States Can't Remove President Trump From Ballot

1. 94

   Readmikenowposted 7 weeks ago

   
   Finally, a move to end the election interference of the democrat party.  This may be the beginning of sanity returning to the election process.
   
   It was a 9 - 0 ruling by the Supreme Court that President Donald Trump remain on the ballot.  That is a very powerful statement for the democrats to stop their election interference.
   
   Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off the ballot
   The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states can bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
   
   WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
   
   In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
   
   The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.
   
   The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
   
   The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
   
   "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
   
   By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions constituted an insurrection.
   
   The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
   
   Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, "Big win for America!!!"
   
   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem … rcna132291

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I had placed my trust in our Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution faithfully, so I was immensely gratified and proud to see their unanimous decision. I remain confident that true patriots will always honor our Constitution. It was evident to me, through observations on social media and certain media outlets, that there were those who sought to distort the Constitution's language to suit their political agendas.  Right won out in the end...  It is WE THE PEOPLE that use our vote to choose our president, not the leaders of a given State. 
      
      Trump was very much on the money --- BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!

      replyreport
   2. 84

      TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      It's history in the making.  Luckily, it happened the day before Super Tuesday, because then if it hadn't, Nikki Haley would still be in the race.  And I don't have anything against Nikki Haley.  If Donald Trump hadn't run for president this year, I would much rather have had Nikki Haley in the White House than Joe Biden for the next four years.  However, it only made that sense that Donald Trump got his fair crack at winning the presidential election.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         I have said this for a while now -- the Republicans could run a cat, and that cat has got my vote.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Essentially they have chosen a cat.  An obese,  orange , howling,  sweaty cat with labored breathing.
            
            But Republicans had an alternative . A candidate who was an intelligent young woman who could speak without dividing and repulsing people.  A candidate not under indictment. A candidate with great foreign policy experience. A candidate that doesn't lie incessantly.  A candidate that proved she could bring people in. A candidate who appealed to moderate and independent voters.
            
            But the fat cat is better?

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               That would be called a Tabby...   
               
               
               
               While I held a favorable opinion of Nikki and would have been inclined to support her, the current situation presents me with only two options. Unfortunately, I find it challenging to rally behind a candidate like Biden whom I believe has led America to one of its lowest points in recent memory. It's bewildering to me how anyone could even contemplate voting for a president whose track record appears to be a litany of failures.
               
               He in my view was not suited for the job, actually living through his history in the Senate --- he was never suited to do that job either.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The picture though. ROFL . I deeply appreciate  the laugh

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     savvydatingposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Guess I’m truly shocked that you held a favorable opinion of Haley. Wow.

                     replyreport
               2. 84

                  TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have run our country like a pair of slumlords for the past four years.  I don't know of any better way to describe the Biden administration.

                  replyreport
         2. 78

            Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            " -- the Republicans could run a cat, and that cat has got my vote."
            
            Looks like a few of them got elected.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               savvydatingposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Thank goodness one of them won’t be the opportunist and sell-out, Haley.

               replyreport
2. 69

   abwilliamsposted 7 weeks ago

   Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

   replyreport
3. 76

   Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks ago

   States like NY, GA, CO... clearly biased, clearly weaponized.
   
   9-0 Supreme Court Decision.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      This decision is bigger than President Donald Trump.
      
      It means that future presidents will be free from experiencing the type of election interference that he has experienced during his run for office. This means a future democrat presidential candidate that Republicans don't like can't be kicked off the ballot.
      
      Let's hope the 9-0 decision sends a strong message.
      
      It IS a good day for free elections in the United States.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      As a Democrat in Georgia let me go on the record: I could not agree more. Let the people vote or Congress act, but it is not up to individual states.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         You are treading dangerous ground there - anything that gives Trump a + is forbidden!  You may be kicked off the TDS wagon for such an opinion.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            wilderness: I actually have many democratic friends who agree with me on this. Again, generalizations are not always true.

            replyreport
      2. 76

         Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         Yeah, I get the sense you are more 'old school' Democrat.
         
         I'm not sure you are onboard with the whole, equity not equality, misused pronouns can be terms for imprisonment, Minority Attracted Persons should be accepted as normal in society... etc.  etc. New Democratic Party lines.
         
         Its unfortunate.  There are many 'old school' Democrats that do not realize their Party has been hijacked by an agenda, an ideology, that is very un-American.
         
         The Democrats aren't what they were... they abandoned those things during the Clinton era in the 90s.
         
         Just like the Republicans are no longer what they were... they are now the America 1st party.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "The America 1st party"? No. They are the Trump party - and all that implies.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Trump is the anti-globalist, anti-apologist-for-being-American... well... he is just the opposite of so much of what we see from the Biden Administration from Equity to War.
               
               Super Tuesday results... Biden won all except Samoa. Trump won all except Vermont.

               replyreport
4. 94

   Readmikenowposted 7 weeks ago

   The democrats are simply losing it.  Now they want Congress to enact legislation to go around the ruling of the Supreme Court.
   
   "We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court's decision," Raskin told the outlet. He suggested that the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an "insurrection" and that those involved "engaged in insurrection."

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a former member of the Jan. 6 select committee, said he is already crafting federal legislation that would force Trump off the ballot.
      
      Raskin referenced legislation he introduced in 2022 with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. that would allow the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.
      
      Imagine that, Weaponizing the Justice Department so you can keep rivals off ballots.  What a shock that the Democrats think this is the right thing to do.
      
      We really need a new name for the party, even Democratic Socialists doesn't quite fit where they are taking things anymore.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         It is a good thing they don't control the house committees and the speaker is a Republican.  HE decides what legislation to put forward for a vote.
         
         It is now Republicans standing between a communist takeover by the democrats and the rule of law.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            savvydatingposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Democrats intend to win the House through redistricting. So, Raskin’s goal is to not certify the election if Trump wins.
            
            What legal measures are in place if that happens is something I don’t know about yet.
            
            How pathetic that Joe can’t win on his own. He has to cheat to “win.”

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               savvy: Well he beat Trump in 2020 with the help of 7 million voters.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  savvydatingposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Let’s see what history has to say, in time. My prayer is that not all history is eradicated…
                  
                  Ironically, Democrats make Rupert Murdoch proud.
                  
                  Yeah, that’s not a good thing.

                  replyreport
            2. 84

               TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Joe Biden does his campaigning from the basement, so he would stoop that low.  He has no leadership skills.

               replyreport
   2. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Readmikenow: "Justices gave the power instead to Congress, saying lawmakers have the power to enforce section three under section five of the 14th Amendment, which gives lawmakers power to enact “appropriate” legislation to enforce other parts of the amendment." - Forbes

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         That brings up an interesting scenario:  If the election is Trump vs Biden (as expected) I anticipate Trump winning.  Assuming the House then goes Democrat and passes a new law banning Trump from the office and Biden quickly signs it before leaving office. 
         
         Now who is President?  The loser of the election?  The new Speaker, a Democrat ousting the duly elected Republican?  Such flagrant action could well spell the end of that party, or even our government as a whole.

         replyreport
      2. 94

         Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         You are correct. 
         
         It does make a statement that the democrats in Congress can't accept a 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court and want to change it.
         
         It speaks volumes about the type of leadership running the democrat party.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            TheShadowSpecterposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I suppose it bewilders Joe Biden as for why one of his own appointees in the form of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would vote in favor of putting President Donald Trump back on the state ballots where he was removed.  What it comes down to is that she felt an obligation to rule based upon existing law rather than do whatever Biden wanted her to do.  For that I must commend her.

            replyreport
5. 78

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks ago

   Wilderness: " Assuming the House then goes Democrat and passes a new law banning Trump from the office and Biden quickly signs it before leaving office. "
   
   That's a republican move.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is understandable that the DOJ has been weaponized, the IRS has been weaponized... war has been declared on over half the American populace (we will see if enough Americans wake up to this reality by November).
      
      The Democrats want to follow the blueprint we see being rolled out in the EU today... Central Bank Digital Currency to replace physical currency, making it illegal to use physical currency over $1,000 for any purchase.
      
      They want to control farming, they want to suppress free speech, making words illegal and punishable by fines and jail time, just like what is going on in the EU.
      
      Its called Globalization, Agenda 2030, Paris Accord, Compact on Migration, the Democrats, and some Republicans, are all onboard with this... it is what the Democratic party stands for today.
      
      Americans, National interests, Liberty, Property Rights... these are not things the Democrats stand for... if anything, they stand against them today.
      
      Maybe not you... but your Party, your Leaders.
      
      As for Trump, he is a threat to THEM, not America, not Democracy.
      
      If they can use the system to destroy Trump, to keep him from running, a former President and man of wealth.  Then we... all of us... are nothing.
      
      They will make dissention illegal... Democracy really will have died.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I don't know about that; it is pretty obvious who the winners in the race to use the laws and justice system to attack political opponents.  And it isn't the Republicans even though they have made small moves there.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         https://www.axios.com/2024/03/04/jamie- … reme-court
         
         "A leading House Democrat is preparing legislation in response to the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday that Colorado could not disqualify former President Trump from its state ballot, Axios has learned.
         
         Why it matters: The ruling determined that only Congress can enforce language in the 14th Amendment barring anyone who "engaged in insurrection" from holding federal office.
         
         "Congress will have to try and act," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Axios.
         What he's saying: Raskin, a former member of the Jan. 6 select committee, said he is already crafting the bill, telling Axios, "I'm working on it — today."
         
         Raskin pointed to legislation he introduced with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2022 creating a pathway for the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.
         "We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court's decision," Raskin said.
         Raskin suggested the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an "insurrection" and that those involved "engaged in insurrection."
         Reality check: The bill will face almost certain stonewalling in the House, where even moderate, swing-district Republicans such as Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) are cheering the Supreme Court's ruling.
         
         "I don't have a lot of hope that Speaker [Mike] Johnson will allow us to bring enforcement legislation to the floor, but we have to try and do it," Raskin said.
         The Democrat said he will beseech Republicans to join the bill, but acknowledged that most of the ones who might have – such as former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – are already out of Congress.
         What's next: Raskin said the bill is "one on a huge list of priorities" he would have as Oversight Committee chair in a Democratic House majority.
         
         "It's clearly something that we need to focus on," he said."
         
         In my view, this seems like a deliberate manipulation of our Congress, with this recent tactic undermining the electorate's voice at the ballot box by granting Congress authority beyond the Constitution's bounds. What type of government engages in such actions? Should I explicitly label it? It's notable that no one involved in the January 6th riot or Trump has been accused or found guilty of an insurrection. Personally, I believe it would be more beneficial for Congress to pass a bill requiring all presidential candidates to undergo a comprehensive cognitive skills test. The Democratic party appears unconcerned about their candidate's cognitive limitations, despite evident poor job performance, and seems content to place someone unfit for the role in office.
         
         This is such a dangerous time for our Nation, I just hope the majority of Americans will wake up to this fact.
         
         I trust that the voices of We The People will persist in being heard through our votes. Personally, I am dissatisfied with Congress determining who can and cannot run for president.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Personally, I am dissatisfied with Congress determining who can and cannot run for president."
            
            Well the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado ballot case did just that...
            
            It was barely reported in the media that the four women justices wrote separate opinions.   Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan joined on one  while Coney Barrett wrote her own.
            
            All justices agreed that states could not go It alone in disqualifying a candidate from the ballot but the women justices agreed that the others took it another step to far.
            
            They declared that only Congress may enforce the insurrection clause against federal candidates. How, exactly? The majority says that Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. Such procedures, of course, do not exist today. And without them, the majority insists, in just a few paragraphs of sparse reasoning, the insurrection clause cannot be enforced against office seekers.
            
            The women Justices took aim at the others claim that the insurrection clause requires enabling legislation by Congress when the remainder of the 14th Amendment, indeed, all three amendments ratified after the Civil War, is “self-executing” (meaning it does not require congressional action for enforcement). Everyone agrees that Congress need not pass a law to ensure that all persons have due process, equal protection, and freedom from enslavement. Why, the liberals wondered, did the majority create “a special rule” for the insurrection clause alone? They added that the clause does mention congressional action, but only to say that Congress may lift a disqualification by two-thirds vote: “It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation.”
            
            They  point out, the majority’s sweeping Congress-only approach “forecloses judicial enforcement” of the insurrection clause.
            
            They went on..
            
            "Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. 
            
            Justice Barrett wrote a separate opinion expressing her disapproval of the majority’s overreach. She agreed the court’s final decision went beyond the scope of what judges were asked to do,  She held that the case didn't require the court to "address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced." but declining to say more because “the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” So, in effect, Anderson is a 5–4 decision, with a bare majority effectively repealing the insurrection clause for federal officeholders. The 4 justices disapproving citations to Bush v. Gore and Dobbs give a sense of how disastrously they believe the majority went astray.
            
            https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we … t-decision
            
            https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … allot-ban/

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               "They stated that only Congress has the authority to enforce the insurrection clause against federal candidates."
               
               Indeed, the term "impeachment" has been used thus far — oh yes, they've already attempted to impeach Trump with the insurrection ploy.  It seems they're in search of a new strategy, scheme, or witch hunt. I won't delve into my negative opinion of the Democrats in Washington. 
               
               How can anyone justify or support these actions? While the Supreme Court has deferred to the Senate to amend our Constitution, they seemed unwilling to... Does this not escape your notice? It would seem you feel the Constitution should be amended as needed for a given political ploy. I guess this would bode well for both parties in the end.  Is the form of the mindset that has the country in such bad shape.  In my view, I see weaponization at all branches.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "It would seem you feel the Constitution should be amended as needed for a given political ploy."
                  
                  No, five members of the Supreme Court just guaranteed that.  And they overreached beyond the question that was put before them to decide to give Congress that power. 
                  They went down a path in which they were not invited and in my opinion we are likely to see a very messy fallout as a result.
                  
                  Raskin, like many others feel that the Supreme Court punted.  He clearly believes the other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment are self-executing, as do many other constitutional scholars. So what is he doing? Essentially he is taking up the Supreme Court's ruling and basically saying to them "challenge accepted"
                  
                  Shouldn't our country have legislation that says  someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section Three of the 14th Amendment?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Trump didn't, so that is an irrelevant matter.
                     
                     There was no insurrection by Trump, there was no Russian conspiracy by Trump.
                     
                     Trump is just in the way of those intent on changing the country for the worse... just like we have seen from the Biden Administration for over 3 years... if they get 4 more, there will be no more freedom of speech, there will be no private ownership of property that they cannot seize on a whim (as NY is doing to Trump now)... the people of America will be relegated to nothing more than Serfs.
                     
                     The American people need to wake up now... or it will be a miserable future we all suffer.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        I did not specifically mention Trump. Many here are caught up on the word insurrection when it is the election interference case that will show us if and how Trump acted to subvert the election.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           That is not necessarily true.
                           
                           As with the case where an obscenely unbelievable accuser came forward, and thanks to the change in the law NY made, was able to make an accusation of rape from 26 years ago... where they denied the defense the ability to present evidence.  A case will only prove or disprove what the Judge allows.
                           
                           So, when you have a weaponized justice system, one that is determined to prove guilt to the best of its ability... then the case and its judgement, proves nothing.

                           replyreport
                  2. 80

                     Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "No, five members of the Supreme Court just guaranteed that.  And they overreached beyond the question that was put before them to decide to give Congress that power. "
                     
                     They did not give Congress the power, they simply were truthful, and reminded Congress they had the power to tweak the Constitution. They were not willing to tweak it.
                     
                     The Supreme Court did not find it Constitutional to remove Trump's name from ballots. They found it unconstitutionally.
                     
                     Yes, Congress has the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. According to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, there are a couple of methods by which they can amend it.
                      
                     While the Supreme Court's interpretations can have significant implications for how the Constitution is understood and applied, it cannot amend or change the Constitution itself. Only Congress, through the amendment process outlined in Article V of the Constitution, has the power to propose amendments, which must then be ratified by the states.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                        "it cannot amend or change the Constitution itself. "
                        
                        Didn't they though?
                        
                        Essentially the meaning of this judgment by SCOTUS is: Congress may, by its deliberate omission to enact an enforcing legislation, erase any constitutional rule.  How non-democratic.   
                        
                        It was an overreach. The conservative male  justices went  too far by suggesting that Congress must pass legislation before Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be enforced.
                        
                        They overstepped and answered a question in which they were not asked to consider. 
                        
                        Barrett  wrote in her  concurring opinion that the Court only needed to settle the issue of Colorado’s ability to enforce the insurrectionist ban. “This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced,” 
                        
                        But they did it  anyway.
                        
                        Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson said that although they agree that Colorado itself could not enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, "we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision."
                        
                        Quoting Chief Justice John Roberts in the bombshell Dobbs ruling, the trio said, "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more."
                        
                        I guess Robert's had a change of heart.  Shows a real lack of consistency within this court.
                        
                        The only good news? The court had the opportunity to exonerate Trump and they did not.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                           The case wasn't aimed at exonerating Trump; it centered on a Constitutional issue regarding a state's authority to remove a candidate from a ballot, raising questions of constitutionality. From my perspective, the Supreme Court addressed the matter in a lawful and rational manner, emphasizing its role in interpreting rather than altering the Constitution. Regarding the process of amending the Constitution, an amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress or by a convention if requested by two-thirds of the states. Subsequently, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or conventions called in each state for ratification.
                           
                           “In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” the Maryland representative continued. “And so I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Jamie Raskin
                           
                           From my perspective, this represents excessive governmental intervention and a violation of our Constitution.

                           replyreport
      2. 94

         Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         Couldn't happen.
         
         President is sworn into office before the new congress is seated.  It will take time for a new congress to set up committees, create legislation, pick a speaker, etc.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            You underestimate the corruption within the system.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               savvydatingposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               Indeed.

               replyreport
      3. 0

         savvydatingposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         As I mentioned before, it is possible that the Democrats will win the House.

         replyreport
6. 62

   Eileen Hughesposted 7 weeks ago

   I am so glad I don't live in America if that idiot gets in

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      We have an entire cabal of idiots running the show now, how much worse could anyone make it?
      
      WWIII?
      
      Biden already has that covered.

      replyreport