True but in a campaign, it is not enough for some of the candidates points to have merit. It has to translate into interest in the candidate. Christie can go on stage and say dozens of things that people agree with. But there is no interest in him by voters. Same with Cheney. Even though there are lots of republicans alienate by Trump. alienated by Jan 6, or who are rinos or who want to go back to Mitt Romneyism or whatever, there is no indication that voting people want her. If she has a plan to overcome that, then go for it. Unlike Christie she apparently would have to also find a party to even run her failing campaign. Mike Pence probably is right about thousands of things according to old school republicans. Problem is- just to repeat myself- this is a campaign not a three credit course. It needs to translate into interest in the candidate- and ain't nobody interested in Pence. So he can get job teaching down at Shopping Mall Community College and be right about everything- while NOT being President.
Those are good points, but Christie has an air of smug confidence about him. I'm not saying he'll win, but when the fat lady sings, he'll have tabulated far more votes than Liz and Mikey combined. He did swing NJ. I think he's in it to the bitter end, but we'll see. Pence will be out before or shortly after the next debate. Liz won't even jump in. And odds are, her book will flop too.
I don't disagree with that. As I said he and Cheney both have brain damage and are working an agenda that is motivated by their butt hurt. Christie may be in for a long time, but as I say, it will be with little voter interest. He is just trying to maintain some kind of public image so that he can go back to being an ABC NEWS contributor and a lobbyist. He also is running one of the strangest campaigns of all of them. He believes that New Hampshire is his to win and that will be his springboard. And he is campaigning practically nowhere else, and his burn rate of cash is very low because he is not campaigning anywhere else. He is saving it to still be in for New Hampshire. Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the only state he has campaigned, New Hampshire polls show that out of the seven candidates (at the time of the last debate) that Chris Christie was voted as the one who should get off the island first. He is just working some brain damaged plan related to some psychological needs he has. As is true of Cheney. Trump damaged both of them very badly. New Hampshire debate watchers have a message for Chris Christie: Get off the island - Poll https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...shire-chris-christie-island-poll/71026502007/
bitch please....your pussy was so wet singing the praises of that latest nothing burger and now they're your enemy? Go dust off your redhat MAGAtard:
Looks like Pence has Mother on site to make sure that he does not succumb to wild abandon and debauchery with any of those women there. Good job Mother. Mike Pence Campaign Photo Sparks Flurry of Jokes, Mockery The image has done the rounds online, with plenty of users stepping in to mock the 2024 Republican candidate. Jo remarked on X that "Mike Pence's 'events' make the DMV waiting room look captivated by comparison." User Nancy Wooton replied with "When the 15-minute wait following your vax comes with the world's worst entertainment," referring to the wait times advised after having had a coronavirus vaccine or booster. Mike Pence Campaign Photo Sparks Flurry of Jokes, Mockery (msn.com)
Now that Nikki Haley is getting ahead of DeSantis in many polls; Ron has started targeting her with false claims. Maybe Ron learned the habit of outrageously lying from his hero, Trump -- but more likely it has been innate in DeSantis' twisted authoritarian character for a long time. If DeSantis actually wants to win the race then maybe he should be directing his lies and outrage at Trump -- but for some reason Lil' Ron is too chicken to do so. I guess he is scared that "bully Trump" will really beat him up and turn the MAGA crowd against him. Notice how male authoritarians never pick on other male authoritarians -- but they freely beat on women. Let's take a look at the latest lie coming from the Goebbels Ron DeSantis camp... Claim: "Nikki Haley argues in support of bringing Gaza refugees to America.” No, Nikki Haley didn't say she wants the U.S. to take in Gaza refugees, as DeSantis PAC claims https://www.politifact.com/factchec...kki-haley-didnt-say-she-wants-the-us-to-take/ During an Oct. 15 CNN interview, Nikki Haley was asked whether the U.S. and other countries should help Palestinians displaced by the Israel-Hamas war. Haley said the U.S. should care about innocent civilians, but added that Arab countries were unwilling to take them. Haley also said many people in Gaza want to be free from terrorist rule. "And America's always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists. And that's what we have to do." Haley did not call for allowing refugees from Gaza into the U.S. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his campaign have accused competitor Nikki Haley, his Republican presidential nomination competitor, of laying the welcome mat for Gaza refugees. "Nikki Haley argues in support of bringing Gaza refugees to America," the pro-DeSantis PAC Never Back Down posted Oct. 16 on X. The post showed a clip of Haley’s Oct. 15 interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper. We watched the interview and found that Haley, former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, did not call for bringing refugees from Gaza to the United States. The entire Republican primary field has said the U.S. should support Israel in the war with Hamas. But after Hamas, a Palestinian militant group, attacked Israel on Oct. 7, DeSantis distanced his position from Haley’s. DeSantis has said he does not want the U.S. to take refugees from Gaza. But we found no evidence that Haley does, either. Political spats aside, whether the U.S. accepts refugees from Gaza is hypothetical so far. Palestinians in Gaza generally couldn’t leave the area as of mid-October because it was sealed off, and even if they could, the U.S. process for granting refugee status is difficult and can take years. Haley did not call for the U.S. to take in refugees from Gaza on CNN Haley’s full interview showed she does not view all people in Gaza as Hamas supporters, but she did not say whether any refugees should come to the U.S. "Do you think the U.S., Israel, Egypt needs to be doing more to help these innocent Palestinian civilians get out of harm's way?" Tapper asked Haley. "We should care about the Palestinian citizens, especially the innocent ones, because they didn't ask for this," Haley said during her response. "But where are the Arab countries? Where are they? Where is Qatar? Where is Lebanon? Where is Jordan? Where is Egypt? Do you know we give Egypt over a billion dollars a year? Why aren't they opening the gates? Why aren't they taking the Palestinians? "You know why? Because they know they can't vet them, and they don't want Hamas in their neighborhood. So, why would Israel want them in their neighborhood? So, let's be honest with what's going on. The Arab countries aren't doing anything to help the Palestinians because they don't trust who is right, who is good, who is evil, and they don't want it in their country." Tapper then asked Haley to listen to a clip of DeSantis on the campaign trail in Iowa, discussing residents of Gaza. "If you look at how they behave, not all of them are Hamas, but they are all antisemitic," DeSantis said. "None of them believe in Israel's right to exist." Tapper then cited polling from earlier this year that found that half of Palestinians in Gaza wanted Hamas to stop calling for Israel's destruction and 70% wanted the Palestinian Authority from the West Bank to take over Gaza. Hamas, which the U.S. in 1997 designated a terrorist organization, won the Palestinian parliamentary election in 2006. "So, I'm not really certain that Gov. DeSantis has a real read on the difference between Hamas and the people of Gaza," Tapper said to Haley. "What was your response when you heard what Gov. DeSantis said?" "I dealt with this every day for two years," Haley said, referring to her tenure as U.N. ambassador in 2017 and 2018, during the Trump administration. Haley said half of the Palestinians in Gaza didn’t want to be under Hamas rule. "There are so many of these people who want to be free from this terrorist rule," she said. "They want to be free from all of that. And America's always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists. And that's what we have to do." Never Back Down argues that Haley’s statements signal that Haley wants to allow Palestinians in Gaza into the U.S. "Why would Haley emphasize America’s ability to ‘separate civilians from terrorists’ and say ‘That’s what we have to do’ if she was opposed to doing it?" Matt Wolking, a Never Back Down spokesperson told PolitiFact in a statement. But that’s not what Haley said. Haley later said she opposed taking refugees PolitiFact’s process is to rate statements based on what was known when they’re made. But the DeSantis-Haley feud over this point continued for days after Never Back Down’s Oct. 16 post. On Oct. 17, DeSantis told Fox News that Haley "was taking issue with what I said, saying that you can separate someone who's Hamas in Gaza with somebody who's more of a freedom lover. So, why would she be talking about that, ‘We can vet these people,’ if she wasn't saying that they should come to this country? We would have no role in vetting them unless you're bringing them to this country. And so, she changed her tune." But also Oct. 17, Haley told Fox News that the people in Gaza should stay within the region. "We don't know who they are," Haley said. "Why doesn't Egypt want them? For the same reason that we should not want them. It's because you can't vet them. You don't know, but also I found out refugees want to stay within their region. So, let the Gazans stay within the region." Our ruling The Never Back Down PAC wrote Oct. 16 on X, "Nikki Haley argues in support of bringing Gaza refugees to America." The PAC’s post linked to a clip of Haley’s CNN interview in which she said many people in Gaza want to be free of terrorist rule. "America's always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists," Haley said. "And that's what we have to do." Her comment about distinguishing civilians from terrorists is not akin to inviting refugees from Gaza to enter the U.S. And when Tapper asked her whether the U.S. and other countries should help the civilians, Haley said we should care about "the innocent Palestinian citizens." But she also asked why Arab countries were not taking in people from Gaza. The reason, she said, was that other countries "know they can't vet them, and they don't want Hamas in their neighborhood." Haley did not say in the interview whether the U.S. should accept refugees from Gaza. We rate this statement False.
These RINOs have no chance in hell. They will get all the votes of the Never Trumpers who are their buddies but, pretty much nothing else. Democrats will never vote for them and neither will Trump voters. President Donald Trump is way ahead on the Republican side and he has not even debated any of these clowns. He does not need to. His trials give him all the publicity from extreme liberal media and garner him sympathy votes for how the extreme radical progressives have persecuted him. All they are doing is encouraging people to vote for him. After all, are you going to side with the oppressed or the oppressor?
Liz Cheney: The consummate Beltway Groupie. Right before she was evicted in the last election cycle I said: "Don't expect her to be moving back to Wyoming anytime soon." Howz that lookin?
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/22/...-lawsuit-14th-amendment-obeidallah/index.html Opinion: If successful, this case could be the most dangerous to Trump’s 2024 presidential run Opinion by Dean Obeidallah Updated 9:28 PM EDT, Sun October 22, 2023 Editor’s note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show.” Follow him on Threads at www.threads.net/@deanobeidallah. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinion at CNN. CNN — Most of the headlines this past week concerning former President Donald Trump’s legal woes have focused on developments in two of his four criminal cases. Last Monday, in the federal 2020 election subversion case, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed a narrow gag order to restrict Trump from making public statements attacking potential witnesses, prosecutors and court personnel. (On Friday, the judge put a temporary hold on this gag order to give the defense and prosecution more time to brief her on the issue after Trump appealed the order.) Later in the week, there were potentially significant developments in Trump’s criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, where he’s charged with 13 felonies over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state. Two of Trump’s co-defendants in that case — Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro — pleaded guilty to various charges and pledged to testify for the prosecution in future cases, which could include Trump’s. (Trump has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges stemming from attempts to overturn the 2020 election.) But the case that may pose the greatest threat to Trump’s candidacy in 2024 is not one of his criminal cases. Rather, it’s a lawsuit in Colorado that not only saw some bad news for Trump last week but also is scheduled to start trial this month. This case involves a lawsuit initiated by a liberal watchdog group on behalf of six Colorado voters to disqualify Trump from holding office by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment over his role in events leading to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. It seeks to block him from the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado over the amendment’s provision disqualifying from future office US officials who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution if they have “engaged in insurrection” and/or “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. On Friday, Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace rejected three arguments by Trump and the Colorado GOP to dismiss the case before the scheduled October 30 trial date. One of the most powerful points the judge made was rebuffing the argument that state officials have no discretion over who is placed on the ballot if a political party wants that person listed. In her ruling, Wallace wrote, “If the Party, without any oversight, can choose its preferred candidate, then it could theoretically nominate anyone regardless of their age, citizenship, residency.” She added, “Such an interpretation is absurd; the Constitution and its requirements for eligibility are not suggestions, left to the political parties to determine at their sole discretion.” And Wallace — to the likely chagrin of Trump — cited in support of this point a 2012 opinion from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, when he was a federal appellate judge. In that case, Gorsuch wrote that states do have the legal authority to “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” Wallace did not, however, conclude that “the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to exclude a presidential candidate from the primary ballot, or that the Secretary of State is empowered to evaluate such a question.” Those issues — and others — are to be decided in the upcoming trial. But this suit — if successful — could be more of a threat to Trump’s candidacy than his criminal cases. Why? Trump could be convicted in any of his criminal cases, yet there is no constitutional prohibition that bars him from running for president. In fact, Trump could be in prison and still run. However, if Trump loses this case over the 14th Amendment — or any of the similar ones in states such as Michigan and Minnesota — his name would not appear on the ballot in those states since he would be deemed constitutionally disqualified to be a candidate for president. Trump still has a motion pending to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, and his campaign has criticized the Colorado judge’s rulings. “She is going against the clear weight of legal authority. We are confident the rule of law will prevail, and this decision will be reversed — whether at the Colorado Supreme Court, or at the US Supreme Court,” a Trump campaign spokesperson said. “To keep the leading candidate for President of the United States off the ballot is simply wrong and un-American.” But regardless of the decision in Colorado, even legal scholars who have opined that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment have acknowledged that ultimately this issue must go to the US Supreme Court for a final decision. And that is the way it should be given the importance of this issue. But the Colorado case could be the one that makes it to our nation’s highest court. To those who dismiss the prospect of Trump being disqualified from the ballot, check out the case of former New Mexico elected official Couy Griffin, who had been the head of a group called Cowboys for Trump. A lawsuit was brought against Griffin alleging he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment over his actions in connection with the January 6 attack. After a trial was held, the judge concluded — based on expert testimony — that the January 6 event was an “insurrection” as contemplated by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was intended to keep former Confederates from holding office after the war. In 2022, Griffin was found guilty of a misdemeanor of trespassing on US Capitol grounds but was acquitted of a second misdemeanor charge of disorderly and disruptive conduct. The judge deemed Griffin to have “engaged in” the insurrection by his conduct of being on the Capitol grounds. As the judge explained, “One need not personally commit acts of violence to ‘engag[e] in’ insurrection. … Engagement thus can include non-violent overt acts or words in furtherance of the insurrection.” Consequently, Griffin was removed from office as a commissioner in Otero County and barred from being on the ballot in the future in New Mexico. The September 2022 ruling marked the first time an elected official had been removed from office for participation or support of the Capitol riot. The state’s Supreme Court rejected Griffin’s final appeal to overturn the decision earlier this year. To those who think it’s undemocratic to ban officials from the ballot if they are found to have violated the 14th Amendment, I have two responses. First, it’s far more undemocratic to “engage in” an insurrection designed to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And second, we can’t ignore the conditions clearly imposed on candidates set forth in the US Constitution. At least, not if we want to remain a democratic republic.