2024 Election Season

[Ann]

 

This is the original Chris Christie photo:
 

 

This:
 

 

Then this:
 

 

 

 

[snafu]

No Labels Party.  Never heard of them until yesterday.  https://www.nolabels.org/

 

Dems are trying to kill it before it grows.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/stark-numbers-driving-democratic-panic-third-party-2024-bid-rcna85155

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4035698-nearly-half-of-voters-would-consider-backing-third-party-candidate-in-2024-poll/

 

 

Honestly, if Trump doesn't get the R nomination, I could see 4 candidates with chances to get meaningful votes on Election Day in 2024.  The Congressional races would be super important at that point assuming no candidate gets enough Electoral votes.

 

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

15 minutes ago, snafu said:

No Labels Party.  Never heard of them until yesterday.  https://www.nolabels.org/

 

Dems are trying to kill it before it grows.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/stark-numbers-driving-democratic-panic-third-party-2024-bid-rcna85155

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4035698-nearly-half-of-voters-would-consider-backing-third-party-candidate-in-2024-poll/

 

 

Honestly, if Trump doesn't get the R nomination, I could see 4 candidates with chances to get meaningful votes on Election Day in 2024.  The Congressional races would be super important at that point assuming no candidate gets enough Electoral votes.

 

 

 

 

How long until "No Labels" is labelled "hate speech," "transphobia," and "misogyny" by progressives?

[snafu]

17 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

How long until "No Labels" is labelled "hate speech," "transphobia," and "misogyny" by progressives?

 

 

Definitely.  They’re probably printing up the posters and leaflets.

The Dem party should change their symbol to a Rhino because they’re pretty good at stamping out fires.

 

 

 

…though Donkeys are great at protecting sheep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by snafu

[Ann]

Flounce

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

23 minutes ago, Ann said:

Flounce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is Verrrrrrrry simple for me.

 

If you cannot say that you will vote for whoever becomes the candidate for your own party,

 

 

Then you certainly don't deserve the support of anyone in your party.

 

 

 

[devnull]

6 hours ago, Ann said:

Flounce

 

 

 

 

 

Breaking news:  /dev/null says he vote Libertarian or not at all if Chris Christie is the Republican nominee for President in 2024

[Joe Miner]

13 hours ago, Ann said:

Flounce

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Christie really wants to get into everything that won't support him.

[Ann]

Why would it be unconstitutional to ban illegals or other foreign nationals from handling or collecting voter registration forms?

Not a final decision.

The ruling

US judge blocks portions of new Florida elections law
 

A federal judge (Obama era) on Monday blocked Florida from enforcing part of a new elections law that bans non-citizens from handling or or collecting voter registration forms, saying the state can't restrict individual rights and gave no proof it was necessary to do so.

 

The ruling also blocks a ban on third-party voter registration groups retaining personal information collected when registering new voters.

 

</snip>

 

[Ann]

I have not looked too deeply into his candidacy, but the interviews I have seen, along with his tweets make me very curious.

Vivek Ramaswamy Breaks into Double Digits in Republican Primary

[snafu]

4 hours ago, Ann said:

A federal judge (Obama era)

 

Really sick of seeing this crap.

...obviously not directed at you, Ann!

 

The Judge which all articles say is a "Trump appointed Judge" who issued the preliminary injunction was confirmed by a 98-0 Senate vote.  https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/876

 

This "Obama-era" judge was confirmed 94-0.  https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/1383

 

I get it, the "Trump Judge" had a R majority in the Senate and the "Obama Judge" had a D majority.  However, assuming that Judges who get lifetime appointments are too political to make a proper decision is ass-e-9.

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by snafu

[Cinga]

7 hours ago, Ann said:

I have not looked too deeply into his candidacy, but the interviews I have seen, along with his tweets make me very curious.

Vivek Ramaswamy Breaks into Double Digits in Republican Primary

 

I've liked everything I've heard about him and he has moved into my own second choice behind Trump. Listening to him I think he is really sincere and truly believes everything he says. When you listen to other politicians you often get varying answers or non-answers depending on who they are talking to. But you never see that from Trump, and I have yet to see it from Ramaswamy, same responses no mater who he is addressing. And there is never any hesitation while he thinks of an answer. He's also the only one that has stood up for Trump against all the charges levied against him so far which for me, is another HUGE strike in his favor.

 

Not sure yet, a long season yet to go, but perhaps if Trump gets the nomination, Ramaswamy could be the VP pick? 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Cinga

[Cinga]

3 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Really sick of seeing this crap.

...obviously not directed at you, Ann!

 

The Judge which all articles say is a "Trump appointed Judge" who issued the preliminary injunction was confirmed by a 98-0 Senate vote.  https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/876

 

This "Obama-era" judge was confirmed 94-0.  https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/1383

 

I get it, the "Trump Judge" had a R majority in the Senate and the "Obama Judge" had a D majority.  However, assuming that Judges who get lifetime appointments are too political to make a proper decision is ass-e-9.

 

 

Agree on this. Another one that should never be is "conservative judge" or liberal judge". They should be ruling on the Constitution and the law, period, not on feelz or what you might think is "fair". But more and more, especially from the left, this is exactly what we get in decisions or in dissents. Hell, years back I remember reading a Ginsburg dissent and had steam coming from my ears when she cited European law as if that should have any bearing on anything here in the US. 

[Koko]

On 7/5/2023 at 12:23 PM, snafu said:

 

Really sick of seeing this crap.

...obviously not directed at you, Ann!

 

The Judge which all articles say is a "Trump appointed Judge" who issued the preliminary injunction was confirmed by a 98-0 Senate vote.  https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/876

 

This "Obama-era" judge was confirmed 94-0.  https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/1383

 

I get it, the "Trump Judge" had a R majority in the Senate and the "Obama Judge" had a D majority.  However, assuming that Judges who get lifetime appointments are too political to make a proper decision is ass-e-9.

 

 

I still think it's hilarious how the media continually tries to pretend that presidents have the first &#%$ing clue who these district court judges are when they nominate them.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[Ann]

Smart ad. Too long for TV, but they could tighten it up and run it.

 

 

[Ann]

We live in a constitutional *Republic*, not a direct democracy. I favor ending birthright citizenship for those whose parents entered the country *illegally* because we shouldn’t reward those who violate the law with the intent of exploiting the citizenship rules. That’s not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Further, no one born in this country - whether 1st generation or 5th generation - should automatically inherit the full privileges of citizenship until they *earn* those privileges: every 18-year-old should have to pass the same civics test required of naturalized citizens, or else serve the country for 6 months in a military or first responder role, before earning the full privileges of citizenship. As our Founding Fathers envisioned, we must have skin in the game to play in the game: civic privileges come with civic duties attached. That’s not “extreme,” that’s just what it means to be a true citizen of a Republic. I favor amending the Constitution accordingly.
 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

23 minutes ago, Ann said:

We live in a constitutional *Republic*, not a direct democracy. I favor ending birthright citizenship for those whose parents entered the country *illegally* because we shouldn’t reward those who violate the law with the intent of exploiting the citizenship rules. That’s not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Further, no one born in this country - whether 1st generation or 5th generation - should automatically inherit the full privileges of citizenship until they *earn* those privileges: every 18-year-old should have to pass the same civics test required of naturalized citizens, or else serve the country for 6 months in a military or first responder role, before earning the full privileges of citizenship. As our Founding Fathers envisioned, we must have skin in the game to play in the game: civic privileges come with civic duties attached. That’s not “extreme,” that’s just what it means to be a true citizen of a Republic. I favor amending the Constitution accordingly.
 

 

 

Quote

favor ending birthright citizenship for those whose parents entered the country *illegally* because we shouldn’t reward those who violate the law with the intent of exploiting the citizenship rules.

 

Counterpoint: it's a fundamental principle of law in the US that you don't hold children liable for the crimes of their parents.  Personally, I do not favor violating that principle in any way - overturning precedent to solve specific immediate issues is what Democrats do, and look how that bites them in the ass.

 

Quote

That’s not what our Founding Fathers envisioned.

 

And the Founding Fathers didn't define citizenship in any way when they wrote the Constitution - they specified citizenship requirements for certain officials in government, but never specified how citizenship should be determined.  So they never expressed any "vision" of citizenship.

 

Quote

I favor amending the Constitution accordingly.

 

It's not a constitutional issue.  Immigration law and citizenship are specified in 8 USC 12.  So it's easier to change than amending the Constitution; it just requires passing a new law. 

 

 

 

But it concerns me that a candidate doesn't know what's in the Constitution and what's in the USC (and presumably what's in the CFR.)  

[B-Man]

 

 

 The Biden Malaise: How America Bounces Back from Joe Biden’s Dismal Repeat of the Jimmy Carter Years.

 

Calling it a reprise of the Carter years is honestly too charitable. Carter was not stunningly corrupt.

 

 

UPDATE: From the comments: “Carter didn’t give a speech soon after his (honest) election in front of a national monument back-lit blood red with two Marines flanking either side describing his political opponents as traitors.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Biden-Malaise-America-Bounces-Bidens/dp/1538756218?crid=14QI5QOUK3PKV&keywords=the+biden+malaise&qid=1688736520&sprefix=the+biden+m,aps,125&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl1&tag=insta0c-20&linkId=64bda4120c5aa00d1d7ab5300e5d864e&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

[Fansince88]

25 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

 

Counterpoint: it's a fundamental principle of law in the US that you don't hold children liable for the crimes of their parents.  Personally, I do not favor violating that principle in any way - overturning precedent to solve specific immediate issues is what Democrats do, and look how that bites them in the ass.

 

 

And the Founding Fathers didn't define citizenship in any way when they wrote the Constitution - they specified citizenship requirements for certain officials in government, but never specified how citizenship should be determined.  So they never expressed any "vision" of citizenship.

 

 

It's not a constitutional issue.  Immigration law and citizenship are specified in 8 USC 12.  So it's easier to change than amending the Constitution; it just requires passing a new law. 

 

 

 

But it concerns me that a candidate doesn't know what's in the Constitution and what's in the USC (and presumably what's in the CFR.)  

Agree 100%. Your final statement I will go a step further. It concerns me that the average High School graduate has never opened the  Constitution. Education system has failed our kids. When did we go from memorizing the Gettysburg Address to not even knowing the order of our POTUS? 

 

Edit: I was in school from 1975 to 1988. Im sure your level of public school education was far superior to mine. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Fansince88