Election 2024 Foreplay

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TreeFrogTrader, Feb 1, 2023.

  1. Sorry I have not seen one candidate that is not a shill for wall street and big corporations because that is who funds the PACS and campaigns.... sorry but if you are waiting for the candiate that is free from ties to the 1% and big business you will be voting for Tickle Me Elmo...

    Dems get their money form some of the wealthiest in hollywood and business just like GOP. I have yet to see any GOP or DEM really turn away from big oil or wall street (who were some of the Dems Secy of Treasury???).

    Sorry to burst your bubble....
     
    #2491     Dec 21, 2023
  2. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    I never said otherwise.Haley would just be worse in that regard than previous presidents.
     
    #2492     Dec 21, 2023
  3. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    Close,Ill be voting for West or Stein.
     
    #2493     Dec 21, 2023
  4. Bullfeathers.

    We have an open border which allows MANY undetected felons to cross the border on a minute by minute basis year after year.

    This is very much ALLOWED by current policies and legislation. It may not be legal but in the real world it is allowed.
     
    #2494     Dec 21, 2023
  5. Even 3rd parties have shitty candidates.
     
    #2495     Dec 21, 2023
  6. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    Better than the top 2 imo.
     
    #2496     Dec 21, 2023
  7. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    upload_2023-12-21_11-17-41.png




    upload_2023-12-21_11-16-57.png
     
    #2497     Dec 21, 2023
  8. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    upload_2023-12-21_11-20-38.png
     
    #2498     Dec 21, 2023
  9. Doesn't get any more goofy that this Atlantic article below, but I paste it here to let it all hang out.

    Note to those who do not have a clue, the court is not going to question whether the Constitution excludes an "insurrectionist" and probably they are not even going to engage in nude mud wrestling to define what an insurrectionist is or should be. They are going to be looking at what kind of due process or lack thereof was followed in reaching their conclusions. Even the dem justices will struggle with that and it is their way out of this because it allows them to object to the Colorado decision too without even getting to the definition of insurrectionist or getting caught siding with Trump on the def. - just as the dissenters in the Colorado case did- who, by the way, were also demoncrats.

    Sometimes courts are into uncharted territory and existing law or constitutional provisions are not all that clear but that is not actually the case here. Federal statute also makes insurrection a crime. And if Trump had been charged and convicted of such then that would be a basis for Colorado's position. But the DOJ, various special prosecutors, and the House Jan 6 committee did not even attempt prosecution for prosecution. Nor did the impeachment process.

    First thing the Supreme Court justices will want to know is: where was the defendant charged or accused, when was he provided with an opportunity to confront and cross examine the witnesses and evidence against him, and what was his appeal mechanism from that. Ya know, due process and all that pesky stuff. After all, a qualifying citizen has an absolute constitutional right to run for President and you need to provide a full hearing or trial to deny that right.

    Idiots gotta id.

    The Atlantic tries to make the case that Colorado was just doing basic conservative, originalist work. Heh. Whatevah.

    Anyway, here's some talking points for ya, Lefties. We are already laughing at you.

    The Colorado Supreme Court Decision Is True Originalism
    And that should theoretically appeal to the Supreme Court’s conservative justices.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...reme-court-decision-originalism-trump/676934/
     
    #2499     Dec 21, 2023
  10. vanzandt

    vanzandt

    Would Pompeo consider VP with Trump?
     
    #2500     Dec 21, 2023