme Court will likely have to make a call as well. 

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

I think this probably helps Trump.  If it gets overturned, imagine how energised this will be to his base that will be viewed as “The Swamp” taking away their vote and you can be sure Trump and co will lean into that for their base.  Democrats have Roe to lean into, now Trump and co can lean into this. Hmmmm….

A lot of people are already deeply entrenched in their camps so I'm not sure how many people it'll swing either way. It's certainly dangerous to take him off the balot, but that amendment exists for a reason. If inciting a mob to storm the US capitol isn't insurrection then I don't know what is. My concern is that they've gone too early. He's not been convicted yet and so they're probably on really shaky ground.

[nick76]

24 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

A lot of people are already deeply entrenched in their camps so I'm not sure how many people it'll swing either way. It's certainly dangerous to take him off the balot, but that amendment exists for a reason. If inciting a mob to storm the US capitol isn't insurrection then I don't know what is. My concern is that they've gone too early. He's not been convicted yet and so they're probably on really shaky ground.

The problem waiting for conviction (if at all) is that might drift past the election to conclude, especially including appeals.  

Also doing now before the primary ballots are released early January leans to the argument that Republicans still have a candidate to vote for whereas if you wait until the election then only Biden would be on that ballot unless there is some rule for second place from the primary goes on there but I’m assuming there would need to be a run off of some sorts but would there be time.

It’s sad day to think somebody like this with his past, this insurrection and all the rhetoric he’s spouting now of “poison in the blood”, day one dictator and like comments that he’s even in the conversation for future President.

Edited December 20, 2023 by nick76

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

A lot of people are already deeply entrenched in their camps so I'm not sure how many people it'll swing either way. It's certainly dangerous to take him off the balot, but that amendment exists for a reason. If inciting a mob to storm the US capitol isn't insurrection then I don't know what is. My concern is that they've gone too early. He's not been convicted yet and so they're probably on really shaky ground.

It’s not really about swaying undecided voters, more about energising the Trump fans to get people to actually turn up on voting day.