Scarlet

53 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

That’s some hardcore questioning 

 

Her- Why haven’t you disclosed any bank accounts?

 

Him- I’m a man of modest means. We have numerous kids in college/grad school and have a lot of expenses.

 

Her- Yeah, a lot of Americans are in the same living paycheck to paycheck boat.

 

What a f#&%ing farce. Yet the gullible eat it up and believe FauxNews.

Incredible that anyone could actually believe him.  Even if his homespun bulls#!t about being a man of modest means were true it's next to impossible to function without a bank account in our society without being a full blown renunciate.  But that ain't him. 

So the obvious question he's trying to avoid with his clean cut bespectacled smirky face is ...."What the f#&% are you hiding???"

22 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Why is Biden a “bad” candidate?   Serious question for anyone who doesn’t have a username starting with “A”.   

Because he stands in the way of an authoritarian utopia where oligarchs rob the country blind and live the life of luxury off the backs of everyone else ala Russia, Hungary, North Korea, China.  You know all his favorite regimes.  

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Not really my thing, but thanks.  That sounds kinda hyper-masculine.  Not really my thing.  

 

But, again, while you might be into that and that is great!  Why do you think we have weight classes in fighting? 

Hanging out at the bar trying to score isn't your thing....huh.  So it's just been your board persona all along.  

9 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This is concerning for Republicans, but it's also meaningless unless it's compared to enthusiasm for Biden supporters, which is likely equally tepid. Any environmental that shows North Carolina as competitive would mean Biden is winning national polls by 5%, which just isn't happening. 

 

Unless polls start to show the paradigm listed in the above tweet, any environment that isn't D+3.5 or more probably means a Donald Trump won. Biden has to shift polls in his favor by huge amounts to win. 

You mean the polls vs results like this?

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

 

 

So you have seen two 80 year old mean fight in a bar?

 

What bar...I want to go there!

You might get laid

Just now, Dr. Strangelove said:

This is concerning for Republicans, but it's also meaningless unless it's compared to enthusiasm for Biden supporters, which is likely equally tepid. Any environmental that shows North Carolina as competitive would mean Biden is winning national polls by 5%, which just isn't happening. 

 

Unless polls start to show the paradigm listed in the above tweet, any environment that isn't D+3.5 or more probably means a Donald Trump won. Biden has to shift polls in his favor by huge amounts to win. 

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Wait...you think JB is a "little wirey guy" that has good stamina?  

 

And no, I have not been in that super roided out hyper masculine fight that you seem to think all of us get in.  

 

I have seen 2 bar fights in my life...both were under 30 seconds.  Maybe 60 tops.

 

But, with your thinking...why don't they have 150 pound guys fight 200 pound guys in MMA and boxing...since they would "gas out"?

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

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I mean...really?

 

You know why there are weight classes, right?

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$$.

15 hours ago, commando said:

does this ruling say that...if trump is found guilty of insurrection in a court of law......he is still good to go for president as long as congress doesn't ban him?

Apparently so, yes

12 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I'm all out of whack. I was referencing Article 3 section 3. Not the 14th Amendment, but I think my point still stands. You can't just say someone is a traitor, insurrectionists, etc and have it be so. There has to be some official proceeding with due process. Who determines who has engaged in insurrection? In this case Title 18 U.S. Code 2383 would be the enforce code for insurrection under the criminal justice code.

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.  

Quote

Again to your last paragraph, blame Merrick Garland and the court system.

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.

5 hours ago, ZRod said:

What are you arguing here? As I pointed out before, you can't just say someone committed treason and now they are forever barred from holding office. That makes no sense. They need to be convicted and found guilty, or as the clause says; confess their guilt in open court. The punishment for treason isn't spelled out in the Constitution, it's spelled out in the justice code which is where the penalty of barring from office can be found (written by Congress) along with the other punishments. We have due process for a reason, and this case isn't any different.

 

.

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."

Quote

Addressing your last paragraph, that would be an extraordinary circumstance. I would think the supreme Court would work to expedite the trial, and if found guilty punishments would be retroactive regarding offices. I didn't read the Colorado judge's opinion, but I really don't think it holds much weight given that Trump has not been convicted of anything related to treason.

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.  

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Can you explain how it's a dead amendment? I haven't read the argument.

We haven't had your what if. We can't just force people off ballots because we say they did something. Trump needs to be convicted of something relevant; something related to Jan. 6 or sharing classified docs,, etc.

"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"

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Ok, but nobody has found him guilty of anything yet whether that's a jury, judge, or congress. So you're saying someone, anyone, could just go Michael Scott and declare him a traitor and that's that?

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?  

2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Well, he hasn't been convicted of anything related to January 6th yet. So there's that...

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

13 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

What are you trying to say here? A change for women from 43% Trump to 46% Trump is weird? I mean it’s insane that Trump is above 10% in any demographic, but a 3 point change is not much. 

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.  

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

Nope, there's thousands of members. That guy you refer to..... we were told he was actually a militia cell, so...?

You tell me?

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 

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

From the border patrol union.

 

 

 

Still amplifying the opinion the white nationalist Brandon Judd huh?

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Democrat stupidity at its finest. They are so preoccupied with performative politics that it's going to lead to a Republican tri-fecta next January. It's hard for Biden favorable to improve when Democrats attack themselves. 

 

 

Joe Biden needs to gain 8% to lose like Hillary Clinton did in 2016. He needs to gain 10% to have a shot at winning. Some people would say this election is Joever.

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."