Donald Trump Supporters/Voters Disenfranchised in Colorado, Who's Next
Which State will be next to decide that their leaders and their State's Supreme Court are more mighty, more powerful than the U.S. Constitution and the Power, which, by design and by LAW, belongs with the American people? That's what this is.....right? A power trip? Let's be the one to outdo all those before us, who have attempted to eliminate the competition, by hook or by crook, by golly!?! Let's be the ones who finally trample Rights to pieces, to the point of extinction!
I cry FOUL, I call TREASON!
I hope Americans are FINALLY as angry as I am with progressive, leftist, corrupt, UN-AMERICAN B.S.!! I hope that Coloradans will decorate their ballots with Trump's name!If y'all have discussed this already, sorry that I am late to the show, but I really don't care. I need to vent. This has me so utterly angry!
However, I am so proud of Vivek for standing in solidarity with Donald Trump, with Coloradans, with the United States of America...by having his name removed from the ballot as well. I knew I liked this guy. Gutsy and classy move Vivek Ramaswamy!Deleted
"I think the implications of this are extremely far reaching."
Ya think?
I may end up in a new location, but I'll not be leaving American soil. I will remain in this battle for the right of this Nation to continue to exist, as Founded, come hell or high water.I think for a long time now... our foreign policy has not aligned with what Americans wanted or thought.
The establishment, both parties, have created our 33 Trillion dollar deficit running these wars, and giving away our wealth to other foreign causes as well.
This bill is coming due... the world is changing... America can no longer run its foreign interventions AND keep building debt... therefore, in order for the establishment to be able to continue to do so, it now has to turn on its own people.
It will essentially need to enslave the American people, take from them their wealth, their retirement, their property and their assets... so that they can continue to fund the American Empire... because the world is no longer going to fund America, it will no longer use the Dollar as the go-to currency, and America no longer makes up the dominant portion of world trade.
I just see this decision as a continuation of what has been the deliberate execution of America done by the same influence that controls the Biden Administration today.
The Administration alienating the UAE which has now gone off the dollar standard for trading oil... alienating Saudi Arabia which is doing the same... giving hundreds of billions to Iran so that they can fund our enemies the world over... spending hundreds of billions funding a war against Russia that never had to happen, peace was on the table there for the taking.
The Executive Orders, spending of trillions on Build Back Better, our Open Borders, as I have said many times... you could not do more to destroy our Nation's future than this Administration has done if that was the goal... other than shooting off some nukes to bring an end to it all, and I wouldn't put it past them.
Very impressed by Vivek, in my view, he is a true honest patriot.
Amen Sharlee.
If it comes down to a side,
count me among the patriots; here and now and always.
I hope there are no delays in resolving this matter. I believe the United States Supreme Court will swiftly address the issue, adhering to the principles outlined in our Constitution.
It seems that the tactics employed by the courts in Colorado may end up causing more harm than good. History has shown that such strategies often backfire, and it's surprising that the Democrats haven't learned from past experiences.
Nevertheless, I maintain my confidence in the integrity of the American people to discern the truth. I trust that the Supreme Court will make decisions based on evidence and due process, unlike the accusatory and preemptive approach that some Democrats have adopted as of late.
Our democratic justice system relies on fair proceedings, a principle that sets us apart from non-democratic nations. (Accuse, no defense, no evidence that would stand up in a court of law, convict, and mete out punishment)
Ultimately, I have faith in the majority of Americans to uphold the values of truth and justice, and I trust in the impartiality of our Supreme Court.
Who would be next, if the Supreme Court lets this ruling stand --- it will be Biden in every heavily red state. Precedence will be the name of the new game. And this will be a huge chip out of democracy, and lead to chaos in our Justice system.
Yeah, we've been discussing it in the Trump coup thread.
It's an unprecedented decision based on an unprecedented action taken by Trump. So we'll see how the Supreme court rules on it. There is the danger for Trump that if they uphold the ruling, then he could be banned in every state. And the Colorado court made their ruling in a manner that was consistent with the originalist view that the current Supreme Court usually takes. So this one should be an interesting decision for them.His name would be written in by many million --- And this would work to show Demacrats they can't win an election by stamping on 'we the people" rights to choose.
This could set an interesting precedent.
If this ruling is allowed to stand, that means red states could then start having biden removed from their ballots.
Could make national elections a bit challenging.You would need a cause to remove him. Two different courts now have found that Trump's actions fit the Constitutional definition of engaged in insurrection or gave aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. What Constitutional cause would the red states have to remove Biden? He's just over 35 and was born in the US, and last we all checked, he didn't engage in any type of insurrection.
What courts? I'm not aware of any trial that took place.
Since the claim of insurrection has never been proven in a court of law, you simply need to have an allegation.
I think the allegation of biden getting rich selling influence to other countries such as China is sufficient enough to have him removed from every ballot in the country.So you are not aware of the initial trial where the evidence was presented that led to this appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court? Where a judge found that Trump did engage in insurrection or gave aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. Man, many of us really wish you guys would leave your media vacuums.
'I think the allegation of biden getting rich selling influence to other countries such as China is sufficient enough to have him removed from every ballot in the country.' Ah, so allegations are all you need, despite every shred of evidence that Comer puts out getting debunked. Sounds about right for today's GOP. They see an allegation against the opposition and they jump right to guilt."evidence was presented that led to this appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court?"
The ruling did not determine if President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection but only if he should be put on the ballot. They used the allegation of insurrection as evidence. President Donald Trump was not on trial.
"So allegations are all you need"
It seems that's all the democrats need, so why not?Like I said, leave your media vacuum. A judge found, based on evidence, that Trump engaged in insurrection.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/12139610 … -on-ballot
"The Court found that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection after a careful and thorough review of the evidence," said attorney Mario Nicolais, who was representing the voters who brought the lawsuit.Here's the problem. I don't think you understand how the court system works. The judge made the ruling which means the evidence was permitted to be part of the court's decision to keep President Donald Trump off of the ballot. The court was determining if President Donald Trump could be removed from the ballot.
I understand it just fine. I'm thinking you don't understand the basis for coming to the conclusion that Trump could be removed from the ballot. It had to be shown that Trump engaged in an insurrection or gave aid and comfort to the enemies thereof - which the judge specifically found he had done after reviewing evidence. And she did not even say the aid and comfort part, but specifically named engaged in insurrection. So to her, that was proven by the evidence provided. Not that we can ever expect MAGA people to accept it, as is on full display in this thread.
See, in our court system a person has a right to address their accuser.
I don't know what evidence was provided. I know there was never an opportunity for a representative of President Donald Trump to review the alleged evidence and provide other evidence to controvert it.
It was absolutely one sided.
That is not how justice works.
I accept the judge made the ruling. I also accept how completely and totally bogus the ruling as well as one-sided and unjust.
That is something the democrat party likes it is how they do business.
Being removed from the ballot in Colorado has not hurt the poll numbers of President Donald Trump in the least. They've actually improved slightly.
Maybe MAGA should thank the Colorado Supreme Court for their support.Of course you don't know what evidence was provided, or that there actually was a representative of Trump there that argued the case on his behalf. It's what we've come to expect from members of this forum. They hear something from their media, come here to spout off without doing any research, and then argue from a point of a lack of the facts.
If one reads the ruling Court of Appeals ruling, it gives no further evidence than that of the Jan 6th committee, which much was not allowed heard due to being hearsay. There was also testimony from a gentleman who gave his view on why he felt Trump used his words to promote violence. Trump's evidence was from first-hand witnesses.
The judge certainly did say she felt Trump was guilty of insurrection. I'm not sure how she came to that conclusion. If I were on a jury and was given the information that is in that ruling, there is no way I could co, me to the conclusion Trump did anything to plan or encourage violence.Well, the court of appeals doesn't have a jury. So, you're looking at the wrong case. And your standard of having done anything to plan or encourage violence sure does ignore the 2:24pm tweet, an hour after the violence began, where Trump tweeted out to his followers who were attacking the Capitol, that Mike Pence was not going to stop the certification. Calling Tuberville four minutes later and asking him to stop the certification seems another big part of being engaged in the insurrection. Telling those that attacked the Capitol that he loved them sure does seem like aid and comfort as well, which is part of the standard written into the language.
Nine justices make up the jury in the SC. All Consitutionalist. I am aware of what Trump did and said in a 6th, as well as the timeline, which can be well verified.
I have also watched interviews with Mike Pence, so I am aware of his feelings and words. "That he loved them" Note you only saw fit to quote a few of the words that Trump said in that statement. Maybe time to look at the full context of that statement.The point was you were looking at the wrong case to get the actual evidence of how the district judge arrived at her ruling. And who cares about Pence's words, his words are not the ones judged in this case, it was Trump's tweet while the violence was happened that was deemed engagement. That tweet was clearly an incitement. Something you seem to want to deflect away from by talking about Pence's words and feelings.
And yeah, I only needed to post the comforting words that Trump said for the people that had just attacked the nation's Capitol to show he did give them comfort after their criminal acts.
I found the Judges ruling from the first trial that for all purposes Trump won.
It is very much enlightening and does offer a complete picture.
This ruling gives a full picture of who testified, and what they shared.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfile … 0Order.pdf
It left me fully realizing why Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace ruled as she did... Trump's witnesses were first hand, and a couple of experts.
Well, I will let those discover for themselves what the opposing team offered regarding witnesses...
This judge perhaps should have realized Two other states thus far have dealt with Trump being removed from the ballot. Minnesota Supreme Court shut it down, and in Michigan, it has been appealed to their Supreme Court.Trump may have gained the outcome he wanted from the first trial, but he far from won it. The fact that she was able to rule that his conduct was an engagement in insurrection is going to be a major sticking point going forward, as we saw from the Colorado Supreme Court overturning the part where they believe the president to be an officer of the United States.
Upon reviewing the Court of Appeals ruling, it appears to lack additional evidence beyond what the Jan 6th committee presented, much of which was dismissed as hearsay. Testimony from a witness expressing his perspective on why he believed Trump's words could incite violence was also considered. Notably, Trump's defense relied on first-hand witnesses.
The judge did assert Trump's guilt of insurrection, though the basis for this conclusion remains unclear to me. If I were a juror and relied solely on the information presented in the ruling, I would find it challenging to reach the conclusion that Trump actively planned or encouraged violence.
In November, a trial court in Denver found that the events on Jan. 6 satisfy the definition of insurrection, and concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection through incitement.
Let's be clear. Trump literally tried to steal the presidency. That is the only reason that this case moved forward, because of his actions.
Why does it generally seem that our conservative folks tend to only know half of a story or have a completely misinformed accounting?Not true, it may have been spun as such, but most of us recognize a good yarn when we see it.
Yeah, about that, that was whether to permit evidence to be included in the court determining if President Donald Trump could be removed from the ballot. That is what the court is determining. What the judge determined is irrelevant in determining the insurrection accusation. That is not what the court was determining.
As far as I'm concerned only those who can't separate facts from fantasy believe that President Donald Trump tried to steal the presidency.
There is a strong argument to be made it was stolen from him.
I didn't think of that Mike!
"Interesting precedent" aka: what a nasty can of worms has been opened!It's sort of funny that what gets lost here is that it was six republicans who brought this case to the Colorado courts. Those six republicans believed that Trump's actions were disqualifying. So, while it is being labelled a Democrat-thing, the initial action was actually a GOP action - or what people supporting Trump would call a RINO thing since anyone in the GOP who stands against Trump automatically gets moved to the RINO party.
What were the political parties of those who were in the majority for the ruling?
Until you mentioned it, I didn't even think about it. Good point!
Yeah, except there's this small thing called cause that is actually in the Constitution that those red states would be lacking.
Oh, there is plenty of cause. biden taking money from China and other countries for influence. It's not been proven but that doesn't matter. It's never been proven that President Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection. How many of those convicted for their activities on January 6 were convicted of insurrection? Zero. It's just an opinion. So, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, biden should be removed from the ballot because he used his position to gain money from foreign countries.
Using democrat logic, I think it is a good reason.'It's not been proven but that doesn't matter.' That sums up far-right logic perfectly.
And it was proven that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection - in a trial. Both sides, including attorneys for Trump, presented their cases and their evidence and a judge ruled. That's called it being proven in our society, when a judge hears arguments and makes a ruling. That ruling was even affirmed by a higher court.
And plenty of convictions for seditious conspiracy, which is the federal crime for those that conspire to use force to against the U.S. and it's government or laws. It involves two or more people plotting to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government, to levy war against it, to oppose by force its authority, or to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law. An insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government, so the seditious conspiracy charge covers the action of insurrection.
You see, you completely misrepresent democrat logic, even legal logic to make your case. So when your case gets into an actual courtroom, like Trump's has, it will fail on its face.Readmikenow? In support of what you stated, on January 6, 2021 before the incident at the Capitol building, I remember seeing with my very eyes a television broadcast in which President Trump specifically told the demonstrators there not to engage in any kind of violence. I would think that that fact alone would serve as exculpatory evidence against any unfounded accusations against him of inciting an insurrection. Anything else that anyone has said to frame him for something of that nature is pure conjecture on their part as far as I am concerned.
Yeah, only if you ignore him telling the crowd much later in the speech to 'fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country.' Why can no one from the far-right ever post those words? I wonder....
Definition of the word "Fight"
When you fight, you dispute or argue. Everyone disagrees from time to time, but it's sad when close friends fight.
"The verb fight means to engage in a struggle that involves conflict — and as a noun, fight is the conflict itself. A fight can take a physical form, like a boxing match or a playground skirmish, or it can happen with words, like a fight over politics. The ancient root of fight comes from the Proto-Indo-European prefix pek, meaning "to pluck out." Picture a hair-pulling fight, and this makes complete sense."My exact thoughts. President Trump could very well have been telling the demonstrators to "fight" within the legal system rather than use violence, especially if he had told them beforehand not to use violence. It's the obligation of the courts to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He was concerned that a Biden administration would be disastrous, and he was correct.
"Yeah, only if you ignore him telling the crowd much later in the speech to 'fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country.' Why can no one from the far-right ever post those words? I wonder"
It's a figure of speech, I use it all of the time in my articles! When I do, I am not asking anyone to pick up their boxing gloves, meet me in the ring. I am not asking them to take up arms and join me on the battle field. I am asking that they get involved in the fight to win our Country back!
The same can be said of Donald Trump, he uses this figure of speech often, because he doesn't want to lose this Country either!Sure, if Trump used it in an article, it would have a different context. But he used 'fight like hell or you won't have a country' to an angry mob, one he knew to be armed, that he planned to send to Congress, at the very moment they were set to certify his loss, and after he heard Rudy say they should have trial by combat. Some in the crowd that were charged have testified that they interpreted his meaning to mean attack - because his use of those words allowed for that. Again, he opened himself up to that based on his word choice, which was reckless.
I have said it in person too, because this Country is so worth fighting for V!!
"NASHUA, N.H., FEB. 10 -- Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, returning to New Hampshire today to begin the last week of campaigning before next Tuesday's primary, angrily accused his political opponents of trying to destroy his character and vowed "to fight like hell" to win." Bill Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ … d6017ea54/
"Obama campaign chief: ‘We got beat,' so ‘let's ‘fight like hell'"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/ob … d=16520670
"Unearthed tweets show Jamie Raskin, Joe Biden saying ‘fight like hell’"
https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/old-tweet … like-hell/
The term is very commonly used in politics. Context is very important to consider in how the term is defined. In all cases including Trump's usage, the term was not ordeing anyone to become violent.
At this point, Trump's usage has been labeled as ordering violence. However, one only listened to the rest of his long Jan 6th speech to see he was in no respect ordering violence.Sorry, Shar - comments from other people are irrelevant. If Trump says something it is open season to declare fomenting a small riot by unarmed idiots an "insurrection", intended to overthrow the US government. After all, the crystal balls out there plainly show he intended to take the government by force for his own nefarious purposes by using language that meant something other that what he said - that secret code book he used was widely available, at least to people with imagination that don't mind making up stories.
In my opinion, some individuals have veered into a state of hysteria, making it challenging for them to distinguish between truth and mere speculation. They seem unwilling to take a step back and consider the context in which words are used. The English language, as we are accustomed to it, appears to have been overtaken, and this is profoundly unsettling. It's akin to a chef insisting that a cup of salt won't overly salt a stew, and everyone follows the recipe only to choke on the excessive salt, yet proclaiming it as delicious. Common sense seems to have been abandoned to accommodate personal beliefs.
Except for your last sentence, I agree 100%. But it isn't "personal beliefs" that are being accommodated; it is personal desire to eliminate a political opponent. To get what is demanded from the political rat race we have become.
That speculation, rather than truth, is all that matters as the imagination is so much more powerful than truth...if you can just repeat it often enough to get people to believe the lie that will secure an election. Apparently it is sufficient to even some of the highest state courts as it is declared that that major political player may not participate in the game.It's disheartening to witness the controversy surrounding the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to keep Trump off the ballot. I've been delving into the perspectives of constitutional experts, and it's clear that this decision raises concerns about potentially infringing upon our right to choose our preferred candidate. It's surreal to think that such situations could unfold in America.
I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court will consider Trump's case and provide a clear, understandable ruling. Trusting in the legal process, I hope for an outcome that not only aligns with the principles of democracy but also addresses the concerns raised by citizens like myself."it's clear that this decision raises concerns about potentially infringing upon our right to choose our preferred candidate."
Preferred candidate? Some would argue that voters have an inherent right to elect whatever candidates they want, and that restricting it would be undemocratic. If so, wouldn't that theory dejustify all of the other constitutional constraints on office holding, including the Twenty‐second Amendment and the requirement that the president be at least 35 years old? A natural born citizen?
More fundamentally, the logic of that argument is likely unsound: It is not “undemocratic” to block office holding by candidates who are likely to undermine democracy itself if they come to power, as Trump tried to do in 2020 and may well do again if given the chance. Voting is not a sufficient protection against authoritarians who are likely to undercut the electoral process itself if given the chance.
So when citizens critique Section 3 as undemocratic or undermining democracy, our answer should be simple: Yes, it is likely undemocratic, exactly as it was intended to be. The amendments’ authors were worried that voters would send former Confederates right back into public office. If they had believed that the American electorate was wise enough not to vote for insurrectionists, they never would have drafted Section 3. Many of the Constitution’s provisions are intentionally antidemocratic. The American republic is a democracy with guardrails.
I think we have many in our country today that would like to see the guardrails removed.The undemocratic part is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you are going to adhere to.
Wow! So Trump is now on par with Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis, who waged active war against the United States, killing millions as they fought?
Sorry if that sounds flippant, but is there any end to the imaginative exaggerations of those wishing a tiny riot led by the words "March peacefully" and composed of unarmed people is an "insurrection"? Now it is on par with the civil war!Many here seem to only be focusing on his rally and speech on January 6th. It's much more than that and will be viewed in terms of the larger picture.
Let's not forget that Trump tried to pressure Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th.
Trump also tried to convince state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results. Trump’s lawyers and other members of his team directed Republicans in multiple states to produce fake electoral slates and send those slates to Congress and the National Archives. He is on tape in Michigan offering attorneys to the board of canvassers in exchange for them not signing the election certificate for that state. And let's not forget Trump ignored requests to speak out against the violence in real time and failed to act quickly to stop the attack and tell his supporters to depart the Capitol. He even poured gas on the already burning fire by tweeting "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” in the middle of the chaos.
Several interpretations of insurrection have been looked at. One, the most closely, says it's a "concerted, forcible effort to prevent or obstruct execution of a central Constitutional function,”
in the Colorado hearing, Trump’s lawyers put on their own constitutional expert, Robert Delahunty.
Delahunty, a retired law professor who is a fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute, said the more important question is the unique requirement in Section Three that it be an insurrection against the Constitution.
“What really needs to be explicated is not the plain vanilla meaning of insurrection but the whole phrase — insurrection against the United States Constitution,” Delahunty testified.
The lawyers seeking to disqualify Trump in Colorado noted that even the former president’s own attorney in his impeachment trial for the Jan. 6 attack described it as an insurrection.
“The question before us is not whether there was a violent insurrection of the Capitol — on that point everyone agrees," Trump attorney Michael van der Veen said during the impeachment proceedings in the Senate.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/poli … acd5f7fbfbI see. Then his other supposed illegal activities put him on par with people that waged war (guns, cannons, destruction and death) with the US.
We all know what an "insurrection" is, and a few yahoos occupying the Capitol (not for the first time) is NOT an "insurrection". That the court found it so, AND found Trump's words of "March peacefully" to cause it, does not make it true, It is so far removed from truth as to be obvious partisan politics, not law.
What do you expect?
Same people who want to make it a felony hate crime for not using the proper pronouns.
We really do have a problem in the country today, the extreme on the Left cannot co-exist with middle of the road America anymore, let alone the Right.Ken, these are registered state voters who are acting within the laws of those states to challenge a candidates eligibility for the ballot. Would you rather see the feds step in and obliterate that right?
The whole left has moved so far from center that I would have to say that even moderate leftists are having a hard time co-existing with most of America.
"Preferred candidate? Some would argue that voters have an inherent right to elect whatever candidates they want and that restricting it would be undemocratic"
I strongly believe that states should not have the authority to eliminate a candidate from the ballot, particularly when the candidate is significantly leading others who are also vying for the position. It seems like a situation where states might arbitrarily decide the candidates for any ballot.
I'll defer to those who deeply understand constitutional principles for their interpretation. I will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court if they decide to review the case. However, if they opt not to, we will be left with states making such crucial decisions, impacting us all.Sharlee01? What is most bizarre about President Trump's name being removed from the Colorado and the Maine state ballots is that I cannot recall anything like this ever happening in the history of our nation. Everyone thought that Lyndon LaRouche was a wack job on up to his death in 2019. After he went to Federal prison so many years ago, I can imagine that a lot of people probably thought that he was going to be disqualified from the 1992 presidential election. However, much to everyone's surprise, he was able to run his presidential campaign in an orange jumpsuit from his Federal prison cell.
President Trump is merely trying to get a chance at a second term in the Oval Office, and all these hostile people are coming out of the woodwork to sabotage his chances of doing so based upon their suppositions of his vocal verbage. If Joe Biden had decided not to run for president this year, I begin to wonder if any of these witch hunts would be going on against President Trump.I completely concur. I believe that Trump will be selected at the National Convention, and he will prevail, irrespective of how many red states attempt to exclude his name from their ballots—states where his victory might have been unlikely. There's a possibility that the Democrats are feeling quite apprehensive at this juncture; they appear to be in a state of disarray. Their policies have made one mess after another and caused an enormous rise in our national debt.
It seems that more people are realizing the significant challenges within the Democratic party—their ideologies and agenda are at odds with what many Americans desire for the country, making their stance appear toxic to a substantial portion of the population.Just a thought, but does anyone know if the Republican party can deny any votes from Colorado? Their party, their nomination, their candidate; their party. Can they deny votes from any state or area that does not follow party requirements?
This statement was put out regarding how the GOP will handle the situation. The party has every right to award delicates at the Caucasus. Which they may well do. I think they will be considering the polls, and what they see firsthand in the Caucasus. I don't think they will toss Trump out if he continues to poll the way he is at this point. He has strong support at this point.
"After making presidential candidates pay up to $40,000 to participate in Colorado's Republican presidential primary, the State GOP is now threatening to ignore the results of the primary if former President Donald Trump isn't on the ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled this week that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6 and, under the 14th Amendment, is ineligible to run for office.
The Implications of the Colorado GOP's decision are significant. The presidential primary determines how delegates are awarded at the national convention, where the candidate with the most delegates from each state becomes the party's nominee.
Colorado Republican Party Chair Dave Williams says, if the leading GOP candidate isn't on the ballot, state Republicans will award delegates at caucuses instead.
"We're trying to make the best choice out of a very bad situation," he said.
Biden's polls continue to get worse, as Trump's get better. So, I would assume the Republican Party will hear the people's voices over anything.
Bottom line the Republican candidate will be chosen at the Rep
Convention. They will work together and stand behind any candidate they choose. The delegates ultimately choose, and they don't need to listen to anyone or even take into account the primary or Caucuses. In the past they have, but I think we can agree we are not looking at the same Republican Party of Old...Trump remains on all ballots pending the Supreme Court decision. Does the Republican party plan to respect and abide by their decision if it comes down against him?
That's a hard question. If I answer it from my innate feeling --- I don't feel they will. I think they will elect him at the convention one way or another if polls and caucuses keep supporting Trump. I think the party will just out and out choose him on the convention floor.
It was my hope, and prayer that my party would move on to someone new, just due to the vitreal that I see. I supported Trump, and I feel he did a very good job, and I feel he could once again be a good president under the right circumstances. However, this would not be the case.
I will support the candidate of my party. I want change. I am conservative, and find the Democratic party's ideologies harmful.Shar,
Many Republicans feel the situation is bigger than just electing President Donald Trump to a second term.
The democrats have really crossed the line. They did horrible things to get biden elected. They had bogus impeachments, lawsuits, etc. of a former president.
NOW they try to keep him off the ballot?
They've gone too far.
The election of President Donald Trump to a second term will demonstrate to those democrats who believe they can do whatever they want during an election that the will of the people will win in the end.
That is what it is all about.
The will of the people.
Republicans respect it and democrats ignore it to do what they want.
Having President Donald Trump in a second term will send a message to them they must also follow law and rules.I agree Mike. It is not a hard question for many, because of all of the reasons you have stated, and then some!
This has gone far beyond principle and politics as usual.It went far beyond principle and politics as usual starting before the 2020 election and ended on January 6, 2021. We aim to go back to the times before candidates undermined our elections with blatant lies and then refused to adhere to a peaceful transfer of power.
That's what Trump's re-election will do for the American people, take us back to life before TDS.
Yeah, but in the case we see in this forum, TDS stands for Trump Demagogue Syndrome. And there doesn't seem to be a cure. He can be found liable for sexual abuse, trying to overturn a free and fair election, and shown to have clearly obstructed justice in the return of the nation's top secrets and his supporters don't even blink an eye.
A "free and fair" election is one in which low level employees decide to violate state law and change the state rules for eligible votes, right? After all, they thought it was the "right" thing to do so that makes it right even though violating state laws where they were working, right?
Low level is the latest lie. Since when are State Attorney Generals 'low level?' And when the majority of states (31 to be exact) feel the need to alter election processes due to a national emergency and don't want to kill their voters who want to exercise their rights, something the courts upheld at the time, it seems that only MAGA extremists don't still see that as free and fair.
A heckler from the peanut gallery sees the 'justifications' (the Covid rationale), in your response as validating the point of the other. As noted, the out-of-normal-process changes did occur. 31 times(?).
Those justifications may be innocent of causing harm, or not. They may (or will) pass the court tests and may be found procedurally sound—even with their procedure-breaking introduction. And, there may have been fraud due to those changes, or not. But those are determinations.
That the changes occurred and that their implementation did circumvent established legal procedures are facts.
GA31 times? Not like you to change someone else's words for your own benefit. Go sit with wilderness, that's his tactic.
'That the changes occurred and that their implementation did circumvent established legal procedures are facts.' Do they? Or do some states give the state's Attorney General the power to alter processes in times of emergency? Such as in 2018, when Governor Rick Scott altered election processes due to an impending hurricane, without consulting his legislature. Only in Trumpworld, are past precedents that exist to protect voters and allow them to exercise their rights during state or national emergencies suddenly unacceptable.
But the most hypocritical had to be Governor Greg Abbott extending his state's early voting period by 10 days in 2020, then suing battleground states for making similar changes to protect their voters.First, help me get the Dunce hat off of my head. What's wrong with the "31 states" statement?
Wasn't your reference to 31 states in your comment to the number of states that changed their balloting procedures due to Covid restrictions? That's how I read it. That's also why the enclosed question mark was added—I was referencing your number (the connection seemed obvious to me), not proclaiming a fact.
To the question of whether all were legitimately procedurally correct—relative to an emergency status, my recollection is that they all weren't. Some were very hotly argued. Some were challenged in court, and some admitted the actions were unprecedented emergency actions that would be validated by coming legislation.
So maybe some states did have emergency delegation procedures (the States' attorneys), but weren't there also some that did not, and played legislative 'catch-up' afterward?
Surely my recollection can't be so wrong that all of those 31 states' changes were uncontested at the time they were implemented.
The only point made was that those types of changes were made. Not a defense or criticism of them. So, I'll keep sitting by myself. Wilderness doesn't need any company. ;-o
GA31 states is different than 31 times. For example, Connecticut made two different changes, Kentucky made three, South Carolina three, so the amount of changes/times is more than 31.
'To the question of whether all were legitimately procedurally correct—relative to an emergency status, my recollection is that they all weren't.'
- and my point was that some were actually legal and had been previous accepted until Trumpism came along after a statement of totality that was put in the post I applied to: 'That the changes occurred and that their implementation did circumvent established legal procedures are facts.'
Yes, some states were contested, but was a state like Arkansas contested too? Did any of the states I listed have their changes contested? You'd think you'd want some consistency. Why did the Trump campaign think it was legal in states he was favored in and not contest them, but feel that it was illegal in battleground states? Did Texas sue themselves for making changes before suing other states and being ruled not to have standing?
And when you change my words from states to times, you're definitely sitting in a bad group in my opinion. If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately.Geesh Louise . . . States, times . . . my bad. I did misquote you.
But, the reference wasn't intended to have any more importance than a 'number' relative to emergency balloting changes. Since there were no details attached to the 'number' that would imply anything, your offense is on you.
The details, or 'Trumpism' perspectives of the changes are different conversations. My point was that your referencing the reasoning for ballotting changes, and the number of times changes were made, validates the statement you are arguing about now.
Surely you don't think all 31 changes (or times changes were made) were unassailably unquestionable and procedurally correct?
GANo, I don't. But I also disagree with the absolute way you wrote that they were all procedurally incorrect, when that was not the case, and which I brought up. When courts upheld the changes, at the time of the emergency, that did make them legitimate. Some courts have looked at the changes post-pandemic and seen them in a different light, after the fact. At the time, they were the right choice. If it had to be done again, the courts would like to see state legislatures act instead of elections officials or Governors.
And I would like to see the Trump campaign not say that changes were legal in states he was winning and illegal in the ones he lost. That is not equality.I don't think I wrote that all were procedurally incorrect. Your further explanation is what I said in the last exchange (I think)
Many wish Pres. Trump would stop saying a lot of things.
GA.
“And I would like to see the Trump campaign not say that changes were legal in states he was winning and illegal in the ones he lost. That is not equality.”
You know, GA, I would like to see that, too……
I can agree with your perspective on many points. However, I question whether our nation benefits from persistently engaging in continuous political battles, hindering progress due to intense partisanship.
The country is enduring the consequences of a lack of compromise, and I believe America has suffered considerable damage in the past three years. The concern arises: can we afford to give Biden another four years? This possibility should be acknowledged. As I've mentioned before, I view Trump as a capable leader who could address the challenges created during Biden's tenure. Yet, is it a risk to assume he would have the freedom to govern, considering potential opposition from the Democrats? Their track record over the past six years suggests otherwise.
In the event of a Biden victory, there's a plausible scenario where America could face further deterioration. Could the nation not potentially heal under new leadership? While I am committed to voting Republican, regardless of the circumstances, I can't ignore the logical concern that both Trump and Biden winning in 2024 might lead to a turbulent period. It seems evident that Democrats are aiming to dismantle the country—a manifestation of Obama's vision. Understanding your perspective, I agree that fighting for what is right is essential. And a Trump win would certainly give them a wake-up call.What kind of country can we have if one side (democrats) believe they can break any law, ignore any protocol, tell any lie that suits them to get their candidate elected.
It has to stop.Do you think the Demacrats would stop if Trump won in 2024? I think we will see much worse than we have seen. What makes you think another Republican could not beat Biden or anyone they choose to run?
I am with Ken, the country is shot, and we have one last shot -- so you can bet I will be voting Republican. I also feel a majority of Americans are done with all the nonsensical ideologies the Democrats have dished up.
My thought would be perhaps two brand-new candidates could have broken the barriers that are getting higher by the day.
Yes, it has to stop, but can the country take much more? I yearn for peace, and solutions to heal the divide, before it is too late.Well, it's like this, Sharlee01. If Americans want energy independence again and less FBI corruption, Donald Trump is the candidate to vote for, period. Senator Joe Manchin and Nikki Haley have their possibilities, but Donald Trump has the White-House experience to make those two good things happen again. He certainly has my vote. Joe Biden has brought nothing to the table since he was first inaugurated three years ago. Janet Yellen kept giving lame excuses at a recent Congressional hearing on why Joe Biden ended the Keystone XL Pipeline. It's no wonder Donald Trump didn't keep her on board with his presidential administration after two years.
I agree with your view. However, do you think the temperature would cool down or get far worse if either Trump or Biden gets 4 more?
Will our nation survive if we don't stop the political gridlock, overspending, and pure far-left agenda?
In the past 3.5 years, we have been given every excuse in attempts to cover Biden's poor decision-making. Not to mention the blame game.
As mentioned I do feel Trump could right the ship if given the chance... But would he be given the chance or would we see more of what we have seen on steroids? Realistically, this is something Republicans must face.
I would say this is because one side (the establishment, the elites, DC, the people in charge) is championing causes that Americans (regular Americans of any color or creed that aren't extremists) should not compromise on.
Which side is really championing open borders and is helping facilitate as many migrants reaching America as is possible?
Well, at the moment one would conclude it is Biden and the Democrats, but this is really the position of the UN, Open Society, etc. I know, beating a dead horse, but sadly its true, the politicians follow agendas that are not necessarily in the best interests of Americans.
Our politicians today service International Corporate interests, as well as crazy agendas put forth by the UN/WEF/WHO which to a large degree the American government helps fund.
These interests lead us to support wars that do not benefit Americans and only harm our economy, they allow for an open border where we pay those entering our country to be here, they allow American businesses to ship their profits to overseas accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here in America... our politicians do not have American's best interests in mind, they are too busy trying to run the world and doing the bidding of powerful forces that use our lobbyist system against us.
This is where Trump separates himself, he does not play into those agendas, he withdrew America from the Global Migration agreements set up by the UN, from the Paris Accord, from TARP, he forced the renegotiation of Trade agreements, he threatened Corporate heavyweights to prioritize American jobs, and by extension that included shutting down borders and prioritizing identification for purposes of hiring.
He also did not start new wars, wars which have cost America trillions the last two decades and is largely why we have the massive debt we currently do. Debt doesn't matter... until it does, when the whole system collapses, which these wars, and the creation of trillions in debt to fund them, hasten us to.
There is no compromise in DC because there are enough sellouts on both sides of the aisle to ensure things continue in this direction... the only hiccup to this in the last quarter century was Trump, the only threat to all this continuing is Trump. Maybe DeSantis... the rest will fall in line and do as they are told and continue all the things ongoing today that are not in the best interests of America or Americans.I agree with your view 100%. I think if Trump wins he will come out of the gate and blast the organizations that you mentioned, and anyone that he feels is detrimental to America, and what we stood for not so long ago. I hope he can withstand what would come his way if he wins. The Dems will not give up. However, I think more will see the evil they are dishing up.
I can't believe he has not just turned and walked away from America altogether.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court remains worthy of my respect. All other branches have reached a detrimental, low!
"I strongly believe that states should not have the authority to eliminate a candidate from the ballot
But the Constitution has given them the authority to administer elections and in turn many of these states have given their voters the right to object to the qualifications of those on a ballot. The challenges in Colorado and Maine originated with registered voters. It would clearly seem at this point that those who do not like their states election laws and rules would vote in those who would change them. State elections are very important. Other than that I see no remedy. The federal government would have to actually amend the Constitution to claw back states rights in terms of election administration. I thought these folks wanted smaller government and less intrusion?
We have a supreme court that is very much a champion of states rights. I'm very anxious to see them twist themselves into pretzels over this one. Ultimately I'm looking for them to keep our guardrails in place.
"It's surreal to think that such situations could unfold in America."
Why? Why does it seem surreal only now? We have all watched for years as Democrats used every trick in the book, true or not, to remove a political rival. It should not be "surreal"; it is business as usual for the liberals of the country.Certainly, we've observed Democrats employing various tactics, maneuvers, and strategies, but in my perspective, the current situation surpasses anything we've seen before. To me, these contemporary liberals seem markedly different from their predecessors. I sense a deficiency in inherent intelligence and common sense among them.
we've observed Democrats employing various tactics, maneuvers, and strategies,
What are the tactics maneuvers and strategies?
If the Supreme Court, with all of its Trump appointees ,finds in his favor should Democrats make a similar statement? The decision should be viewed as tactics, strategies and maneuvers of the Supreme Court?
Where is the common sense that's missing? I don't understand the comment other than that you are saying that liberals are unintelligent? Really? I'd love to here more on that theory.Let alone it was Republicans that brought the challenges to Trump's qualification. MAGAs are just showing their true colors in saying that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe are unintelligent. Dunning-Kruger is hard at work.
If you don't know, I am not the one to school you... I just shared my view, no more no less.
Again, I don't agree completely; they are deficient in intelligence as indicated by the fact their ploys may well work. At worst they have made a good try (however unethical) at eliminating Trump - at best they will succeed.
Liberals have become quite good at promoting lies. Witness the "assault weapon" term for a relatively low powered rifle never used by any military in the world. Witness the demands for "women's reproductive rights" that supposedly were taken away, while every woman retains the right to reproduce or not. I could go on and on, but liberal lies and gross exaggerations are working - it is not the party planners that may be deficient in intelligence.
Saying the phrase to reporters, versus saying it to an angry mob, that is armed, that you plan to send to the Capitol at the moment they are set to certify your loss, after your lawyer just said they should have trial by combat. As usual, the omission of many pertinent details that are damning.
And the point is that people who heard his speech and then acted on it, interpreted his words as meaning he wanted violence and have testified to that fact in courts. So you know who labeled that usage as ordering violence, his own supporters.And Trump is responsible for how people twist and change his words into something never said nor meant.
Well, it's an excuse to remove a political rival, anyway. What more could be desired?Never said? Another attempt to rewrite history. And yes, Trump is responsible for the outcomes of his words when they promote violence. And telling a crowd he knew was armed, since he told Secret Service to stop checking for weapons because he stated that his people weren't there to hurt him, to fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country was absolutely interpreted to mean violence by those people.
And if I take your rants to mean go assassinate the President (I don't, but if I did) it makes you responsible, right? That you said no such thing is irrelevant; it is only MY perception that determines your guilt.
"And telling a crowd he knew was armed"
Except they weren't, were they? Except for a flagpole...I suppose that is the ideal weapon to overthrow the strongest nation on earth?
But, but, but, but....they aren't Trump!
There is no CDS or ODS...or BDS, only TDS & lots of BSIt is really not solely about the language used at his January 6th event. It is the larger picture, including the whole fake electors scheme.
I was responding to V's comment, which was "solely" about language.
It's solely about language to you, because the context of where, when, and to whom he was speaking that language doesn't support your case. Again, the omission of evidence to come to a flawed conclusion is the hallmark of MAGA.
This is what you wrote V, this is what I was responding to:
"Yeah, only if you ignore him telling the crowd much later in the speech to 'fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country.' Why can no one from the far-right ever post those words?"
Time to move on....
Unless you now want to talk about what the meaning of "is", is?Yeah, and you came back with some false equivalency of 'I use it in my articles all the time.' Where, when and to whom matters. Trump assembled a mob, had multiple speakers incite them with phrases like 'let's have trial by combat,' then tells them near the end of his speech to 'fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country,' before sending them to the Capitol without warning Capitol Police that he would be doing so. And that crowd was assembled to 'stop the steal,' which we all know was a Trump fabrication now.
Look, we're both immovable on this. MAGA ignores the many MAGA supporters who testified under oath that they interpreted his words to mean attack, ignore that his words also have a violent meaning and were reckless, or that once the violence began, he further incited the crowd by tweeting out that Pence was not going along with the plan. Right now, two courts have ruled that he engaged in insurrection, that's where we're at right now.
It all comes down to semantics and the interpretation of the meaning and intent behind words spoken.
The democrats want there to have been an insurrection, so they will interpret the facts that way.
The role of the FBI on January 6 is something democrats want to ignore and yet it played a pivotal role in the events that occurred. There WERE FBI agents in the crowd acting as supporters of President Donald Trump.
Looks at this exchange between Congressman Clay Higgins and the head of the FBI Christopher Wray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUtVlXweqMThe FBI's actions are reprehensible. The female victims of Larry Nassar complained to Christopher Wray that when the FBI was investigating their case, the FBI wouldn't even give them access to female FBI agents so that they could talk more openly about the heinous crimes that Larry Nassar committed against them. They also complained that the FBI didn't do much of anything for them in that matter.
FBI Director Christopher Wray eventually did apologize to them, which was a first for any FBI higher-up to do in that the FBI seldom ever admits to wrongdoing. However, the FBI could have handled that situation much better than they did.
President Donald Trump was our nation's commander-in-chief for four years, and the FBI wouldn't even give him the respect that he so deserved. The FBI is not as heroic as they are deceivingly portrayed on television.
"I would think that that fact alone would serve as exculpatory evidence against any unfounded accusations against him of inciting an insurrection."
The language of section 3 of the 14th amendment speaks to engagement in insurrection, not incitement.
His engagement in the fake electors scheme supports his disqualification. Particularly in light of evidence of yet another one of his "perfect" calls...
a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, the then-president told two fellow Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the state election's certification, saying they would look "terrible" and must "fight for our country," according to recordings of the call reviewed by the Michigan news outlet.
Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who is from Michigan, was on the call and told the canvassers: “If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys.”
“We’ll take care of that,” Trump added, according to The Detroit News.
Seems like there's a pretty good case against Trump in terms of conspiring to obstruct the January 6th certification. The goal was clearly to overturn the results of the election. I think this is insurrection against the authority of the United States and the laws thereof. I believe that it is abundantly clear that none of the events of January 6th would have happened without Trump.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-recorded-p … 22272.htmlI believe that it is abundantly clear that none of the events of January 6th would have happened if Joe Biden had dropped out of the 2020 presidential election or hadn't run for president in the first place. Willowarbor? I am not a conservative Republican but rather a moderate Independent. When I voted for Donald Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, I voted for the candidate rather than for the Republican party.
It is my wholehearted contention that the Trump supporters who demonstrated in the January 6th event were not really trying to guarantee Donald Trump a second term in office but rather attempting to keep Joe Biden from being certified as our nation's 46th president. A lot of people knew that Joe Biden would become another Salvador Allende once he was in the Oval Office. He was clearly never presidential material. His wife (Jill Biden) was too cocky to admit that he should never have run for office in the cognitively decadent condition that he was in.
Because of Joe Biden, gas prices have soared high. He and Kamala Harris paid Vladimir Putin a generous amount of money to complete the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany, and even other Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, chewed them out for it.
If Joe Biden had dropped out of the 2020 presidential election, it is not to say that President Donald Trump would have definitely won the election. He would have had a good chance of doing so. However, if, say, Tulsi Gabbard or Elizabeth Warren had won that election, all of the unusual events that followed it probably would never have occurred. President Trump probably would have even congratulated his opponent for becoming the first woman to be president here in the United States. It would have been a whole different feeling to it than a forthcoming Biden administration.
At the end of the day, Joe Biden was never meant to be president. He didn't even run for president in the 2016 presidential election. Therefore, it made no sense that he decided to run in the 2020 presidential election. A lot of Democrats are asking him to drop out of the 2024 presidential election. The only people who are cheering him on at this point are hardcore Bidinites, and there are not many of them left at this point in time.January 6th is Joe Biden's fault? No moderate independent would make that claim, only a full-on MAGA extremist. Then admitting that those who attacked Congress on January 6 were trying to commit the crime of stopping the lawful certification, as if it is normal.
Joe Biden is everything Donald Trump is not. Compassionate, experienced, calm, bipartisan. He has as much tolerance for MAGA's alternate realities and acts of domestic terrorism as the rest of us, which is none. Do many want him to seek a second term, absolutely not. But if it's a choice between him and Trump, it's an easy decision.I'm not any kind of extremist. You have an overly optimistic viewpoint of Joe Biden. As I said before, when I voted for Trump twice, I didn't vote for the Republican Party. I voted for the candidate. Joe Biden is another Salvador Allende.
Interesting opinions but you did not touch on the fake electors scheme and the recent tape recording of Trump and Ronna McDaniel encouraging officials in Michigan not to sign the election certificate, even offering them attorneys... Which I suppose can be construed as a bribe.
I didn't touch upon the other stuff you mentioned in your post, because I do not find Yahoo to be an unbiased news source. Back in the 2016 presidential election, Yahoo was decorating Hillary Clinton to be a much better person than who she was.
If Tulsi Gabbard or Elizabeth Warren had won the 2020 presidential election, all of the Trump supporters would have been sad and would have moved on with their lives. However, they would not have questioned the integrity of the election itself. Too many suspicious things happened during the election and on election night. Somehow I don't think that Tulsi Gabbard or Elizabeth Warren would have taken any of that sitting down if either one of them had won the election. Nobody should have been expected anyone to take that sitting down, including President Donald Trump.Yahoo reposts stories from various sources. Literally every outlet reported on the recorded call of Trump and McDaniel. What's your favorite source? I can give you everything from Fox, the Hill, Politico, PBS, ABC, CBS and on and on and on...
C-Span is the most reliable source. It is non-partisan.
I think they predominantly televise proceedings of the United States federal government.. they don't report news.
There are three C-SPAN channels on cable and satellite dish. They are C-SPAN 1, C-SPAN 2, and C-SPAN 3. It is true that the first C-SPAN channel mainly televises Congressional proceedings and hearings on Capitol Hill. However, you can catch other types of news coverage on the other two C-SPAN channels.
There's still this one hugely ugly elephant in the room, and it can be found in the diary of Joe Biden's daughter. Click the video below.
https://youtu.be/XQbVe0DesGY?si=Cw11rJjq_rqjDmLf
Somehow I don't think Joe Biden will be able to get around that same scandal. Even Democrat voters have to be cringing over what he did to his daughter. Joe Biden will soon officially be in the doghouse.
There's an active "Trump coup" thread?
Guess that answers all my questions huh?Is it possible the left has NO idea what they're doing when it comes to handling President Donald Trump? I think the evidence is clear.
"Mainstream media admit 'foolish' Colorado Supreme Court ruling is gift to Trump
Several mainstream media outlets published pieces this week arguing that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot is a "gift" to his re-election campaign.
Columns in CNN, The L.A. Times, and a report from NBC News insisted that the state Supreme Court’s invocation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the ballot does the opposite of block him from being president again. It gives him a "boost."
In the Tuesday column, Barabak wrote, "Donald Trump received an early Christmas present courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court." He said that though the decision has been seen as something to be celebrated by Democrats and Trump foes, "in the longer term the ruling may well be moot."
The columnist said, "But a perceived assault on the insurrectionist ex-president — by Democratic-appointed Colorado justices, no less — will only make him more sympathetic to the GOP base; his support in polls soared last April after the first of four indictments."
Barabak continued, describing the court’s decision as another attempt at "an easy out" for Democrats and their Trump problem. "
https://www.foxnews.com/media/mainstrea … gift-trumpTheir original intent and the actual outcome are significantly divergent. What led them to believe they could dictate to citizens whom they are permitted to vote for? With Trump gaining momentum in the polls despite their attempts to undermine him, their response was to eliminate him from the ballots. This desperate maneuver has not only failed but also made the involved judges appear foolish, sparking widespread frustration.
Nevertheless, a growing number of people are awakening to the authoritarian nature of this group and the erosion of their rights. The audacity of attempting to control who qualifies for the ballot is nothing short of absurd and has prompted accusations of election rigging. This outrageous act, however, has inadvertently shed light on the true nature of this activist group's intentions, for which I must reluctantly express gratitude.
Next, the write-in option will be removed ... LOL
So disparateThe audacity of attempting to control who qualifies for the ballot is nothing short of absurd and has prompted accusations of election rigging.
No, that would be the audacity of a section 3 of amendment 14. The Constitution tells us who can appear on a ballot. The Constitution tells us plainly who qualifies.
On the flip side of that, if the Supreme Court overturns the Colorado ruling, it will energize the Democratic base by showing once again that the high court will bend itself into knots to champion any conservative cause, even one that's as obvious as this one that we all saw with our own eyes.
Yes, but there are many democrats who believe this was a bad move and shouldn't have happened.
It is more evidence of the desperation of the democrat party.
In a fair election President Donald Trump would have no problem getting reelected. democrats have no respect for the will of the people. That is one reason I believe democrats align closely with Communist parties and have to do so many underhanded things.
Remember, in a FAIR election, he will have no problems being reelected.Yeah, so what if some feel that it will energize Trump's base? They were already pretty energized due to his indictments.
And if you need to pump yourself up by claiming it's democratic desperation, so be it. We saw the same false inflation during the 2022 elections with the 'Giant Red Wave' claims. How did that turn out? If six republicans bringing this action and seven judges ruling on it is your idea of the democratic party, that's just another weird attempt to associate everything you can to the democratic party.
Never has there been a greater projection about which party has done underhanded things related to fair elections. Here is the latest since I'm pretty sure the far-right media sources won't show it to you guys:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1lSmme
This implicates not only Trump but Ronna McDaniel. If you have to tell people that you will get them lawyers, because you are feeding them lies and asking them to not follow the law, that's probably not good.Yes, but there are many democrats who believe this was a bad move and shouldn't have happened.
Yes. And they are right, in the sense that Trump as the GOP candidate is better, easier for them and Biden. They already beat him more than once.
A new candidate, not so much.
You would think it is the Democrats dont want Trump as the GOP candidate, but not as much as a good part of the Republican Party.
Maybe Im wrong, but wasnt the Colorado case filed on behalf of a group of Republicans?
The left wont vote for him, a majority of independents wont vote for him, and a good portion of the Republican Party want him out. Your candidate is a loser. You guys should move on.
It would appear you are insulting the SC. It looks like if things don't go the way you feel they should, you will just point the finger at the SC.
This is very much what I have noted the Demacrats do when they don't get their way.
Yes we did all see it with our own eyes, many of us watched Trump's entire speech on that day and found the context very different from what the left media reported. I guess this could be one reason so many stand behind him. I guess that is why he leads in the polls, I guess that's why some that oppose him needed to make such a divisive ploy to try to remove him from the ballot.It looks like if things don't go the way you feel they should, you will just point the finger at the SC.
As right-wing extremists are pointing fingers at the Supreme Court of Colorado?
Many seem to be ignoring the fact that this case was brought by Republican voters. It wouldn't have seen the light of day if not for them... But somehow it's a Democratic ploy?'It would appear you are insulting the SC. It looks like if things don't go the way you feel they should, you will just point the finger at the SC.'
No different than many members of the right here lobbing insults at the Colorado Supreme Court for doing their job and interpreting the law a certain way that they don't like, now is it? I could go grab some quotes where they actually make personal insults, and could post all the death threats that MAGA is now lobbing at the justices online if you need those.
As noted, polling has 54% supporting this ruling (including 24% of the GOP) and only 35% against it. Just like Roe, which had the support of the majority of Americans, noting how a court would overturn something that has the popularity of the majority of Americans is just another example of the courts being out of touch with the current American electorate. And the Roe decision definitely energized the Democratic base in elections, with abortion measures passing wherever they are appearing on ballots. So, you may take that as an insult, but it seems more a statement of fact based on what has taken place since the Supreme Court went against popular sentiment on an issue.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politic … 20/edc6d/1
And you have every right to have a different context of Trump's speech if you need to. For many Americans, telling an armed crowd to fight like hell or we won't have a country, and then sending that incited crowd to the very place that they are certifying your loss was reckless. As many testified in their trials, they took Trump's words to mean attack - so while you may have a different context, it is clear by that testimony, that other MAGA people had a very different context when they were there, in attendance.
Get to know Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) This is the activist group behind the Colorado case to remove Trump from the Ballot.
Politico -- In a major power play that aligns liberal muscle more fully behind the Democratic Party — and Hillary Clinton — the self-described right-wing hitman-turned-Clinton enforcer David Brock is taking over a leading watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ … ton-110003
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) watchdog organization devoted to U.S. government ethics and accountability. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was co-founded in 2003 by Norman L. Eisen and Melanie Sloan in part as a liberal/progressive counterweight to conservative watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ … hington%20(CREW)%20is%20a,U.S.%20government%20ethics%20and%20accountability.
Is crew a left wing organization?
CREW is funded by a Who's Who of left-wing donors.
Many of CREW's biggest funders are left-leaning organizations, including the Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundation, and Democracy Alliance.
https://crewexposed.com/is-crew-imparti … 0Alliance.Meet the Republican leading the effort to get Donald Trump off state ballots
Former Republican state lawmaker Norma Anderson is one of four Republicans and two unaffiliated voters who sued the Secretary of State to keep Trump off the ballot.
Anderson versus Griswold. The case that led to the Colorado Supreme Court opinion that former President Donald Trump is an insurrectionist and unable to hold office is named Anderson v. Griswold.
The challenge was to keep Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold from putting former President Trump on Colorado's primary ballot, hence 'Griswold.'
The 'Anderson' is former Republican state lawmaker Norma Anderson.
“Donald Trump does not deserve to be president,” Anderson said.
“What does it mean to me? It means Democracy. It tells me what our forefathers fought for when they settled this country,” Anderson said.
Anderson is one of four Republicans and two unaffiliated voters who sued Griswold to keep Trump off the ballot. CREW – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – is the liberal group out of Washington D.C. that helped the voters with the lawsuit that used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump from holding future office.
“I was concerned because of the courage of the courts, I’m sorry,” Anderson said.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/loca … d6e332f573" the liberal group out of Washington D.C."
Tells me all I need to know about those who filed this lawsuit.
This is simply election tampering.
democrats afraid the will of the people will be expressed and they won't like it.
democrats need to give Democracy a try.There is a lot of information regarding "CHEW". Their reputation is that of a group that leans far left. Members can call themselves anything they please, they are far-left activists.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ … ton-110003
Appreciate your comment. However, the more reading I do on this group the more I realize they are Biased, and push left-wing ideologies. Sort of like wolves in sheep's clothing.
Are you saying that they converted Miss Anderson? She is a former Republican state lawmaker. It is her name that is on the case. She has representation by crew and what does it matter what kind of background her lawyers have? Anderson along with other Republicans were the ones who chose to bring the case. What does it matter who presents the evidence or the case to a judge? I don't understand the part about so called left wing ideologies of a lawyer? Any lawyer can be biased to the gills in any manner and on any subject but that shouldn't have anything to do with a judge's decision on the law or the Constitution for that matter.
Does that mean that Trump's lawyers have right wing ideologies? And what does that mean in the end in front of a judge where the case is supposedly brought on its merits?
Just not understanding what the background of a lawyer has to do with the case or its outcome.I was careful not to mention names... My comments are geared toward organizations that have claimed they initiated the complaint, and at this point are claiming victory on their website.
"CREW successfully barred Trump from the Colorado ballot
The CO Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from holding office because he incited the insurrection.
This is a monumental win—but it’s not over. Trump has made clear he’s going to try to overturn this decision."
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/ … urrection/
I have already shared I feel all involved in the case including both Colarda courts, as well as the attorneys that presented the case, and CREW will be ultimately admonished by the United States Supreme Court.
I have no right to insult Miss Anderson or defame her name.
A very Happy Holidays to you all!!!
Ho Ho Ho... we have war in the Middle East, war on the Russian Border, the former President and current Front Runner being banned from ballots, and we have AI taking over the internet... so much to look forward to in 2024!!!
As a gift to my fellow Hubbers, let me add one more log to the fire, to keep your thoughts toasty warm this Merry Weekend!
Speaking on a World Government Summit panel titled 'Are We Ready for a New World Order?', "Global Leader for Tomorrow" for the WEF, Pippa Malmgren, announces the arrival of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
"It means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what's going on. [Shifting] the balance of power between states and citizens."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDDlWKSQvS8
And what I so love about this particular video, is not the information it provides, but the Context warning label just below it which states:
The New World Order (NWO) is a conspiracy theory that hypothesizes a secretly emerging totalitarian world government.
Imagine that?
There they are... on the world stage... discussing the continued efforts to create the New World Order... and for context, Youtube is warning you that it is purely a conspiracy theory.
Could anything be a better representation of where we are heading into 2024?
I think not!
Buckle Up... 2024 is going to be super fun, for everyone!
Happy Holidays!
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/ … russia-us/
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado that include former federal, state and local officials. The group alleged that Trump violated the oath of office by “recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob that attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in a futile attempt to remain in office.”
“In my decade of service in the House of Representatives, I certified multiple presidential elections and saw firsthand the importance of ethics, the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy,” said former Republican member of Congress Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider. “This lawsuit is crucial to protecting and fortifying those fundamental democratic values, and I’m honored to be a part of it.”
“As a longtime Republican who voted for him, I believe Donald Trump disqualified himself from running in 2024 by spreading lies, vilifying election workers, and fomenting an attack on the Capitol,” said conservative columnist for the Denver Post and Republican activist Krista Kafer. “Those who by force and by falsehood subvert democracy are unfit to participate in it. That’s why I am part of this lawsuit to prevent an insurrectionist from appearing on Colorado’s ballot.”Yeah, far-right democracy...where you try multiple avenues to overturn the will of the people. No thanks. If a person violates the Amendments in the Constitution, I have no issue with courts ruling that person ineligible to be the main defender of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment was written for a reason. Either you support the Constitution or you don't.
"The 14th Amendment was written for a reason."
Of course it was written for a reason.
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the Reconstructionist period.
The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.
The amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. It granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States" and also ensured rights to those who lived in States that were not so hospitable to minorities.
It pertained to what occurred during and after the Civil War, and wanted to ensure that those that partook in the efforts to secede (aka insurrection) were not able to undermine the Constitution or the Federal Government.
"Either you support the Constitution or you don't."
I think many people who support the Constitution can find plenty wrong with those who want to label Trump's actions as an "insurrection".
I think many people who support the Constitution can find plenty wrong with the decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The wonderful thing about today's "reality" and today's 'facts" is that they are more open to interpretation and what a person feels than at any time in history. One of the wonderful positives of today's Progressive Identity Politics era. If a person feels like a non-binary genderfluid queer then that is what they are, if a billionaire feels like they are a victim then they must be accepted as such, and so on... everything is a matter of perception and how it impacts the individual.
If Trump says he did not instigate an insurrection, that he loves his country and is a Patriot, then that is what you must accept... the reality of the individual is of the highest importance and must be accepted as such.
I don't think efforts to brow-beat people with such statements as you have made are going to have any positive effect.
'If Trump says he did not instigate an insurrection, that he loves his country and is a Patriot, then that is what you must accept... the reality of the individual is of the highest importance and must be accepted as such.'
This sums up MAGA in the easiest way possible. No matter what actions are shown, what laws those action broke, MAGA must accept it. For the rest of America, the Constitution and its laws and the evidence that has been presented, as well as the rulings of judges still matter more.I believe the move is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Fingers crossed there is some common sense and rule of law left in this country, but who knows? These days it seems to be getting more and more scary that we may be becoming a Banana Republic.
Now Maine!
The Left has habitually used the word "disenfranchised" for the simple, common sense practice, of having voter's show i.d.
But, completely eliminating the competition by removing their name from the ballot, depriving voters of their right to choose, is perfectly okay!?!If that person violated the Constitution by engaging in insurrection against their own country, that's pretty disqualifying to many Americans. And there's a whole bunch of Americans who watched Trump engage in that insurrection on January 6, especially when he sent a message out to the violent mob that Pence was not going along with the coup plan.
A continuation of the revision of history...while simultaneously engaging in disenfranchisement, all while attempting to justify it all!
This is what the left does; this is what it looks like.Which part did I revise? Did Trump not send a tweet out at 2:24pm telling those attacking the Capitol that Pence wasn't going to stop the certification? It's been established that this was an insurrection based on the convictions for seditious conspiracy. Trump is heading to trial for defrauding the United States in an attempt to stay in power. For those who have looked at the facts and evidence of the case, it's plainly obvious Trump tried to subvert the will of the voters.
For those in his base, they deny this reality just as they deny the reality that 81 million people would vote against Trump. The same denial that causes them to change the subject anytime we bring up Trump's Campaign Chair meeting with members of Russian Intelligence in 2016 to pass campaign strategy and internal polling data along to the Russians.
The left does not ignore these things that go directly against our country. It is the right that revises history to ignore the many crimes that Trump has committed in an effort to get into, and then stay in, office. If Trump had left office peacefully, no state would have a problem having him back on the ballot. So don't try putting this on the left - look over at your own candidate and his acts that are disqualifying for any candidate who has already taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection against the country.What's evident is the wool which has been pulled over the eyes of many Americans.
Never has a human so projected as what was just written above.
Maybe you will begin the process of removing the wool by the time we have our next chat, some time next year.
Later.Yeah, I'm not the one ignoring testimony given under oath, basic facts like Trump sending messages out to people committing violence to further his goals of stopping Congress, or Trump showing off classified material to people who do not have the clearance to view it (as he confirms to those people that he did not declassify it). Nor do I think that a person who commits such obvious violations of the law or Constitution should ever set foot in the Oval Office again.
Secretary of State Bellows' finding came after a group of petitioners (many Republican) challenged Trump's eligibility to appear on the GOP primary ballot. Unlike other states, Maine law outlines a process for the secretary of state to weigh such challenges, which puts Bellows, who is elected by the Legislature, in a quasi-judicial role in considering oral arguments and written evidence.
Again, why do states rights not apply here? She is an elected official. If citizens of Maine do not like her decision or job performance they can vote her out next time. Simple as that.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the "times, places, and manner of holding elections". Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws.
Every state has their own election laws and a process for those to be placed on a ballot. Now you want to take away States rights?Again, why do states rights not apply here?
That was asked many times after the repeal of Roe V Wade.
Funny how things change when situations change.Article 1 of the Constitution gave states the responsibility of overseeing federal elections. No doubt there.
Do we set this aside? Will the "originalists" on the supreme court remain true to there style of interpretation?
I would rather see Trump lose at The ballot box but how do we dispose of that pesky Constitution?
Yes, it will be funny if the court suddenly becomes inconsistent from Dobbs to Trump's ballot issue. The court has lost so much credibility, I don't think they have any choice but to show consistency.
The laws in Maine allow for challenges to the ballot to be decided by the elected Secretary of State. Are you suggesting that the federal government claw this back? Wrestle back control from each state? Invalidate the procedures in each state that have been put in place by those elected by the people?
Seems a little big brother- ish to me.I suggest President Donald Trump be permitted to run without interference and let the people decide.
It's just that simple.
All of these things done by democrats just demonstrate the fear democrats have of people choosing who they want to be president in a fair election.
If the FBI and social media don't work together to try manipulate news stories negative to democrats this election; things may be different.You haven't addressed the constitutional issue. It would seem that in this situation the Democrats seek to follow the Constitution while some Republicans would rather see it set aside.
No.
It seems some folks want to conclude that what Trump did was worthy of keeping him off ballots, while other people consider that politically motivated BS.
This is the same BS you see in other banana republics that go the way of Venezuela or Honduras. The old "our political rival committed crimes", so we are going to prosecute, jail, remove him from ballots, etc.
Meanwhile, insider information trading continues to go on in the Senate, Biden's son, brother, etc. get hundreds of millions from various banks, corporations out of China, Ukraine, etc. ... good ol'Joe laughs and talks about how they will shut down the Nord Stream pipeline and then a little while later it happens to blow up, or he laughs about how they had a great strategy with Mail in Ballots to ensure victory in the 2020 election and no one questions it, just writes it off as him mumbling nonsense.
It is SO obvious to anyone who pays attention what is going on... no amount of MSM propaganda or shrill Progressives screaming at the tops of their lungs is going to convince the majority of Americans that the persecution of Trump is legit and not political.
Fear? That's a joke right? In the polling, Biden gets crushed by all other GOP candidates besides Trump. Polling has Trump and Biden running nearly even and Biden will have edges when you factor in the media campaign the Democrats will run to show Trump bragging about being responsible for ending Roe. If there's one candidate the left wants against Biden, it is Trump.
But at the same time, the members of Trump's own party have looked at Trump's actions and see someone who violated the qualifying standards set forth in the Constitution in the most treasonous way possible, by taking part in a violent attack on the Congress of the country. They brought that issue to a court in Colorado and a Secretary of State in Maine. And a court has seen the same thing and it will be sent to the Supreme Court to verify or overturn.
If following the Amendments set forth in the Constitution is the right's idea of having an unfair election, again, that just shows the autocratic nature of the right in this country.
And like Ken in the other thread who relies on Giuliani as sourcing, someone who was proven to be lying about voter fraud and has lost his law license for providing false information to the courts about the 2020 election, it's no wonder the FBI and social media companies had some questions about that particular news story when it originated with him.
Some, especially those on the right, may want all the Russian disinformation affecting our elections, but many Americans are thankful that the FBI is trying to limit the content that the Russians put out to swing our elections to their preferred candidates, even if they miss the mark occasionally.If there is no fear of President Donald Trump winning a second term then there is no reason to keep him off any ballots.
President Donald Trump is back on the ballot in Colorado
"Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said Thursday that, with the appeal filed, Trump will be included as a candidate on the state's primary ballot unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case or upholds the state supreme court's ruling."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-r … allot-ban/
The Hunter Biden Laptop story has been proven to have not been russian disinformation and the FBI knew it.
"The dishonor of our intelligence community, and most of the media, is now complete.
It turns out the “51 intel experts” letter implying Hunter Biden’s 100% authentic laptop was a Russian fake, and the ensuing efforts to kill Post reporting on it, were the actual disinfo operation.
Veteran spook and former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell masterminded it, as he swore under oath, to “help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the election” — at the behest of campaign flunky (now Secretary of State) Antony Blinken.
And Morell plainly also did it in hopes a victorious Biden would hand him the top CIA job. Not only was there no intricate Russian plot, there was never any evidence suggesting one — only a Biden campaign conspiracy to bury the truth under a tissue of lies."
https://nypost.com/2023/04/21/hunter-bi … all-along/
This is simply more evidence of the democrat election interference.
I don't know why a fair election is such a scary thing to democrats.
Let the people decide.Yes, Trump is back on the ballot because the appeal. And do you hear any of us complaining? Nope. Why? Because we are following the process and know that the decision will be up to the Supreme Court. Will we complain if they overturn the result? Nope. Why? Because it doesn't really affect our plans to show up and vote for anyone but Trump in the upcoming election. If the opposite happens and there's a Nikki Haley on the ballot instead, that might give more of us a consideration because she's a candidate some liberals might be able to stomach.
Ah, yes, a NY Post opinion article taken as fact. Again, the far-right getting information taken out of context to try and convince them that there weren't other motivations from the 51 ex-intelligence officials. Here is the actual quote from Morell that they spliced to change the narrative:
When asked what the intention of the letter was, the former intelligence agent explained that he had two motivations: “One intent was to share our concern with the American people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and, two, it was [to] help Vice President Biden.” The signatories acknowledged in the letter that they had no actual evidence that Hunter’s laptop was a Russian plant but nevertheless claimed the Post story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
And if that is Democratic election interference, what is paying off a porn star to suppress a story that Trump had slept with her before an election? What is a catch-and-kill operation where a publisher pays people for negative stories on a candidate and then chooses to bury them? The hypocrisy of calling out them Democrats for using the same tactics that the GOP has been using on multiple occasions is comical, as usual."The signatories acknowledged in the letter that they had no actual evidence that Hunter’s laptop was a Russian plant"
And yet, the mainstream media ran with it.
This is just more proof the left fears a fair election and has no respect for the will of the people.
IF the left felt that President Donald Trump was not going to win the 2024 presidential election, they would have never even thought to have done such things.
This is strong evidence the left fears the majority of Americans will vote President Donald Trump into a second term as president.
It's obvious they fear the will of the people and seek to manipulate elections as they do in communist countries.
As I've said before democrat = Communist wannabeVery much agree. When the Demacrats are cornered they take unthinkable action. And this latest ploy will not play well for them --- it is so corrupt, a ploy a banana republic would pull. They truely fear Trump so much they will do anything to try to keep him from winning the Primary. At any rate, I trust the Supreme Court to put a stop to this nonsense.
Sick bunch...Well, I say that if President Grover Cleveland was able to get a second term in the Oval Office after a 4-year absence from the White House, then President Trump should also be able to acheive that same goal.
The democrats are not playing fair.
I believe in a fair election President Donald Trump would have no problem winning a second term.
The democrats are afraid of a fair election. THAT is the reason for all of this persecution of President Donald Trump.
If he was no threat to win, they would simply ignore him.Yeah, if I have my American history right, I believe that President Trump would be the second president to have had a 4-year gap between his first term and second term in the Oval Office if he wins this presidential election. I don't know of any other president who has pulled that phenomenon off other than President Grover Cleveland. In any event, let's hope that President Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election here in the United States.
It's funny to watch the far-right in these forums always leave the 'people' who have filed these challenges very general to avoid acknowledging that it's members of their own party bringing the issue to the courts or to the Secretaries of State. it just has to be 'progressive persecution.' And never any mention of the specific acts Trump took to keep him off the ballot or to get him indicted. That's what's really obvious to anyone who pays attention. No amount of conduct or illegality will ever register to those in the MAGA cult - and we have a bunch of members who post to this forum, that's one certainty.
If all was fair Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama would have been in court on many, many charges.
The right didn't fear them.
The left is terrified the majority of Americans will choose President Donald Trump for a second term.
THAT is the only reason he is being so persecuted.
It is working against the democrats in a big way.The right simply believes that the left is terrified. In the same way they believed there would be a big red wave in 2022. And the way they think that Americans like their policies. It's false bravado. When it comes time to vote, and Trump is their candidate, that bravado will be crushed as it was in 2018, 2020, and 2022 as the country keeps telling the GOP that MAGA extremism is not what America wants.
I think this may be a cause for concern among democrats.
"Biden Ends 2023 With 39% Job Approval"
President Joe Biden’s job approval rating is 39%, marking a slight improvement from the 37% low points in October and November but the fifth time his rating is below 40% in 2023.
Biden’s Current Rating Worse Than Other Modern Presidents at Same Point
Looking at the approval ratings of the past seven presidents at the same point in their first term in office, Biden’s current 39% is the lowest. Barack Obama (43%) and Donald Trump (45%) had slightly higher ratings heading into the year they sought reelection, while all of the others were above 50%.
Job approval ratings of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush were 51%, and Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter stood at 54%. Buoyed by the mid-December capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, George W. Bush had the highest approval rating of the eight presidents (58%).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/547763/bid … roval.aspxWhy would approval ratings concern the Democrats when Trump left office with 29% approval rating. And since then, his Supreme Court ended a woman's right to body autonomy, he was indicted for trying to keep classified documents, he is on audio displaying those classified documents to people without clearances, he was found liable for defamation and sexual abuse, and he's under indictment for trying to steal a presidential election.
2024 is not about who the Democrats nominate. It's solely about who the GOP runs. If it's Trump, it's a loss. If it's anyone else, they likely win.If any of that mattered President Donald Trump wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
If any of that mattered, it wouldn't even be close. It is close, very close. biden has problems with the economy and the border. BIG problems.
President Donald Trump leads in registered voters and biden leads in likely voters by not much. There is less than a four point shift and poll after poll shows this is within the margin of error.And then you're neglecting the Roe effect which we've seen in most elections across 2023, which has Democrats averaging 11 points above whatever the polls stated was going to happen. Or the MAGA candidates in 2022 that got absolutely annihilated across the board.
it's members of their own party bringing the issue to the courts or to the Secretaries of State.
Yup.
https://youtu.be/iRgnSDPG924?si=n0X2_MhRKh0Cc8qq
Former Maine State Senator Tom Saviello voted for Trump twice. Now, he wants him off the ballot. Saviello challenged Trump's eligibility on Maine's ballot in 2024.He has a right to form his own opinion.
That is the biggest reason for the argument of having Trump remain on the ballots, either we trust the people with the ability to discern what has gone on, and to vote accordingly, or we do not.
If he does not have the majority of Americans vote for him, which clearly many people do not believe could happen, then allowing all Americans the choice to vote for him shouldn't matter.
Then, after he loses the election, he can be prosecuted without the perception that it is purely for political purposes to ensure he is not elected President, again.
There will be a deepening stigma not only to the coming election, but the past election, keeping Trump off the 2024 ballot only lends credibility to all the "conspiracy theories" regarding that election.
It is interesting that instead of being happy that they won the election, and moving on, focusing on the future... they instead put so much effort into persecuting anyone that attempted to question the election, legally or otherwise... similar to how they are focused on attacking Elon Musk, for exposing the efforts of the FBI to silence certain perspectives or misinform America (IE - the Hunter Biden laptop).
There actions appear to be similar to those who know they are doing wrong and are out to vilify, silence, eliminate any who would expose their wrongdoing.That is the biggest reason for the argument of having Trump remain on the ballots, either we trust the people with the ability to discern what has gone on, and to vote accordingly, or we do not.
What about the question of Constitutionality? Should the Constitution determine his eligibility to remain on the ballot or not? I don't know, maybe it's just me but Trump supporters seem to rally around the Constitution when it suits their need and abandon it when it doesn't.
The pundits are all saying that SCOTUS needs to settle the issue of the disqualification (or not) of Trump from ballots for all states. But the true conservative position is to let the states decide...isn't it?
This is a states’ rights issue. All the state constitutions are different. Let the individual decisions stand. The Supreme Court is very much in favor of states’ rights: Witness the Dobbs decision to let each state decide the abortion issue. Similarly, if the ballot case(s) reach the court, they should defer to the states, in true conservative fashion. Let's show some consistency here.One could say that is what got us in this mess, States doing their own thing, blowing off their own Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution regarding the 2020 election.
And now, they want to throw the 2024 election into question as well?
It is interesting that it seems it is the Democrat led states that are doing all the major changes to their election policy and regulations, and are now insisting that Trump be removed from the ballots... that looks a lot like bias and political motivation to me.
And that is why Trump needs to remain on all ballots, in all states... or we can continue to go down this road, which will continue to fracture the nation and eventually lead to some form of civil war or secession effort... which I am sure there are some who are in favor of.
The abuses of power are evident, one can see this evident beyond their pursuit of the destruction of Trump, we can see it in how the laws are not applied equally to Clinton or Biden, we can see it in the persecution of Musk (who is not even a political activist, more of a free speech activist) and in how they twist so many other matters."It is interesting that it seems it is the Democrat led states that are doing all the major changes to their election policy and regulations, and are now insisting that Trump be removed from the ballots... that looks a lot like bias and political motivation to me."
Ken, Their fear is palpable, in my view. They have run out of tricks and time.Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration.
The Maine Secretary of State :
"Under Maine law, when I qualified Mr. Trump for the ballot, any registered voter had the right to challenge that qualification. Five voters did so, including two former Republican state senators. And then I was required under the statute, under the law, to hold a hearing and issue a decision, and do so within a very compressed timeline. So this wasn't something I initiated, but it's something that's required under Maine election law.. In my decision, I made clear this is part of Maine's process. It now goes to Maine Superior Court."
She simply followed the laws in her state. Conservatives would now like these states rights to be clawed back by the Federal government? Would you like the federal government to remove the ability of citizens to challenge ballot eligibility?
I certainly would prefer that the victim in chief be defeated at the ballot box but how will the conservative Court dispose of the issues of constitutionality?
Democrats have made changes to their election policies? Where specifically?
Again you are leaving out the fact that ballot eligibility was challenged by voters...not those in office. If voters choose to challenge eligibility, the state is compelled to act. it's as simple as that.
The Supreme Court will take up the issue of constitutionality. What do you find unconstitutional in these state decisions?It is a rather interesting question; should the federal government supply the rules for eligibility of federal offices? Ignoring for the moment the US Constitution, what is the right thing - for each state to decide who is eligible for a federal office or for the nation as a whole to decide?
When I look at the specific case now being seen - a group of unarmed idiots occupying the capitol building, after being told to remain peaceful, whereupon the one ordering them NOT to cause violence is charged with insurrection - it seems rather obvious what is happening. When it is ONLY states that are hardline Democrat, removing their primary opposition from the ballot, that perception gains strength. When there has been years to prosecute the speaker (Trump) of insurrection and nothing is done, it certainly appears he is not guilty of the charge...yet Red states declare he is, without the need of a conviction.
For me, in my opinion only, politics has become so dirty today, so lacking in basic morals or ethics, that it necessary to declare that the elected federal government should decide who is eligible for federal office. States can determine that for themselves, for their own elections, but not for the nationwide elections. And certainly not for a primary election, carried out by a political party, which has absolutely nothing to do with individual states.Legal requirements for presidential candidates have remained the same since the year Washington accepted the presidency. As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.
And then we have The 14th Amendment of the Constitution which includes a clause that prohibits anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. government from holding elected office if they had previously taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States.”.
The Constitution also allows the states to administer elections. That necessarily includes interpreting the above qualifications to be included on a ballot.
"it seems rather obvious what is happening. When it is ONLY states that are hardline Democrat, removing their primary opposition from the ballot"
I see States dealing with challenges brought by their voters in terms of candidates valid eligibility within the laws of their states. That's why we have seen different outcomes.
Let's take California for example. Secretary of State Weber said the California Constitution does not give her clear authority to take action and leaves the decision to the courts.
Why was the challenge to remove Trump from the ballot in Michigan rejected?
The court found no provision in Michigan Election Law requires someone seeking the presidency "to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office,"
All we are seeing here is that states are dealing with challenges to ballot qualification within their own laws.
"States can determine that for themselves, for their own elections, but not for the nationwide elections. "
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration.
You would like this amended?
I would like to see Trump remain on the ballot but it looks like the conservative Supreme Court is going to have to do some major philosophical gymnastics to bend the Constitution.The "right thing to do" is to follow the Constitution.
Using Willowarbor's constitutional arguments, the details of Maine's actions, and, stripping away specific names and affiliations that simply muddy the issue, there doesn't seem to be another 'right choice.'
GAThe problem with the decision in Maine is that it affects more than the state of Maine.
With a president being determined by popular vote as well as electoral college votes, their actions will have a national impact.
The state's rights argument is a view the south had when it came to slavery. The counter was that the slave trade was done on a national level and had a national impact.The slavery comparison is a stretch that doesn't work. The solution to it was amending the constitution. Do the same to get the "popular vote" you want on this issue and the comparison will work.
Until then follow the rules you promote.
Which becomes problematic only when that is a tool used to strip the rights of the citizens from choosing who represents them.
The tools of the State are being used for political purposes, clearly, and this has been ongoing since BEFORE Trump won the election.
This is undeniable at this point, from the Dossier that was created and used against Trump, for the FBI to get its warrants to investigate everyone associated with the Trump campaign, to the investigations and impeachment efforts, to the circus like court hearings ongoing in NY today.
Coinciding with FBI efforts to work with Social Media as shown in the Twitter Files released by Elon Musk.
It is clear that the government is working against the interests of its citizens by misinforming and mis-using the mechanisms of the government to suppress opposition to their agendas, suppress free speech and to protect politicians that have engaged in criminal activities while persecuting others.
When the authority provided to the State to ensure Law and Order, to protect the freedoms and liberties of its citizens have been subverted to be used against the people and those they choose to represent their interests, what tools do those citizens have remaining to protect themselves, their rights, their assets?They have the tools the Constitution provides. [C]onservatives (including Republican conservatives) praised the Court for Dodd but now that it's their ox that is getting gored they're not so sure the Court will do the 'right' thing.
GABut there is a problem when it is impacting elections and the people's ability to express themselves and have their voices heard/represented in their government.
Pretty big difference IMO, which will result in escalating social unrest and upheaval in the not too distant future, I believe.
"Which becomes problematic only when that is a tool used to strip the rights of the citizens from choosing who represents them."
State voters choose to elect the representatives that determine election law in their state. I suppose if voters are unhappy with these laws that they pay closer attention to candidate views on such. Until then they have every recourse at The ballot box.
Again, Maine gives its voters the right to question a candidate's eligibility for the ballot. It seems that's believe this should be taken away from the voters. These states are acting perfectly within their right under the Constitution to make laws around the administration of elections. If some are unhappy with that, I suggest looking into a constitutional amendment.
First, making the argument by setting aside the Constitution seems like a typical omission we see from the far-right. Well, these actions are fine, if we just set aside the law, or our morality.
Second, 'When I look at the specific case now being seen - a group of unarmed idiots occupying the capitol building, after being told to remain peaceful, whereupon the one ordering them NOT to cause violence is charged with insurrection - it seems rather obvious what is happening.'
Well, that was a typical rewrite of history from the far-right and here is how:
1.) The idiots were armed - armed doesn't necessarily mean they had to be carrying guns. They were definitely using weapons against police that included shields, flag poles, fire extinguishers, and bear spray among other weaponry.
2.) They did not simply occupy the Capitol. Some were allowed past barricades, but in many of the cases, the insurrectionists attacked police and then broke into the Capitol through windows to breach the Capitol.
3.) Trump said peacefully, but he also said fight like hell or we won't have a country. Those that wanted to go peacefully and those that wanted to go fight both had marching orders from the man. His own speech opens him up to engagement.
Next, since when is Maine 'hardline Democrat?' They have three districts and one usually votes red. And again, the Constitution does not require a conviction for insurrection, just to prove that someone engaged in it, or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. During a five-day trial, where Trump had legal representation, where evidence was presented, a court concluded that he did engage in insurrection by his actions. Organizing the rally that led to the insurrection, being reckless with his speech and saying to fight like hell, sending a crowd that only had a permit for the ellipse to the Capitol without telling Capitol Police, tweeting out to the crowd after the violence had been going on for an hour that Pence was not going to follow his plan to stop the certification, and then telling the insurrectionists that he loved them after the attack were all actions that led the courts to find he engaged in or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
For me, in my opinion, you only get to ignore the court's ruling when you try to ignore the actual actions Trump took, which is exactly what we just saw in the post above - and frankly, from the entirety of Trump's MAGA following. The omission of all pertinent facts towards Trump's guilt is what we see time and time again in these forums. Except this time, the omission of the Constitution, which is something Trump himself has mentioned wanting, is the path chosen to try and absolve Trump and keep him eligible.
'...they instead put so much effort into persecuting anyone that attempted to question the election, legally or otherwise...'
Since when is someone being held to account for the otherwise (something not legal) persecution? This is the issue we have with MAGA. They do not believe they should be prosecuted for their illegal acts.
Trump did not simply question the election, he took actions such as threatening state elections officials, pressured those elections officials and had surrogates do the same, had campaign officials break into voting machines in both Georgia and Michigan, and had campaign staff forge and submit documents to try and intervene with the certification of his loss. Anyone notice that Ken has not discussed any of those actions ever in any of his posts?
Now, should we also trust the people to vote for someone under 35 or who is not a natural-born citizen? Why does MAGA accept those qualifying standards that are written into the Constitution but not the one that refers to those who have engaged in insurrection?
As for the timing of Trump's cases, many American citizens want an answer of guilt or innocence about Trump's actions leading up to and after the 2020 election. Heck, we also want an answer to his 2016 actions pertaining to using his company to suppress media stories about sleeping with a porn star. His followers engaged in a domestic terror attack on Congress based on his lies. He doesn't get to walk away from his role in that civilly or criminally. Sorry, MAGA.'It is interesting that it seems it is the Democrat led states that are doing all the major changes to their election policy and regulations, and are now insisting that Trump be removed from the ballots... that looks a lot like bias and political motivation to me.'
The bias is continuing to not recognize that 31 states, many of them red states, made alterations to their elections processes without changing their election laws in 2020. And the insistence on removing Trump from the ballot in those Democrat-led states originated with Republicans in those states. Again, another factor that cannot even be mentioned before advocating for violence and sedition.It can be expected that the Red States in a childish response to Blue State removal of Trump from the ballet per Amendment 14, Section 3, that they would attempt to recripocate by removing Biden from their ballots, even though he has been found no more guilty than you or I in regards to violation of Section 3.
But there is a danger here, one with the potential of fomenting a dangerous division between the states. While I believe that Trump is complicit regarding Section 3, Maine's counterparts in Tennessee and Texas would fervently deny that accusation, even if they cannot legally remove Biden from the ballot. Blue removes Trum, Red retains him. How do we put the 2020 so called voting fraud fiasco to rest, with Trump not on the ballot in so many states, would the conservatives take this sitting down?
Disruption of the electoral process on such a magnitude could be the beginning of a disraveling of our United States. It is crucial that the SC make a ruling on this matter quickly.
Does the court rule in favor of states rights allowing Blue States executive branches to disqualify Trump, open a bucket of worms for this fall? Or would the court require a universal standard free of partisan interpretation? I believe that can only come with a trial against Trump and his conviction as a criminal and felon. That is a designation beyond mere politics and it serves as objective grounds for ballot removal and at the very least will give independents and moderates cause to consider if they want to vote for a convicted felon for President?
We can have this trial only if we can be certain that the court dismisses Trump's claim of immunity for his crimes in office out of hand. This is the last dodge and perry Trump will attempt to make to avoid having that determination made.He took the same oath every elected official or employee of the government takes "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." You folks can rant and rail all you want. That is the fact of the matter. If you don't understand that fact, you should lose your right to vote because you don't understand how America has worked for 247 years.
The issue in Maine would have never gone to the Secretary of State if registered voters didn't pose the qualification challenge. Are some folks here wanting to see that ability stripped from Maine voters? All voters? Voters should not be allowed to challenge the eligibility of those on the ballot? That's really what it comes down to.
I think things change when it is a national election.
When it affects more than the state and has an impact on the entire country, things are different.
As Brynn Tannehill wrote Wednesday at the New Republic, polling data shows "an unbreakable plurality of the GOP explicitly wants fascism." These are folks "who believe they should be forever atop the social and political order because of their race and/or religion and are angry at society for changing." You cannot placate such people. All you can do is beat them.
Uh.... Yep
https://newrepublic.com/article/177796/ … ga-fascismIf you want to post an opinion piece by a leftist...fine.
To me it means nothing.
I can post many opinion pieces from those on the right.
I'm sure to you it will mean nothing.
Alan Dershowitz, a defense attorney and Harvard academic who defended Trump during his Senate impeachment trial, has long argued that America’s court system is being weaponized to bring down former President Donald Trump in ways that violate civil liberties for all. In an interview with Forbes, he argues that Tuesday’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling to exclude Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot sets an especially dangerous precedent.
By making decisions that should be left in the hands of voters, he argues, the U.S. Supreme Court will have no choice but to intervene and overrule the Colorado decision, which justified removing Trump’s name from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—a ratification passed in the aftermath of the Civil War which states that no person shall hold office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
“This is an attempt to totally manipulate an amendment that was never designed to disqualify people in future elections,” says Dershowitz, who argues that the blowback could be intense. “Texas will try to take Biden off the ballot, saying he lent support to an insurrection by opening the borders—an absurd argument but not much more absurd than the argument that the four justices of the (Colorado) Supreme Court.”
Dershowitz argues that Congress’s impeachment provisions, whether politically motivated or not, at least provide safeguards against the party in power targeting its opponents. “There has to be a real trial and two-thirds of the vote in the Senate,” he says, adding that’s vastly superior to “a provision that says if anybody thinks the president did something that they believe is an insurrection—and if they can get a secretary of state somewhere to agree with that—millions of voters become disenfranchised.”
To be sure, many of Dershowitz’s peers disagree with his analysis. Ilva Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, argues that Article 3 was designed precisely to avert a candidate like Donald Trump — and wrote an analysis of the decision, saying “the Colorado court got it right.” Added Somin: “I think it's fairly obvious that the January 6 attack on the Capitol amounts to an insurrection, and the Colorado justices also concluded this is not a close issue.”
Both academics agree that the matter is now in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which will almost inevitably make a ruling in the Colorado case, given the unprecedented nature and consequences of its decision. SCOTUS is currently reviewing a request from special counsel Jack Smith to make a ruling on Trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in order to proceed with lower court deliberations.
Dersowitz argues that the Supreme Court has increasingly overstepped its reach in making decisions that belong to other branches of government. “The worst decision the Supreme Court made in the last quarter of a century may have been overruling Bush versus Gore, in which five Republican justices outvoted four Democratic justices and turned the election over to the man who got fewer votes in Florida than the other side,” says Dershowitz, who represented the voters of Palm Beach County in that case. “The court should not be intruding into elections now but they may have to if a lower court the Colorado
“I’m very worried that we're living in a time in which people call things “insurrections” ... Black Lives Matter was seen by some as an insurrection, Keeping the border open and allowing 100,000 people to come through is seen by some Republicans as an insurrection. People believe that the demonstrations in New York against Israel and against the United States, some of which are calling for the overthrow of the United States, are insurrections. They are not.”
“Even the terrible events of January 6 are not insurrections; they’re protests gone bad.” Among those who disagree with that analysis, many would agree it’s a matter for voters to decide at the polls."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianebrady … 788a8c45ad
Any thoughts?Either the conservatives are classic bull sh*t artists or are going simple on you.
So, They don’t understand the Constitution’s provisions for those eligible for President as a candidate, yet they seem to understand the concept well enough to attack Barack Obama for not being an American citizen and thus ineligible for the office.
They are full of it, don’t believe them for a minuteWhat kind of country can we have if one side (democrats) believe they can break any law, ignore any protocol, tell any lie that suits them to get their candidate elected.
All these things apply to Trump.Complains about energy independence while ignoring that the United States just hit a record high in oil production. So on brand for MAGA.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … S2&f=MYet Joe Biden has acted against the American oil and gas companies from the very first day he entered office in his so-called quest for green, renewable energy with technology that we are years and years away from actually having at our disposal. Even Janet Yellen got chewed out about this at a Congressional hearing. She didn't have very good excuses for it either.
Anyone who tries to address man-made climate change will be seen as against the fossil fuel industry. He was elected to address it, not bury his head in the sand and ignore the problem like every member of the GOP.
The only thing that Joe Biden has addressed...is his role, his part to play in the takedown/the downfall, of the greatest Country ever known to man.
Yeah, stock market near all-time highs, unemployment near all-time lows, lowest inflation rate among developed nations, infrastructure law passed and many parts of the country are touting those rebuilding projects. Not exactly the downfall that doom-&-gloom-MAGA's like to make it out to be.
But they've been programmed to believe that the guy who let a deadly virus reach our shores and wreck our economy, the one who violated the basic human rights of children, the one who added $7.8 trillion to the national debt, the one who sexually abused (NY's polite way of saying raped) a woman, the one who illegally tried to steal an election with lies that a kindergartener could have identified, and the one who made $7.8 million from foreign governments is the answer.
Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."Yeah, stock market near all-time highs, unemployment near all-time lows, lowest inflation rate among developed nations, infrastructure law passed and many parts of the country are touting those rebuilding projects. Not exactly the downfall that doom-&-gloom-MAGA's like to make it out to be. "
Yet polls indicate the street is not feeling any of this. In fact, Biden has a very low approval rate. The majority of Americans are not satisfied with his job record. Most are feeling no relief in their pocketbooks and could care less that some of us are enjoying a good stock market. They live week to week, and we see the poverty rate climbing.
"What is the current US poverty rate?
12.4% 12.4% of Americans now live in poverty according to new 2022 data from the U.S. census, an increase from 7.4% in 2021. Child poverty also more than doubled last year to 12.4% from 5.2% the year before. The U.S. poverty level is now $13,590 for individuals and $23,030 for a family of three"How did the Republicans in congress vote to expand the Child Tax Credit? That was responsible for cutting child poverty by approximately half. Why get rid of it? What is the big plan by Republicans to alleviate child poverty? Just curious.
I hope my previous comment didn't imply that Republicans supported the expansion of the Child Tax Credit; perhaps my wording wasn't ideal.
In my perspective, the Child Tax Credit served as a temporary measure to assist families during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, I believe it contributed to prolonged inflation in our economy over the past two years, leading to increased costs across the board today. Do you share concerns about the lasting impact of elevated prices on various goods and services? Additionally, can America sustain another significant social program considering the current state of Social Security and the escalating national debt under the Biden administration?
It's worth noting that when Trump took office, the child poverty rate was alarmingly high. Without introducing new programs, his administration successfully reduced the Child poverty rate through measures such as enabling people to retain more of their income and fostering job growth. I view this as progress achieved through solutions rather than quick fixes.
I agree with you if you're criticizing the current Congress for not presenting effective solutions to address child and adult poverty. They do not seem to be on board with a new social program, that we can't afford. It seems that, after Trump left office, Washington has resumed business as usual with no substantial progress in tackling the issues of poverty or little else. So, the Republicans have no plans that I can see to tackle child poverty. In my view, neither do the Dems, other than attempting to attempt to toss money
we don't have to blanket a growing problem.
I see much of Biden's economic problem occurred to overspending. I think our economy would have been much worse if he initiated a new social program. I feel it is better to work to solve underlying problems. I feel this builds a stronger Nation.I am no economics whizz. Just plain ignorant could be said. I do know the Child Tax Credit worked and as soon as it was eliminated child poverty increased. With what little research I have done for the long term economic effect I have seen no criticism of it. If you have that I am interested.
For now I post a quote from a study done by National Bureau of Economic Research; The Benefits and Costs of a U.S. Child Allowance (March 2022) for you consideration. It has caused me to stop and ponder about it.
"Using microsimulation, we then apply these estimates to determine net aggregate benefits of three child allowance policies, including the expanded Child Tax Credit as enacted for the year 2021 in the American Rescue Plan (ARP). Our estimates indicate that making that expansion permanent would cost $97 billion per year and generate social benefits with net present value of $982 billion per year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that our estimates are robust to alternative assumptions and that all three child allowance policies we evaluate produce very high net returns for the U.S. population."
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29854
Note: The resulting paper of the study is downloadable as a PDF document.
Business Insider published an article using that study. It is; Permanent monthly checks for parents would have a 1,000% return on investment, study says (Mar 23, 2022)
https://www.businessinsider.com/making- … ort-2022-3
To further my knowledge, currently, I am peeking at; Expansions to Child Tax Credit Contributed to 46% Decline in Child Poverty Since 2020 by the U.S. Census (Sept 13, 2022)
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ … verty.html
The graphic of the trend line starting with 2009 is telling. Overall, since 2009 progress has been made. I see it as the Shrinking Paradox at play. It seems the states are stepping up to plate using child tax credits both red and blue.
States are Boosting Economic Security with Child Tax Credits in 2023 by Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (Update - Oct 2023)
https://itep.org/states-are-boosting-ec … s-in-2023/
One line caught my attention stating; "Together these credits constitute an annual multibillion-dollar investment in the next generation."Our perspectives on this matter appear to differ, but I appreciate the thorough presentation of your viewpoint. While some may view adding social programs as a positive step, I believe addressing the root cause of issues contributes to a stronger nation. There's a concern that certain handouts may foster dependency and perpetuate a cycle of reliance in some instances.
You certainly have made some great points with your research. Food for thought for this dyed-in-the-wool conservative.From another 'not a whiz' Start at the start: who is doing the investing and who is paying for it?
The starting fact is that every taxpayer that isn't getting the credit is financing it*. Whether the investment's return is worth the 'asking' (taking, as in taxes) is the arguable point.
Semi-recent news blurbs are talking about the U.S. crossing the $34 trillion national debt line and that our annual payment on debt interest now exceeds $1 trillion a year.
The studies are great academic and statistical efforts, but the reality is we can't afford the investment. The U.S. is in this mess because $97 billion (for anything) is now considered just a 'drop in the bucket.' It should still be considered big money.
GA
You always bring out polls. Perception can be manipulated by media, as we have seen by the amount of Republicans who still think there was fraud in 2020 (some 70%). Polling and perception does not offset the reality that the stock market, jobs market, and infrastructure are all accomplishments for Biden. You're talking about recognition, and in these partisan times, the hate that MAGAs have for anyone not in their cult is both dangerous and delusional, and why I don't really care about the polling. Especially because that polling has been off by about 10% in recent elections, something you seem to continue to ignore because it's damning to your arguments. It gets tiring bring up this fact, repeatedly, about how off polls have been.
And you want to talk about things like child poverty, when it was Biden's policies that cut that rate down so low and then the GOP stripped the child tax credit out of new laws? Talk about being blind about where that blame lies to the outcomes we now have. Unreal.I do believe that polls provide a glimpse into the sentiments of Americans. While they suggest that a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents view President Joe Biden's win as illegitimate, polls alone don't negate the tangible impact on the stock market and job market. My point is that despite positive statistics, citizens may not be experiencing the anticipated relief. I'm unclear about your reference to infrastructure and other accomplishments. From my perspective, there's been minimal progress in infrastructure, and I haven't witnessed noteworthy achievements deserving of extensive praise.
As for MAGA supporters, I'm not aware of them harboring "hate" towards those with opposing views on America's future. I think many who support MAGA on social media have learned to ignore the unprovoked remarks and move away from conflict.
Regarding Biden's policies that aimed to alleviate economic strain during COVID, it's crucial to clarify that these were intended as temporary solutions rather than permanent social programs. Contrary to popular belief, Congress chose not to enshrine the child tax credit measures into law, allowing them to expire at the end of 2021 despite President Biden's appeals for extension. Notably, child poverty was already a significant concern when Trump took office, and he made strides in reducing it without implementing a new government social program.
19.7 percent
For most demographic groups, 2015 poverty rates and estimates of the number of people in poverty decreased from 2014. Between 2014 and 2015, poverty rates decreased for all three major age groups. The poverty rate for children under age 18 dropped 1.4 percentage points, from 21.1 percent to 19.7 percent.
Is it wise to just toss money at a problem or is it wise to work on solutions that improve our society's poverty rate?Sharlee001? I've actually never been to a MAGA rally before. However, if the MAGA people at one of those things had no problem with me being a moderate Independent and the atmosphere at one of them was upbeat, I might just go to one of those to see what they're like. I wouldn't see any harm in it. I'd probably enjoy myself at one of them. I'd also get to cheer on my candidate of choice - Donald Trump. Those on this discussion thread who disagree with me can't really knock something until they try it. :-)
That is exactly what many Democrats did, coming to believe in the MAGA movement, choosing to walk away from the Democratic Party. The Walkaway Campaign was born and so was the disdain for these individuals. Never was that disdain more evident than on Jan. 6. The story of Brandon Straka should be made into a movie, by an honest and capable filmmaker. If such exists today.
No need for a movie. His video speaks volumes.
Brandon Straka: "Why I left the Democrat Party"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UGcghHZskYour welcome! The mentioning of him and the movement piqued my curiosity.
For additional information the following is the link to the organization #WalkAway. I follow that with the link to the about page.
#WalkAway website
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/
About #WalkAway
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/about
And, just for giggles, maybe not, a little entertainment with Walk Away by the James Gang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UVOvTcJKH4Yes, it got me thinking --- in the last year, I had to wait three months to get my contact lenses. Which before Biden took two weeks. My contacts are from China... My Doc needed to change my medication due to it was manufactured in China, and the US was not receiving what they had in the prior years. This administration has caused chaos in so many areas. Could write a book... But the video certainly rings true, we are slowly losing more and more, and being told to shut up and put up.
That is spot on.
Walking away is becoming hard to do, when they are sicking the mob after you though.
I have been to one rally here in Michigan... It was fun and loud, and one felt a great bond of camaraderie. I think Trump has a real gift for reaching out to his audiences. I have not heard of any violence or problems at his rallies. I can say they are huge, and, many thousands show up, and have fun. I mean Trump even gets down and dances with the crowd. He does not hold back his views, you get full-out Trump. Very transparent guy.
I find the media coverage of Trump, and his support very
much strange. They just don't get it, many are not on board with tearing America apart but hope to keep all America has stood for for many decades. It is apparent this threatens the Democrat's plans for a country much more like what we left hundreds of years ago to build a new democracy. Go figure
A new report by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee documents more than $7.8 million in payments from at least 20 foreign governments — including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — to businesses owned by then-President Donald Trump during two years of his presidential term.
It is illegal for presidents to accept any money from foreign governments without congressional approval per Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "no person holding any office ... shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Why aren't our maga friends commenting on this?
Could you imagine if this was Biden?
And the committee only scratched the surface because Comer shut it down... Gee I wonder why? As they say a lot of smoke..
Is this irrelevant to MAGA?
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/04/12228960 … -presidentMany might comment that those monies aren't emoluments, they are transactions in business dealings. But, since that will quickly turn into an unwinnable 'is too, is not' argument, maybe commenting is a wasted effort?
GAOr maybe the obvious... Trump was a international businessman that got involved in politics after he already established that he was a billionaire.
Biden, Clinton, and most life long politicians got into politics and were essentially destitute and used their political positions to make themselves into millionaires.
Yeah, it's irrelevant. Nice try to save crooked biden, but it misses the mark.
Before he took office President Donald Trump turned over responsibility for day-to-day decision making of his companies to his two eldest sons.
This is from the article you linked to
“The largest documented payment was $5.4 million in rent from China's state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank during his first two years in office...the lease deal was initiated many years before his 2015 presidential campaign announcement.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, India and Malaysia each spent more than $200,000 at Trump hotels and properties, according to the report...the profits from hotel stays "were donated in full to the United States Treasury for patronage at our properties while President Trump was in office" and cited a roughly $450,000 donation by the president.”
There is no evidence money went directly into the pockets of President Donald Trump, unlike biden, who has his son on record stating some of the payments he got would go to “the big guy.”President Trump inked a "phase one" trade agreement with China, marking an effort by the world's two largest economies to resolve a trade war spanning over 18 months. The agreement addresses issues such as intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and increased Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. However, it leaves questions about enforcement unanswered. The Trump administration aims to initiate negotiations for the next phase of the trade agreement before the November 2020 election.
The Abraham Accords Declaration, signed by various parties, emphasizes the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and worldwide. The declaration is rooted in mutual understanding, coexistence, and the respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom.
It seems that Trump wasn't particularly friendly towards Qatar, exhibiting no apparent favoritism and expressing vocal criticism, as evidenced by the reported panic buying in Qatar during a Saudi blockade in 2017 . Just one source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ … i-blockade
As a global businessman, Trump conducted many dealings offshore, reflecting the broader trend of numerous businesses operating internationally. While some may not have realized the extent of his offshore dealings when voting for him, there hasn't been substantial evidence or questioning suggesting Trump engaged in pay-for-play, akin to the accusations faced by Biden. If such evidence existed, Democrats would likely have pursued impeachment. It remains to be seen whether this narrative might resurface in the event of a Trump victory in 2024.
t would seem Trump was working above board keeping his business venture separated from his job as president.
"Former President Donald Trump lost almost one-third of his wealth over the course of his time in office, leaving him more than $1 billion worse off after four years in the White House.
Trump's fortune fell from $3.5 billion to $2.4 billion between entering office in January 2017 and departing the White House less than three months ago, according to Forbes."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps- … ys-1581266
He did not increase his wealth while he was in office. So pay for play seems very much ridiculous, in my view.I'm not saying it was pay for play at all. Just more simply, like everything else with trump, a violation of the Constitution.
It is illegal for presidents to accept any money from foreign governments without congressional approval per Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "no person holding any office ... shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
The Democrats' evidence consists primarily of thousands of Trump's business records obtained from his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, which were obtained after a years-long legal battle which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
Shockingly, it was shut down by the Republicans... So much for transparency right?
Despite warnings from government ethics officials, Trump broke with tradition and did not divest from his businesses before taking office. Leave it to Trump to not be able to do anything right.
Everyone knows for certain that if Biden would have done this, the Republicans hair would be on fire right now... Despite their inability to investigate anything competently LOLI was just pointing out it well appears Trump's bank account became smaller in the years he was in office. I can see your point regarding the Republicans having their hair ablaze if Biden did the same regarding divesting business interests. There is no doubt about it.
.... and to use your favorite word V, it won't go down, without a "FIGHT".
I am bowled with the quantum of muck being pinned on the last president. I am just not able to fathom how a man who had more votes at the hustings lost out on a postal ballot. I am astounded that spontaneous expression of anger by his supporters should be construed as a coup and pin it on the ex-president, Perhaps the accusers don't know what a coup is and the blood bath it entails. Nobody sees that this man kept the world safe, Abraham accord, North Korea, and Putin check and all frittered away by his successor, the senile man better off fishing at the lake with his grandkids, for he has led the world to the brink of total war by his actions in Ukraine, Gaza, Korea, Taiwan and soft-peddling to the real enemy- China; perhaps because of the bucks lining the pockets of his son. God save America.
My exact thoughts. I have studied Latin-American history; and what I find was that when there were insurrections in South and Central America, there were almost always guerillas involved in it. A good example in that regard is what happened in Cuba in the 1950s when the guerillas overtook the Moncada Barracks in an effort to overthrow Fulgencio Batista.
On the other hand, what happened at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021 can be best described as a demonstration gone wrong. Otherwise, we would have to accuse the flower children and the hippies of being insurrectionists for protesting against the Vietnam War back in the 1960s.They don’t know, MG Singh. They have lived privileged lives as civil servants in the land of the free and they have happily served a fat, bloated, corrupt bureaucracy.
They watch CNN and MSNBC religiously, stupidly believing the propaganda. They know nothing of a coup and “the blood bath it entails.” They have wet dreams of leading so-called insurrectionists around by dog collars.
They are the smallest of men who have no knowledge of anything beyond their own personal rage and bias against those they have been programmed to hate.
They attack the intelligence of others, having no critical thinking skills of their own, sadly.
Their ignorance makes them dangerous.
It takes brave men and women to stand up to save a republic.
Those you speak of, are not brave.
But, courage is greater than the ignorance of small minded men.
That hope remains.
As you know, if America fails due to their tyranny, the rest of the world follows.
If so, hope is gone.
God save America.Hey, you live on the "left Coast" Can you afford that popcorn? I know here in Michigan it has gone up about 30%.
I actually prefer cheese doodles. Yes, they are costly as compared to a few years back. grrrr . . . 2020 = $3.99. Today = $5.49. A whopping 38% increase. Wow!!
No offense, but consider the fact that your candidate is the preferred candidate of the radical left… if all else fails. That should tell you something.
Thanks for the popcorn. I prefer mine buttered.
A considerably large MAGA constituency can be easily defined as not exactly the "sharpest knives in the drawer"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-connec … 42387.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/iowas-christ … 57600.html
Modern day Cyrus the Great? Now that is a live one....
Have they all gone nuts?ESO, Valeant and other concerned on lookers, how viable are these possible ruses in potential decisions of the Supreme Court that gets Trump off the hook regarding exclusion from the ballot by certain state governments?
https://news.yahoo.com/five-ways-suprem … p_catchall
What do you think, is there cause that the serpent might just escape once again?
---------
So, I get a little nervous when I contemplate this outcome from the court
https://news.yahoo.com/column-why-supre … p_catchall1.) No way they exempt a president from the 14th amendment based on the office not being covered. It makes zero sense logically.
2.) Partisan Congresses are the least qualified to decide matters of fairness, we witnessed this during the Clinton and first Trump impeachments. The 14th has a backup that Congress can implement if courts or state laws badly err in the application.
3.) Due process was given. Perhaps Trump did not believe the court would rule against him, but it was his choice not to put forth a larger defense. But he did have the opportunity. And the amendment does not require a conviction.
4.) Too early to determine does not make sense because you wouldn't want someone to win the nomination of a party if they could not be elected to office. We don't put those under 35 on ballots.
5.) The Supreme Court is there for too hot to handle issues. It's literally why they exist.
They have off-ramps, but not sure they have legit reasons for taking one.As for the "off ramps", I hope that you are right.
The Supreme Court should be there to remove ambiguity as to why Colorado and Maine courts find Trump ineligible, yet Texas and Tennessee do not.
We see that a crime was committed, and it has to be more than an affirmative interpretation from some states and clear denial from others. They would have to say either that Trump based on his violation of Section 3 is ineligible as a candidate everywhere or take an off ramp artificially rasing the bar to allow him to continue as a candidate everywhere, not accepting the decisions from either Colorado or Maine as valid. Or require additional steps to allow the conclusion that we understand to be seen as lingua Franca across all 50'states.
Which choice will they take?
Who's next? Hopefully, the other 49.
If the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, so is the 14th.Everyone not backing Trump is radical left to certain people in this forum.
Donald Trump made up to $160 million from international business dealings while he was serving as president of the United States, according to an analysis of his tax returns by CREW.
His donated salary was pocket change.I haven't checked, but it would not surprise me at all that every president we've ever had has made money on the side while in office. All the way back to George Washington, these were not poor people - Washington had a plantation, broken into several farms, that he took intimate care of.
So adherence to some parts of the Constitution are optional? Maybe the emoluments clause will be part of the Constitution Trump will look at "terminating" if he some how wins this election. I think it's become increasingly clear that Trump and many of his supporters are not fans of the Constitution.
"Trump will look at "terminating" if he some how wins this election."
I hope you realize a president is not able to terminate any part of the Constitution. That just isn't possible.Dictators have their ways though don't they
Very odd that you see Trump as a Dictator. He isn't the one and Republicans aren't the Party, attempting to tear apart this great Nation and the citizens herein. But then, it has always been this way.
They aren't? They didn't try to steal an election by tearing apart police in an effort to invade Congress at the moment of the certification of an election they lost because of lies about fraud? They haven't asked for absolute immunity from our laws, arguing in court that they should be allowed to get away with murder as long as their allies in Congress will allow them to do it? They didn't make irresponsible Covid policies that studies have found led to hundreds of thousands of added deaths?
There are plenty of examples of republicans and Trump tearing our nation apart - but getting any MAGA to acknowledge them is the impossible task due to the cultish brainwashing.The Dems have been at it, since Abraham Lincoln dared.
"They didn't make irresponsible Covid policies that studies have found led to hundreds of thousands of added deaths? "
What policies?
In my view, It's important to note that a significant number of Americans lost their lives to COVID-19 during Biden's presidency. From my perspective, Biden's handling of the pandemic not only led to a high death toll but also had negative repercussions on education for our children and contributed to a prolonged period of inflation in the country. He was inept in his handling of COVID-19.
In my view, Trump saved many lives with his quick decision-making and pushing for the quick production of several vaccines.Your view is in direct contract to that of research and many experts:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … c-health1/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ … b4cad377e8
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-chose-ch … hs-1671532
https://www.businessinsider.com/analysi … ble-2021-2
https://www.newsweek.com/birx-estimates … hs-1642753
https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/the-hum … ry-deaths/I could counter with numerous examples that contradict the information in your articles. I'm sharing my firsthand perspective. I was present, the as Biden's death toll rose to surpass Trump's. I experienced the challenges under Biden of struggling to secure vaccine appointments and test kits and witnessing hospitals facing supply shortages for many months. These issues weren't as pronounced under Trump; he effectively obtained new vaccines, provided supplies to hospitals, established makeshift medical facilities for overflow, swiftly dispatched ventilators to where they were needed, and so much more.
While some focused on "Trump said this," he actively worked hard to address problems promptly and efficiently. In my view, the handling of COVID-19 took a downturn the moment Biden assumed office.Your firsthand experience does not offset the research or the facts about Trump's actions that inhibited a response to put safety over his reelection chances. Or not allocating resources to certain Democratic strongholds that allowed the virus to hurt his political opposition in a more deadly way.
Nor does it paint Biden fully when you ignore Trump not telling his supporters that he got the vaccine, or the media campaign waged by your own media sources to undermine taking the vaccine, which led to much higher Covid death tolls in Trump-voting counties.What Democratic cities are you alluding to?
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politic … e/2371465/
"We've developed very strong relationships with our federal partners,” Newsom said Thursday, the latest in a string of positive comments he's made about the Trump administration cooperating with California to stem the deadly virus and help passengers on the virus-stricken Grand Princess cruise ship." https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/03 … se%20ship.
Every American had the right to get the vaccine and make up their minds on doing so. Trump encouraged Americans to get vaccinated constantly and took credit for getting the vaccines...'What Democratic cities are you alluding to?'
https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner … ort-2020-7
https://forward.com/fast-forward/451858 … ue-states/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhas … 3a32131ff6
Trump took false credit for getting the vaccines, when the scientists had already been working on creating them. And Trump was the only living president not to do a PSA showing them getting the vaccine, and media had to report he got it because he told no one.Your links are nothing but conspiracy unsubstantiated theories.
‘He Has Delivered for New York': Cuomo Praises Trump's Coronavirus Response
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politic … e/2371465/
Trump supplied Drug companies with billions to speed up the research and development of the Vaccine.
https://time.com/5921360/operation-warp … -spending/
We can all remember Fauchi stating it would take many years to develop a vaccine for COVID-19.
Hey, you have your view, I have mine. I truely can't imagine what we would have faced if Biden had been the President when COVID broke out. I must say, I really can't see how anyone could not realize what a wonderful job Trump did handling such a huge crisis. We certainly are on very different pages on this one.Yes. Thank you Sharlee! Trump was vigilant in seeing to it that the vaccine was out in record time, for those most vulnerable. This was after the constant updates and his complete transparency with the American people. But that’s what the left does, they attempt to rewrite history. Some here, apparently, think Abraham Lincoln was a Dem. So, guess it works for them in some cases.
I appreciate Trump's approach to handling the pandemic. His focus and measured communication kept the public well-informed about what was known and unknown about the virus. The swift implementation of Operation Warp Speed demonstrated his commitment to addressing the crisis efficiently. Despite media scrutiny and opposition from Washington Democrats, I felt secure in his actions. Comparatively, I have reservations about the current administration and have observed perceived failures in their every endeavor.
Yes, they seem to be trying to rewrite history, but what I see are very poor authors, and not many buying their book... LOL
Not surprising to know we are on different sides here. Everyone not MAGA agrees that Trump's response cost lives, waging a battle against his own scientists. Let alone that if Biden was president, he would not have been taking scientists out of China at the same time his State Department was getting reports of dangerous testing, because Biden understands the science of viruses, having been through it at the start of his term as Vice President. The world would have been in much better hands if Biden were president pre-Covid.
During his presidential administration, President Trump started Operation Warp Speed to find a cure for COVID-19. If Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 presidential election here in our country, people would still be dying in droves from the coronavirus for years to come unless, of course, Donald Trump had gotten into the Oval Office in 2020 instead of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. President Trump deserves a lot of credit for dealing with this pandemic from its outset.
Even though we will never know, I must agree with your view.
The cure for Covid began in early January of 2020, long before Trump even took any action.. Trump helped speed up the process with funding and cutting some steps in the testing process. Anyone with more education in science might have been able to prevent the pandemic in the first place by understanding the risks being posed in China and kept the scientists in there that mattered.
Can't think of any scientist that has occupied the white house in 200 years. Not even one reasonably well versed in science. Can you?
Which, as usual, is not what I said. Can you read?
"Anyone with more education in science might have been able to prevent the pandemic in the first place by understanding the risks being posed in China and kept the scientists in there that mattered."
Can you read what you write yourself?So you think that anyone with more education in science than Trump just has to be a scientist? Yeah, that's pretty spot on for the way his cult thinks. Obviously, to them, he's some kind of rocket scientist.
I merely quote the man that thought more science in the white house could have prevented the epidemic. And, of course, blamed Trump for the pandemic...because he was not a scientist.
You merely could not process my words, so you changed them to say something else. It's what you do and why conversations with you are pointless.
Changed them? I copied and pasted them, unlike what you do. No changes at all.
Yeah - pointless when your own words are so silly that you then deny them.Your latest lie. Here is your initial response to my post. In what way is that copied and pasted?
'Can't think of any scientist that has occupied the white house in 200 years. Not even one reasonably well versed in science. Can you?'
You changed the word science to scientist. Or did you forget that in a senior moment?Did you read the next sentence? Here, I'll help you; "Not even one reasonably well versed in science."
"Reasonably well versed in science". Is that not what you meant when you said "Anyone with more education in science"? Perhaps you have a different definition than I do about what "education" means...
Or perhaps you didn't read the sentence you copied and pasted here?Actually, what I meant was anyone with a basic knowledge since Trump made it apparent he lacked even that. That would include every other president and doesn't require a scientist.
A "basic knowledge". As in what a trained and experienced virologist knows? Certainly nothing else would have helped, and even that was worthless until we knew about it.
Yeah, Trump lacks a basic knowledge of science. Most (if not all) presidents have, excepting perhaps the first few when science as we know it did not exist. Our presidents lack a basic knowledge of most things outside of politics; Trump was an exception in that his knowledge went further in the business field.
Perhaps we should require all presidential candidates to have at least a general degree from a university, to include courses in sociology, sciences, mathematics, and a few other basic classes needed for any degree. But we don't.
This information is very important to consider. It is very obvious the NIH is who dropped the ball, and gave the lab cash, dropped the ball regarding oversite, and this went on for many years. As I have shared before Trump's biggest mistake was listening to A. Fauchi.
"The first cases of COVID-19 were identified in China and reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in December 2019, and the first case in the United States was officially diagnosed on January 20, 2020"
March 9, 2020 "A video circulating on social media shows Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), saying “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” Fauci’s remarks were made on March 8, 2020 " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5FY58I5RQ0
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/ho … -SD004.pdf
"A federal watchdog has weighed in on problems with a U.S. government grant that funded work in Wuhan, China, on bat coronaviruses that some onlookers claim led to the COVID-19 pandemic. The audit found oversight issues by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and that the grantee had misreported $90,000 in expenses. But it sheds little new light on issues already widely covered and discussed in the media and Congress.
The report from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finds “NIH did not effectively monitor or take timely action to address” compliance problems involving the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that held the NIH grant. EcoHealth had sent some of those funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to study bat coronaviruses collected in the wild and examine their potential to jump to humans.
In April 2020, after then-President Donald Trump claimed the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have come from the WIV lab, NIH terminated the EcoHealth grant with little explanation. That step was widely condemned by scientists, and OIG’s report now says NIH improperly executed the termination because it did not provide a valid reason or provide EcoHealth with required information for appealing the decision."
A few months later, NIH reinstated the award but immediately suspended it, setting conditions for resumption that EcoHealth said it could not meet. NIH permanently terminated the WIV subaward as of August 2022 for compliance issues, including WIV’s failure to provide NIH with laboratory notebooks related to the funded experiments.
The 18-month-long OIG audit examined that grant and two others to EcoHealth from 2014 to 2021 that totaled $8 million but focused largely on the nearly $600,000 that went to WIV, including work that created hybrid bat coronaviruses to study the potential of wild viruses to infect humans. NIH had concluded that these studies did not qualify as “gain-of-function” research that requires a special HHS review because the hybrid viruses weren’t expected to be more dangerous to mammals than the starting viruses. But it stipulated that EcoHealth should “immediately” report any unexpected growth of the hybrid viruses to NIH.
NIH has faulted EcoHealth for failing to promptly report this unexpected growth in some experiments. But EcoHealth has countered that the unexpected growth has been misinterpreted and blamed a computer glitch at NIH for a 2-year delay in filing a progress report containing the data. OIG faults NIH for not chasing down the late report, lamenting “missed opportunities” to “take more timely corrective actions to mitigate the inherent risks associated with this type of research.”
Again --- Trump's biggest mistake was listing to Fauchi. he appears to be very much responsible for providing funds to the lab where COVID-19 leaked from.As usual, the omission of the basic facts prior to 2019 where Trump's state department was getting warnings about dangerous testing in China at the same time they were removing scientists from the country to cut costs.
From the notoriously conservative Washington Examiner:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … -outbreak/
You refuse to talk about, or acknowledge, the reports on that because it is damning to Trump. Instead, choosing to throw some meaningless findings out there to muddy the issue, all while spelling Fauci wrong, repeatedly, to show off your expertise of the issue.
We are going over ground we've both been over before. Neither of us will change the other person's mind. Best to get back to the topic of the thread."As usual, the omission of the basic facts before 2019 where Trump's state department was getting warnings about dangerous testing in China at the same time they were removing scientists from the country to cut costs. "
My point and I thought it was evident --- The NHI was funding the Wuhan lab, and most likely many labs in China. In my view that certainly is a much worse problem than Trump pulling out some CDC staff from China. In essence we the taxpayers paid for a lab in China to research a dangerous virus, and to leak it out into the world.
"Nevertheless, speaking to ABC News' “This Week” on March 1, Biden claimed: “They’ve cut the funding for the CDC.” On Friday, Biden stepped up his attacks, writing on Twitter: "Donald Trump's careless, shortsighted actions left our nation ill-prepared and now Americans are paying the price."
In its fiscal year 2013 budget, while Biden was vice president, the Obama administration sought a total funding level of $5.9 billion from the CDC, or a $569 million cut from the 2012 budget of $6.46 billion. In fiscal year 2015, the Obama administration wanted a $414 million cut year-over-year, and again in the fiscal year 2017 budget, the Obama administration looked to eliminate $251 million in CDC funding.
The proposed cuts take into account money budgeted for The Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to bolster the nation's healthcare system. When not including that fund, the Obama administration sought CDC cuts in five of its eight years."
Yes, we are wasting time and energy going over this subject. Again, I see the funding problem of any Chinese lab as a problem. And I see it odd you don't feel the enormous cuts Obama made to the CDC did not hurt the agency right here in the USA.
It would well seem there is enough blame to pass onto both Obama and Trump's administration regarding the CDC.
Apparently it is: when every president in history has made money, without complaint, it is difficult to understand just why Trump is singled out as somehow different and wrong for following all the others.
How many of those presidents made money from hostile foreign governments such as China? It's easy to single trump out when he's making money from outside US sources, while others are making money from things such as book sales.
Regarding Obama -- He was not a businessman nor was his wife. It would be hard to know what he would have done if he was a man of business. Obama worked at various times at jobs that would have been, such as low paying jobs, such as community organizer, lawyer, lecturer, and Lecturer, and later published his memoir Dreams from My Father before beginning his political career in 1997 as a member of Illinois. Not sure there is a comparison between a long-time billionaire businessman and a man that to put it simply, was not a man of wealth or even a business owner. He has earned great wealth after leaving office, which is very common with politicians. Trump was an enigma, not sure there was ever another president that had such a large business.
Trump a man that had done business with for many years. He offered a form of service or products such as Hotels and more... In reality, over his presidency, he lost money in most of his many businesses, including those in China when consideration is taken to what he made from China before becoming president. His taxes showed he did better financially before his years in office. YES he still made profits off the many nations he did business with, but he saw decreases in profits while president.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56438914
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics … index.html
It has been well proven Hunter Biden was paid money from several nations that he truely offered no services or products. It is yet to be seen if Joe Biden profited or helped his family become enriched by the nation that enriched the Biden family. The verdict is still out on the Biden family's ventures.
However, Trump's taxes have been made available, and he lost money while he was president.And do you not see a national security threat in a president taking profit from hostile foreign governments while serving in office? One who refused to divest from his businesses as others had done? I don't care about his profits being lowered, I just care that he was able to use those businesses to be influenced by governments.
And stop bringing up Hunter until you can prove Joe actually took any money. Hunter is a private citizen and is free to do business wherever and whenever he wants. Just as Don Jr. and Eric were since they held no official posts. Trying to equate Hunter to Donald J. Trump is such a false equivalency that it's pathetic.I observed a president who maintained a tough stance on China throughout his entire term, providing little for China to be content about. It's hard for me to believe that someone with such a stance would willingly give up their business to assume the role of president. From my perspective, expecting Trump to fully divest and dispose of his business units through sale, exchange, or closure in order to become president seems illogical. Is it worth noting that he did step away from actively running his business?
There are allegations of wrongdoing against Joe Biden and some of his family members related to receiving funds from foreign nations. The House recently authorized an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, with unanimous Republican support. The vote has set the stage for a process that could potentially lead to the president's removal for "high crimes and misdemeanors." As I mentioned earlier, the outcome of investigations into the Biden family's activities is still uncertain, and it remains a topic open for discussion, much like the accusations that were made against Trump during his presidency.'From my perspective, expecting Trump to fully divest and dispose of his business units through sale, exchange, or closure in order to become president seems illogical.'
Illogical why? Should a president be subjected to a conflict of interest between what is right for the country and what is right for his business interests? Does the fact that he's accepting monies from those foreign governments open him up to questions of integrity? In my view, it absolutely does.
As for the allegations of wrongdoing against Biden, the GOP in this country is being gaslit by their elected reps. Just like they were gaslit about 2020 election voter fraud. It's just sad that they are not smart enough to see through the charade, and why that makes them dangerous. James Comer goes on to Fox News and tells their viewers that Biden received monies from both Hunter and his brother Jim. Does he admit that he has the bank records showing the exact outlay from Jim and Hunter in the months prior to Joe getting the money? No. Does he tell the viewers that one of the checks explicitly says 'loan repayment' on it? No. Does he tell them that these checks were from a period when Joe Biden was not even in office? No. Why not? Because it's about the appearance of wrongdoing, not actual wrongdoing.
And just because the entirety of the House GOP approves of this marketing campaign to make Biden look dirty, does not mean they have a shred of evidence to actual taint the man. Just like 70% of the GOP still believes that there was election fraud in 2020, the vast majority of the GOP now sees Biden as corrupt. Not because of any evidence, mind you. But because they are idiots.
I don't see how it profited us to have a "business man" as President? The skills required for an effective Chief Executive are different than that of a billionaire. Would Rockefeller or Vanderbilt have made good Presidents? Big shot CEOs cannot have the kind of absolute authority and power as President of the United States, who have to rely on a certain level of persuasion the bring others onboard to an agenda. I like to keep it that way.
That is why in American History you find virtually no business tycoons even wanting to be President.From my perspective, America has evolved into a colossal enterprise, arguably the largest in the world. We seem to have transitioned beyond the traditional politician-type president, and Biden's leadership underscores the need for such a shift.
Your notion that no other business tycoon sought the presidency might warrant consideration that Trump's motivation could have been centered around improving America for the benefit of all.
Before he took office President Donald Trump turned over responsibility for day-to-day decision making of his companies to his two eldest sons.
“The largest documented payment was $5.4 million in rent from China's state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank during his first two years in office...the lease deal was initiated many years before his 2015 presidential campaign announcement.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, India and Malaysia each spent more than $200,000 at Trump hotels and properties, according to the report...the profits from hotel stays "were donated in full to the United States Treasury for patronage at our properties while President Trump was in office" and cited a roughly $450,000 donation by the president.”
Unlike biden, who has lived off of the taxpayer dole his entire professional life, President Donald Trump had been an international businessman for decades before he became president.President Donald Trump is a philanthropist.
Lol in 2019 Trump was forced to pay more than $2 million in court-ordered damages to eight different charities for illegally misusing charitable funds at the Trump Foundation for political purposes.
From where did you get this said information?
It was widely reported across every news source. If you Google it you'll see it reported everywhere
I was not attempting to start a firestorm with my comment regarding Trump's history while and before his presidency was charitable.
"in September 2017, following Hurricane Harvey’s devastation in Texas, Trump personally pledged to donate $1 million for relief efforts there. The White House at the time officially announced a list of organizations that would receive donations and the amounts for each. Several organizations later confirmed that they had received the money. Promise kept.
Also in September 2017, Trump’s inaugural committee announced that it would donate $3 million divided evenly to three organizations involved in hurricane relief efforts — a pledge that was reflected in the committee’s subsequent tax filings.
The media and social media do not at times share the truth, as for a time we saw the false hoaxes that falsely claimed that Trump and his family donated $1 billion to a fund for a wall at the southern border (they didn’t) and that the president donated a whole year’s salary to “repair military cemeteries” — which is false, though he does donate his salary to various causes in quarterly increments, as we’ve explained. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump … donations/
Again --- Former president’s tax returns report no contributions to charity in 2020 and nearly $1.9 million in 2017.""in September 2017, following Hurricane Harvey’s devastation in Texas, Trump personally pledged to donate $1 million for relief efforts there. The White House at the time officially announced a list of organizations that would receive donations and the amounts for each. Several organizations later confirmed that they had received the money. Promise kept."
Sharlee01? I'm glad that you mentioned that, because during the 2016 presidental race, I recall seeing President Trump on television, helping a group of Good Samaritans unload food supplies from a truck down in the Southern region of the United States for the survivors of some kind of natural disaster. I believe it was Hurricane Matthew, but don't hold me to it. In any event, Hillary Clinton was nowhere to be found for such charitable purposes, even though she was running for president back then. The Clinton Foundation has a wealth of money, and Hillary Clinton has never donated any of it to any kind of noble cause involving disaster survivors that I'm aware of.
I've also not come across any news about Joe Biden taking part in any such noble causes since he first set foot in the White House in 2021. Like Hillary Clinton, he is all take and no give. President Trump never accepted one dime of his yearly presidential salary all four years that he resided in the White House.I think Trump was very charitable in donating his salary, and he has a history of being charitable. The media have nothing positive to say about Trump, they seek to stir dislike with little truth to back their reports.
Yeah, what's $1.4 million (his last 6 months, there is no record of donations, and Trump did not claim donations on his taxes in 2020) when you're fleecing taxpayers for $2 million into your own pockets just for the Secret Service doing their job.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald- … rew-2022-5
Bloomberg -- "Donald Trump’s Taxes Reveal Big Losses: What We Learned So Far, in Charts --
A Trump entity lost money every year from 2015 to 2020
Copies of Trump’s tax returns to be released in coming days"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … rump-taxes
Donald Trump's net worth dropped by about $700m to $2.3bn (£1.65bn) during his time as president, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The Covid-19 pandemic hit his fortunes hard, with Mr Trump's office buildings, branded hotels and resorts losing revenue and falling in value.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56438914
https://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump- … d=93860929
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics … index.html
The bottom line is that before becoming president he did business all over the world. His business continued to do business in many foreign nations. While President charts show many of the Nations he had made money from before he took office, took a hit while he was president.
In my view, donating his salary was a kind gesture.
His tax record indicated Trump as well as Melania gave very generously to many charities over the years. The donations varied while in the White House. In 2017 he donated $1.8 million to charities.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-tru … 1672430692
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ributions/
And here is just a little bit more...
A wealthy landowner and Revolutionary War commander, Washington said he did not need or want to get paid to lead the executive branch. While he did not accept a salary for his military service, he ultimately accepted $25,000 for his presidential duties because the Constitution mandates the president receive a salary.
Trump also didn’t have his historical facts straight when saying no other commander in chief gave up their presidential paycheck.
( when has he ever checked any reference materials before opening his mouth?)
Thirty-first president Herbert Hoover was the first American executive in chief to refuse a salary. Hoover was a multimillionaire before assuming office from a previous career as an engineer and businessman and donated his paycheck to charitable causes.
Similarly, John F. Kennedy was born into wealth and prestige. When Kennedy took the oath of office in 1961, he was the richest man in history to do so. The Kennedy family fortune was valued at $1 billion, and allocated a $10 million trust fund to JFK.
Kennedy refused both his congressional salary from the House and Senate and his presidential salary, though he kept his $50,000 expense account for “public entertaining he must do as President.”And what happened in 2010 that caused funding levels across the board to drop? The GOP took control of the House of Representatives and started getting in major fiscal battles with the White House. Always leaving out your own party's hand in things. It gets tiring adding in your omissions that you forget to try and make those partisan blames.
Related Discussions
- 52
Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
by IslandBites 9 hours ago
The Supreme Court’s biggest decisions of the term are coming. I thought it'll be good to have one thread, kind of a tracker of the upcoming decisions.The high court has 10 opinions left to release over the next week before the justices begin their summer break.
- 40
Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”The resolution — which...
- 117
Is the Separation of Powers BROKEN in the USA?
by Arthur Russ 2 minutes ago
In a true democracy there should be a separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature. No democracy is perfect, but how imperfect is the American democracy?While browsing the web in relation to a question on the Separation of Powers in the USA (in another forum) I...
- 146
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 118 minutes ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 90
What is going on with the Chief Justice John Roberts?
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA. Why is this happening to our high courts? It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the...
- 55
Is Trump Now Knocking On The Door Of The Supreme Court...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know."By Tom Hals(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe...