Scarlet

You might get laid

Damn. What a namby pamby life you've led...lol

Trump would gas in under 30 seconds. I take it you've never been in a bar fight with the little wirey guy that you'd basically have to kill to stop?

The Biden/Never Trump camp needs to harden this groundswell of Republican voters who are saying now, at least, that Trump is a deal breaker. Make them feel like they're in their own tribe now, can retake the GOP since Trump has told them to get the f#&% out, and give them a sense of patriotism for holding off authoritarianism for at least one more election cycle. First they have to jettison Trump to the dust bin of history.

Biden ought to just go lowest common denominator and challenge Trump to three rounds in the octagon. He'd kick the ever living s#!t out of that lard a$$.

Apparently so, yes

His conduct was adjudicated. Again the 14th Amendment section 3 does not require a "conviction of insurrection". If that was the intent surely it would have been spelled out. We could do that. But it still doesn't make the situation extraordinary. It's happening right now. I get. It's done. It's an amendment that is wide open to interpretation. So let's do the 2nd amendment next. The five conservative justices bungled this decision, probably intentionally, based on what I posted above. As Judge Luttig puts it : "the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause. " That's the scary part. It's now strictly up to Congress and we've seen how resistant they've been to hold an insurrection accountable.

Here's the 14th Amendment, section 3. I'm not sure why you're bringing treason into this. It doesn't address treason. It also doesn't say anything about conviction or confessing in an open court. My original point was that the way the court ruled it makes it virtually impossible for an insurrectionist to be barred from holding office if the insurrectionist's party holds Congress, even with a conviction or confession of insurrection. If Trump was convicted do you see the current Congress barring him from holding office? That doesn't make a lot of sense either. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/ "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Is it really an extraordinary circumstance? Jan 6th was over three years ago and it appears that there's a pretty good chance that Trump won't be tried before the election.

"And in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause — as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain"

I'm saying that section 3 doesn't require the threshold to be "convicted of insurrection" before being barred from running for office. Historical it hasn't been applied that way. I have a hard time believing that the authors, if they had intended that the threshold be conviction of insurrection, would not have spelled that out. If it required conviction what would happen in a situation where the participation in an insurrection was undertaken so closely to the election that a conviction wasn't possible? The district court judge in Colorado found that he participated in an insurrection. It's a dead amendment now with the way court ruled so why even have it?

I guess but the Constitution never required conviction.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the real issue is that they ruled only Congress can bar an insurrectionist from holding office. An insurrectionist running for president is not barred from running for president as long as his insurrectionist party holds Congress. So much for those guardrails we've been told about. Any healthy democracy would bar someone who tried to overthrow an election from running for the highest office in the land.

Remember the days when we were told that the MAGA crazies weren't the future of the GOP? Good times

Polio approves of this

Quinnippiac's poll just a month ago had it Biden 58% Trump 36%. Yeah, so weird numbers. That's what I'm saying. Do you really think that after all the special elections after Roe where the Republicans got trounced, after the IVF debacle in Alabama, after Trump consistently underperforms the polls in the primaries, and after the Republicans are signaling they are going to try to restrict birth control that the data showing gaining women voters is accurate? When was the last time you answered a random robo call? Biden may wind up losing in November but to say it's over now after a New York Times poll in March is silly. I mean isn't Biden outpacing Trump with small donation donors? Isn't his warchest far larger than Trump's? That might be a more accurate data point than polling whatever lunatics answer random calls then trying to weight the results from that.

Ok. I'll tell you. The guy you're amplifying is a white nationalist regardless of what anyone else posted here and regardless of whether he works for the border patrol or not. But by now you know this.

He might not make it to the election at this rate of decline

Still amplifying the opinion the white nationalist Brandon Judd huh?

Didn't this poll show blacks at 23% for Trump and women 46%? Biden got 57% of the women vote in 2020 and that was before Dobbs. Copium I guess you can call it but those are some weird numbers

This one is so patently obvious that it hardly needs to be highlighted. We've heard it endless time. So much so we're almost numb to it. It's still an overt assault on democracy all the same. Straight out of the authoritarians playbook. Crazy he's been able to normalize those attacks for a large segment of the country with absolutely zero proof. VII. Rigging Elections and Promoting Harmful Election Conspiracy Theories Trump has spent much of the past three years falsely claiming that the 2020 election was stolen and perpetrating baseless and harmful conspiracy theories about election fraud. If he returns to the White House, he is likely to continue his assault on American elections. If he were reelected as president, he has said that he would “go down and indict” a rival presidential contender to keep them “out of the election.” "Trump has endorsed the baseless theory that the vice president can block certification of the electoral votes."

That doesn't matter. Fact and such. She said it on Fox so it's become reality for half the country.

Go figure the guy that MAGA keeps propping up as the face of the border patrol is a verified white nationalist. Why do those connections keep happening? https://americasvoice.org/blog/the-3-things-you-need-to-know-about-border-patrol-union-president-brandon-judd/ "Judd promotes the deadly white nationalist “invasion” and “replacement” conspiracy theories. A powerful USA Today profile by Will Carless titled “‘Replacement theory’ fuels extremists and shooters. Now a top Border Patrol agent is spreading it” detailed how Judd used an April 2022, Fox News appearance to promote the baseless conspiracy theory that there is a plot to replace white Americans with immigrants." "Judd appeared in dozens of Republican ads in the ‘22 midterms, including one that pretended to shoot President Biden, then-Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Kelly."

Oh noooooooo.....protecting and saving democracy???

The right-wing talking point that the bipartisan bill would just allow 5000 immigrants to cross the border per day is typical disinformation. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/does-new-immigration-bill-5000-illegal-border-crossings-per-day-rcna136656 "Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings. Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews." "no migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally would be allowed into the country unless they passed asylum interviews or were being held under government supervision." "Over time, negotiators believe, the legislation and ending the practice of catch and release would encourage migrants to seek asylum lawfully at ports of entry rather than try to cross illegally between ports of entry."