November 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, DrPhilly said: That’s one opinion. As opposed to what you're trying to push right now?
November 9, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, VanHammersly said: You have Backup QB Syndrome, Doc. Or maybe I'm just seeing some real risk in sitting put
November 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Paul852 said: As opposed to what you're trying to push right now? Yes, another opposing opinion, correct
November 9, 20232 yr What an idiotic ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court. Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot "There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled. This is the same Chief Justice who said "there may be cause to disqualify Trump from the ballot, but should we?" Should you follow the US Constitution if you find it's lawful to do so?? Yeah, you really should. They said the ruling does not preclude another lawsuit to be brought before the general election. The huge problem with that rationale is that it prevents the Republican Party the ability to nominate an eligible candidate by waiting that long, and the US Supreme Court would surely use that rationale to keep Trump on the ballot. The issue has to be resolved with finality before the primaries in January, IMO
November 9, 20232 yr Just now, Alphagrand said: What an idiotic ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court. Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot "There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled. This is the same Chief Justice who said "there may be cause to disqualify Trump from the ballot, but should we?" Should you follow the US Constitution if you find it's lawful to do so?? Yeah, you really should. They said the ruling does not preclude another lawsuit to be brought before the general election. The huge problem with that rationale is that it prevents the Republican Party the ability to nominate an eligible candidate by waiting that long, and the US Supreme Court would surely use that rationale to keep Trump on the ballot. The issue has to be resolved with finality before the primaries in January, IMO It's actually a good ruling, as far as I can tell. The Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties, so they're free to nominate a person who's not eligible to hold office. No reason why it would have any effect on any ruling made pertaining to the general, which is where he's ineligible, according to the Constitution. If Republicans are dumb enough to nominate someone that can't win, that's their problem, but it's not an issue for the courts.
November 9, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: It's actually a good ruling, as far as I can tell. The Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties, so they're free to nominate a person who's not eligible to hold office. No reason why it would have any effect on any ruling made pertaining to the general, which is where he's ineligible, according to the Constitution. If Republicans are dumb enough to nominate someone that can't win, that's their problem, but it's not an issue for the courts. This I agree with. None of it is an issue for the courts. The Secretaries of State should be deciding, and those who disqualify Trump should have the last word. Unfortunately, none of them have the stones to do it.
November 9, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: disgusting. The groomer patrol is okay with this.
November 9, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Alphagrand said: What an idiotic ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court. Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot "There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled. This is the same Chief Justice who said "there may be cause to disqualify Trump from the ballot, but should we?" Should you follow the US Constitution if you find it's lawful to do so?? Yeah, you really should. They said the ruling does not preclude another lawsuit to be brought before the general election. The huge problem with that rationale is that it prevents the Republican Party the ability to nominate an eligible candidate by waiting that long, and the US Supreme Court would surely use that rationale to keep Trump on the ballot. The issue has to be resolved with finality before the primaries in January, IMO This is exactly how Trump runs for a 3rd term if he wins.
November 9, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Gannan said: This is exactly how Trump runs for a 3rd term if he wins. Basically, yes. "There's nothing in the statute that prohibits a major party from nominating a candidate at their convention who is ineligible to hold office" Preposterous.
November 10, 20232 yr 21 hours ago, Alphagrand said: What an idiotic ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court. Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses ‘insurrection clause’ challenge and allows Trump on primary ballot "There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled. This is the same Chief Justice who said "there may be cause to disqualify Trump from the ballot, but should we?" Should you follow the US Constitution if you find it's lawful to do so?? Yeah, you really should. They said the ruling does not preclude another lawsuit to be brought before the general election. The huge problem with that rationale is that it prevents the Republican Party the ability to nominate an eligible candidate by waiting that long, and the US Supreme Court would surely use that rationale to keep Trump on the ballot. The issue has to be resolved with finality before the primaries in January, IMO They punted the issue. I watched the argument before the court. They didn't want to be the first state to do it. They also stated that they could bring this case back again. They did not issue an Opinion. I look for Michigan or Colorado to be first. Then Scotus will get to decide.
November 10, 20232 yr Retarded Trumpbots: "EEif Truumppp hAD PuLLEd ouT of AphghanEEEstan it woooD'vE GoN SmooooThERRR!" The Reality: Quote Macgregor advised McEntee the priority should be the Afghanistan withdrawal and that it should be put in a presidential directive. But when McEntee couldn't figure out how to draft such a document, Macgregor told him and his assistant "to open a cabinet, find an old presidential decision memorandum, and copy it," Karl writes. "Easy enough," Karl reports. McEntee and his assistant "wrote up the order, had the president sign it, and sent it over to Kash Patel, the new acting defense secretary's chief of staff." Miller met with Milley and others to discuss next steps, but Milley quickly questioned who had given Trump such military advice. When no one could say where it came from, he and Miller went to the White House for answers, Karl writes. When Milley asked O'Brien, Trump's national security adviser, where the document came from, O'Brien said he'd never seen it before. Also at that meeting was Vice President Mike Pence's national security adviser Keith Kellogg, who looked at the order and told the room: "This doesn't look right," according to the excerpts. "'You're telling me that thing is forged?' Milley responded in disbelief, Karl writes. 'That's a forged piece of paper directing a military operation by the president of the United States? That's forged, Keith?'" Milley said, according to the excerpts. The group eventually asked Trump directly, who confirmed he'd signed it. O'Brien then told Trump it "would be very bad," Karl writes, and advised him not to follow through with the directive. "As soon as he realized an Afghanistan withdrawal would require more work than having McEntee scribble up a note, he dropped it entirely," Karl reports. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-book-details-chaos-trump-aide-start-afghanistan/story?id=104765470 TLDR: waning days of 2020, Trump's people forged a document and had him sign it commanding a pullout from Afghanistan with no direction whatsoever and no military advisement. The actual, for real dumbest people on the planet were in charge of our government. It's a Christmas miracle that any of us are still alive.
November 10, 20232 yr 45 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Retarded Trumpbots: "EEif Truumppp hAD PuLLEd ouT of AphghanEEEstan it woooD'vE GoN SmooooThERRR!" The Reality: TLDR: waning days of 2020, Trump's people forged a document and had him sign it commanding a pullout from Afghanistan with no direction whatsoever and no military advisement. The actual, for real dumbest people on the planet were in charge of our government. It's a Christmas miracle that any of us are still alive. JFC
November 11, 20232 yr Well, it's a day ending in Y so not shocked. And I'm sure the charity is his defense fund... Donald Trump May Have Just Broken the Law Donald Trump may have violated his federal indictment by auctioning off a priceless gun from his collection at Mar-a-Lago. Last weekend, an auction held at his Florida home saw the item, described as "a one of a kind Trump Glock from the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump," go up for bidding during a charity event. Pictures circulating on social media show the gun being presented at the auction, with news website Meidas Touch saying that bidding for the item began at $10,000. However, the transaction could land the former U.S. president in considerable trouble, given that federal law prohibits those under indictment from transacting firearms.
November 13, 20232 yr On 11/11/2023 at 9:41 AM, Tweek said: Well, it's a day ending in Y so not shocked. And I'm sure the charity is his defense fund... Donald Trump May Have Just Broken the Law Donald Trump may have violated his federal indictment by auctioning off a priceless gun from his collection at Mar-a-Lago. Last weekend, an auction held at his Florida home saw the item, described as "a one of a kind Trump Glock from the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump," go up for bidding during a charity event. Pictures circulating on social media show the gun being presented at the auction, with news website Meidas Touch saying that bidding for the item began at $10,000. However, the transaction could land the former U.S. president in considerable trouble, given that federal law prohibits those under indictment from transacting firearms. So Trump did buy a gun on the campaign trail in violation of his Bond and the Law. If this was Hunter Biden he would already be arrested.
November 13, 20232 yr https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maryanne-trump-barry-older-sister-donald-trump-died/story?id=104846289 Donnie's older sister died this morning. So far, this is his only Truth he's posted.
Create an account or sign in to comment