U.S. Federal Elections 2024, Presidential, Senate and U.S. House of Representatives

[R011]

52 minutes ago, Josh said:

How would you describe the bill then?

ETA: feel free to characterize the IVF bill that was also just blocked. I am unaware of why the legislation would be controversial.

Not by lying about what the bill was for and what actual effect the Republican vote had.  The actual headline was accurate, if phrased in a partisan manner.

[Skywalkre]

On 6/13/2024 at 1:39 PM, rmgill said:

Where does Biden exhibit that precisely?

So you argue about what Trump says should have been done as more strong than the unconstitutional acts Biden has actually committed? 

That seems rather silly. 

(since I presume you will be blissfully unaware aware of these, I will cite a few examples

1. Federal gun control regs and law, proposed and implemented

2. CDC imposition of regs outside of its statutory legal authority

3. student loan forgiveness absent laws allowing same

4. DACA

5. making gender Identity part of what constitutes protected classes under the CRA

6. federal violations of the CRA on the basis of race and in violation of the equal protections clause for federal hiring practices 

So many thoughts come to mind after reading this...

First, this may be difficult for you to hear (so you might want to sit down), but you're not the arbiter of what's constitutional.  We have a system in place for that already - the courts.  Every POTUS and their administration in my lifetime has lost court cases for decisions they've made.  This doesn't make said administrations actors in blatant unconstitutional acts. 

If that were the case, and Biden was acting so blatantly unconstitutional as you claim, why haven't the Rs focused on that in order to justify impeachment?  Instead, they've been focusing on... well, they're desperately trying to find something for years now and keep coming up empty-handed.

The key here is that when the courts rule against them they abide by those rulings.  Biden's administration is no different here than the ones that came before it.

Second, the instances above, despite what some on TN like you might want to think, deal with nuanced areas of the law.  The two possible things Trump and the MAGA crowd think Pence could have accomplished on 6Jan have no nuance about them - they were both blatantly illegal and outside of what the Constitution says.  Pence didn't have the authority to stop the process nor did he have the authority to take fake electors.

This leads to the third point.  Do you have any principle?  No, I'm seriously asking this.  You get all pissy over a D doing D stuff that's in the bounds of our system but just shrug at the notion of a R POTUS, so fucking far up his own ass that he can't stand the notion he lost an election, trying to subvert the will of the people and the Constitution.  That... that is something you, Trump, and the MAGA crowd are ok with just shrugging off?  Here's a crazy thought - it's ok to criticize someone with an R behind their name if they do something blatantly stupid!  No, I'm serious, you won't be sent to R jail or be locked out of refreshments after the meeting if you do.

Seriously, it's hard to take you all seriously when you rant and rave about Ds nonstop and just turn a blind eye to a blatantly unconstitutional, farcical, and illegal act that Trump wanted done.

[Josh]

On 6/13/2024 at 5:34 PM, R011 said:

Not by lying about what the bill was for and what actual effect the Republican vote had.  The actual headline was accurate, if phrased in a partisan manner.

Enlighten me. Why did republicans not pass those bills? Spell it out. How were they immoral or unfair? Why did they need to be struck down? IVF and contraception I would think are acceptable practices; what democrat loop hole that was unfair or illegal under pinned this legislation?

Edited June 15 by Josh

[Josh]

On 6/13/2024 at 5:06 PM, rmgill said:

Also, Joe has a long senate career. His votes for any number of bits of federl legislation also counts. From the CDA to US v Lopez.  

You seem to associate senator votes with violating the constitution. Could you explain?

Edited June 15 by Josh

[R011]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Enlighten me. Why did republicans not pass those bills? Spell it out. How were they immoral or unfair? Why did they need to be struck down? IVF and contraception I would think are acceptable practices; what democrat loop hole that was unfair or illegal under pinned this legislation?

No.  I don't have to explain why they voted that way not much care.  You made a deliberately inaccurate statement and got caught.

[Josh]

47 minutes ago, R011 said:

No.  I don't have to explain why they voted that way not much care.  You made a deliberately inaccurate statement and got caught.

So you wil not defend your position; fine. Do not bother making a statement in the future.

Edited June 16 by Josh

[rmgill]

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

So many thoughts come to mind after reading this...

First, this may be difficult for you to hear (so you might want to sit down), but you're not the arbiter of what's constitutional.

No that’d be the Supreme Court. And lower courts in some cases. 
 

The communications dececy act was unconstitutional. 
 

Biden voted for it. 
here’s the roll call vote. 
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1041/vote_104_1_00268.htm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00268

I am pretty sure Biden voted for the Brady bill. Two parts of that were unconstitutional. see Printz v US and US v Lopez. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

  We have a system in place for that already - the courts.  Every POTUS and their administration in my lifetime has lost court cases for decisions they've made.  This doesn't make said administrations actors in blatant unconstitutional acts. 

Then how the hell does anyone make such an argument about Trump?

 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

If that were the case, and Biden was acting so blatantly unconstitutional as you claim, why haven't the Rs focused on that in order to justify impeachment? 

Because the Democrats want those unconstitutional laws and won’t vote for impeachment. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

 

Instead, they've been focusing on... well, they're desperately trying to find something for years now and keep coming up empty-handed.

 

Criminal acts like influence pedaling is more appropo for impeachment. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

The key here is that when the courts rule against them they abide by those rulings.  Biden's administration is no different here than the ones that came before it.

Not in the case of US v Lopez. 
 

And what part of Biden’s gun control agenda conforms with Bruen?  

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

Second, the instances above, despite what some on TN like you might want to think, deal with nuanced areas of the law.  The two possible things Trump and the MAGA crowd think Pence could have accomplished on 6Jan have no nuance about them - they were both blatantly illegal and outside of what the Constitution says. 

Oh, so now you get to decide this and ignore your own dictates. How curious. However, I can read the same as you and I can assert that the Brady act is unconstitutional. 
 

I can further assert, rather reliably I think, the Biden’s desire to ban 400 round shell magazines and Ar-15s is unconstitutional in the face of Bruen, McDonald and Heller as well as an informed reading of the 2nd amendment. Same as congress shall make no law, is as clear as shall not be infringed. 

 

 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

Pence didn't have the authority to stop the process nor did he have the authority to take fake electors.

Biden doesn’t have the authority to just allocate money to pay for student loans. Yet he’s doing it anyhow. He didn’t have the authority to dictate everyone take a vaccine, yet he did so anyhow. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

This leads to the third point.  Do you have any principle?  No, I'm seriously asking this.  You get all pissy over a D doing D stuff that's in the bounds of our system but just shrug at the notion of a R POTUS, so fucking far up his own ass that he can't stand the notion he lost an election, trying to subvert the will of the people and the Constitution.

Al Gore. Go back and review that court battle. That went to the Supreme Court. Was anyone charged with a crime for the specious legal arguments fronted? Did we not here years of bitching and moaning from the Democrats about Scalia after that? 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

  That... that is something you, Trump, and the MAGA crowd are ok with just shrugging off? 

I’m generally ok with the MAGA objectives. The am not ok with the Commie objectives of the DNC. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

Here's a crazy thought - it's ok to criticize someone with an R behind their name if they do something blatantly stupid! 

Yes. And the bump stock ban was suitably killed by SCOTUS. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

No, I'm serious, you won't be sent to R jail or be locked out of refreshments after the meeting if you do.

Now. Try the same about the commie democrats please. 

On 6/14/2024 at 8:37 PM, Skywalkre said:

Seriously, it's hard to take you all seriously when you rant and rave about Ds nonstop and just turn a blind eye to a blatantly unconstitutional, farcical, and illegal act that Trump wanted done.

Wanted done but didn’t do because someone in his administration talked him off the wall is different than what Biden DID do because the commies in his administration see zero end to Congressional or Federal authority. 
 

 

Edited June 16 by rmgill

[R011]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

So you wil not defend your position; fine. Do not bother making a statement in the future.

My defence is the article you linked to and your post misrepresenting what it said.

[rmgill]

21 hours ago, Josh said:

You seem to associate senator votes with violating the constitution. Could you explain?

If I vote for or craft a bill that is unlawful I have in effect performed acts that are unlawful. And in the case of US v Lopez, they, congress, doubled down. 

The congressional votes are part of the process. The president signing is also part of the process. 
 

Perhaps you missed this?

 

Trump merely proposed policies and actions and you and others clutched at your pearls like a victorian dowager. 

 

Also, the way the PPACA was passed by the democrats effects a very dubious act of legislative bait and switch bordering on fraud. Gutting a bill that has passed the house and inserting entirely different language is in effect bypassing the house’s legislative process. If I did that with a contract already signed by one party, it would be  straight up fraud. 

Edited June 16 by rmgill

[Josh]

3 hours ago, R011 said:

My defence is the article you linked to and your post misrepresenting what it said.

You cannot spare one sentence for why I am wrong?

[17thfabn]

On 6/11/2024 at 2:08 PM, Skywalkre said:

Saw a report last week that the top four contenders for VP are Burgum, Scott, Vance, and Rubio

I think picking a sitting Senator is a mistake..... unless they are from a state where it is an almost automatic that they will be replaced and in the election to fill the term will stay on your side. The Senate is too close to potentially give up a seat. 

In that regard V.P. Harris was an ok pick because the Democrats pretty much new they could hold onto her spot in the Senate. 

I've heard interviews with Burgam. He seems very sharp. I don't know what his TLQ  "Trump Loyalty Quotient" is. 

[17thfabn]

The Trump vs. Biden race is succeeding in unifying the American people! A record number of us hate them both!

Record Number of Americans Hate Both Major Presidential Candidates: Poll

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/record-number-of-americans-hate-both-major-presidential-candidates-poll/

 

[rmgill]

Meanwhile on CNN...
 

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

I think picking a sitting Senator is a mistake..... unless they are from a state where it is an almost automatic that they will be replaced and in the election to fill the term will stay on your side. The Senate is too close to potentially give up a seat.

all of those seats are heavily red leaning; there should be no problem filling them. However, the choice of Rubio would actually deny the vice president Floridas electoral votes, which has a small chance of potentially splitting the ticket between Trump and Harris.

 

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

I've heard interviews with Burgam. He seems very sharp. I don't know what his TLQ  "Trump Loyalty Quotient" is. 

Perhaps importantly he has never been on the wrong side of Trump, where as most of the other possibilities at one point or the other bad mouthed him. Not sure if he’s made enough of the right noises to be selected, but he might be an attractive choice just because of how completely unknown he is.

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

all of those seats are heavily red leaning; there should be no problem filling them. However, the choice of Rubio would actually deny the vice president Floridas electoral votes, which has a small chance of potentially splitting the ticket between Trump and Harris.

 

Ohio (Vance) is Republican leaning, but not a guaranteed Republican win for senator replacement. 

Vance doesn't bring anything directorial. Ohio is all but sure to go to Trump in November. And Vance is a very junior senator and political new comer. 

[Josh]

1 minute ago, 17thfabn said:

Ohio (Vance) is Republican leaning, but not a guaranteed Republican win for senator replacement. 

Vance doesn't bring anything directorial. Ohio is all but sure to go to Trump in November. And Vance is a very junior senator and political new comer. 

I think it is also important to note that Trump has minimal interest in the composition of Congress outside loyalty to him. He likely is not concerned with GOP control of the senate, or at least his 2022 picks seem to indicate so. I think he would gladly burn a senate seat to have his top choice.

I would say Rubio has a unique position in being popular in the Miami-Dade district as a Hispanic, and if I were a GOP strategist I would not want to risk that. Vance is easy to replace.

[Skywalkre]

On 6/15/2024 at 7:33 PM, rmgill said:

I’m generally ok with the MAGA objectives. The am not ok with the Commie objectives of the DNC.

I was going to go into a more detailed reply but this quote sums up the major issue (and I can't believe you actually said it out loud)...

On 6Jan Trump at best wanted his VP to stop/reject the certification of the election.  No serious Constitutional scholar thinks the VP has the power to do this.  On top of this this rejection was based on the notion the election was fraudulent, which at the time there was no evidence of and going on four years later there is still no evidence.  At worst Trump (per the various charges in several states) was hoping for Pence to take fake electors and overturn the election in his favor.

There's no wiggle room or nuance involved in these.  The blatant illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional moves should be troubling to everyone... but the MAGA crowd and most of the R party just shrugs their shoulders.  Why?  Well, you said it yourself - it's the objectives that matter, not the principle nor process.

Just... sad...

[Skywalkre]

8 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I think picking a sitting Senator is a mistake..... unless they are from a state where it is an almost automatic that they will be replaced and in the election to fill the term will stay on your side. The Senate is too close to potentially give up a seat. 

In that regard V.P. Harris was an ok pick because the Democrats pretty much new they could hold onto her spot in the Senate. 

I've heard interviews with Burgam. He seems very sharp. I don't know what his TLQ  "Trump Loyalty Quotient" is. 

If he's in the final four, per some sources, it has to be fairly high.  Scott may have disqualified himself this weekend by stating he stands by his decision to certify Biden back in '20.  It's troubling how far some of these potential VP picks are going in showing support for Trump.  I saw a clip of at least one stating she would have tried to exercise authority the VP doesn't have by not certifying back in '20 if she were in Pence's shoes (this should be incredibly troubling to everyone that some of these folks are so devoted to Trump that what the Constitution says is irrelevant... hell, they've probably never even read it).

 

ETA - Highlighting how petty Trump is, and how loyalty to him is above everything else, there's apparently a primary coming up somewhere on the East coast where the sitting R congressman's challenger was endorsed by Trump.  Why?  The congressman had the audacity to endorse DeSantis back at the start of the presidential primary campaign.

Edited June 18 by Skywalkre

[rmgill]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

I was going to go into a more detailed reply but this quote sums up the major issue (and I can't believe you actually said it out loud)...

Sorry, you don't want the US to be great again? Why is that? 

What's your objection? Why are you against opposing out the shadow communists? Do you deny that there is such a vein at all? 
 

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

On 6Jan Trump at best wanted his VP to stop/reject the certification of the election.  No serious Constitutional scholar thinks the VP has the power to do this.

And yet the system worked didn't it? You're VERY big on "the system worked, what are you complaining about?"

Trump is an amateur at government he only vaguely understands the constitutional workings of government. Sort of Like how AOC does. Overall, his objectives are not out of line with presidential direction. 

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

  On top of this this rejection was based on the notion the election was fraudulent, which at the time there was no evidence of and going on four years later there is still no evidence.

For fuck sake, if I had a dollar for every time the left said Trump was falsely elected. So cut it out as your prime objection over Trump already. We had nearly 4 years of Hillary Bitching she was wronged and your side chorusing on along. 

 

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

There's no wiggle room or nuance involved in these.  The blatant illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional moves should be troubling to everyone... but the MAGA crowd and most of the R party just shrugs their shoulders.  Why?  Well, you said it yourself - it's the objectives that matter, not the principle nor process.

Again, the system worked. And it didn't take a 4 year court battle to establish did it? The count went on within a couple of hours. 

On the other hand, what feds have been arrested and charged for contriving to have the government control private speech through proxy censorship? Does any legal scholar think that hiring a third party to do what government cannot do by VERY boilerplate and clear constitutional restrictions is legal at all?   By implications, and observations it's STILL going on. 

So, riddle me that?  So, I get it, you're not ok with the US being more exceptional and sorting out the issues Trump wants to sort out. Are you also copacetic with government directed censorship? 
 

Edited June 18 by rmgill

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Sorry, you don't want the US to be great again? Why is that? 

What's your objection? Why are you against opposing out the shadow communists? Do you deny that there is such a vein at all? 
 

And yet the system worked didn't it? You're VERY big on "the system worked, what are you complaining about?"

Trump is an amateur at government he only vaguely understands the constitutional workings of government. Sort of Like how AOC does. Overall, his objectives are not out of line with presidential direction. 

For fuck sake, if I had a dollar for every time the left said Trump was falsely elected. So cut it out as your prime objection over Trump already. We had nearly 4 years of Hillary Bitching she was wronged and your side chorusing on along. 

 

Again, the system worked. And it didn't take a 4 year court battle to establish did it? The count went on within a couple of hours. 

On the other hand, what feds have been arrested and charged for contriving to have the government control private speech through proxy censorship? Does any legal scholar think that hiring a third party to do what government cannot do by VERY boilerplate and clear constitutional restrictions is legal at all?   By implications, and observations it's STILL going on. 

So, riddle me that?  So, I get it, you're not ok with the US being more exceptional and sorting out the issues Trump wants to sort out. Are you also copacetic with government directed censorship? 
 

This entire post amounts to ‘it’s ok that Trump committed treason because he was unsuccessful. Besides, he’s ignorant. Plus, I do not like democrats and I want to override their policies even if I have to work around the constitution to do that’.

I am sure the founding fathers would reciprocate…

Edited June 18 by Josh

[rmgill]

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

This entire post amounts to ‘it’s ok that Trump committed treason

Full stop.  How the hell is it treason? 
 

Justify the assertion. 

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

Besides, he’s ignorant. 

So are you. Trump still has a better idea of what ails the nation. And has a better sense of supreme court nominees than the other past 2 presidents did. 
 

Sotomayor can’t follow a simple technical explanation as simple as a pivot. KJB doesn’t know what a woman was but was chosen because she’s a woman. 

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

 

Plus, I do not like democrats and I want to override their policies even if I have to work around the constitution to do that’.

Again, Trump is new at this government thing. He’s had folks to talk him off the wall. What’s Biden’s excuse vis a vis firing shotguns in the air, the need to have own F-15s and 400 round shell clips that you have no need to own? What’s his excuse? 
 

In the post Bruen legal setting what’s any democrat’s excuse on firearms laws? 

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

I am sure the founding fathers would reciprocate…

Perhaps Trump could challenge Biden to a duel like Hamilton over points of argument. It would be a harder lift for Biden than empty threats of throwing some ticktocker’s phone. 

[Josh]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Full stop.  How the hell is it treason? 
 

Justify the assertion. 

That is how I would characterize an attempt to overturn the duly elected representatives of the US, even if a foreign government was not involved. The specific reason Smith did not charge Trump with Insurrection is because nothing Trump personally did was violent, and the legal description explicitly describes it as a violent act.

If Biden had Trump murdered to win the election, would you not consider that treason of some flavor? Would you think that Biden should get immunity?

 

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

So are you. Trump still has a better idea of what ails the nation. And has a better sense of supreme court nominees than the other past 2 presidents did.

Sotomayor can’t follow a simple technical explanation as simple as a pivot. KJB doesn’t know what a woman was but was chosen because she’s a woman. 

I have no doubt some of the country feels that way; I also have no doubt that those people are in the minority and have been in the last two elections. Any way, all I did was quote you:

"Trump is an amateur at government he only vaguely understands the constitutional workings of government"

You thrown that out there as some kind of excuse for overturning the government or any failure he might have encountered when in office, when in fact it is a weakness that makes him minimally less fit for the job, particularly as he seems to have no interest in learning anything.

 

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Again, Trump is new at this government thing. He’s had folks to talk him off the wall. What’s Biden’s excuse vis a vis firing shotguns in the air, the need to have own F-15s and 400 round shell clips that you have no need to own? What’s his excuse?

I think they are both unfit. You just seem to live in some kind of la la land where Trump is innocent of all crimes and more capable than Biden.

 

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

In the post Bruen legal setting what’s any democrat’s excuse on firearms laws?

Anyone who wants to contest any other firearm law can take it back to the supreme court. I personally consider the entire current standing interpretation of the 2nd amendment flawed. But in any case, as you love to point out, there is a system for that, so making a law of arguable constitutionality is not in and of itself a violation of the constitution or even an attempt to do so, else most every representative from both sides would end up locked up eventually.

You are equating laws you do not like that can be overturned by the SCOTUS with someone overturning the entire executive branch, and some how do not see the difference.

 

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Perhaps Trump could challenge Biden to a duel like Hamilton over points of argument. It would be a harder lift for Biden than empty threats of throwing some ticktocker’s phone. 

I would honestly love that outcome, one way or another.

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

That is how I would characterize an attempt to overturn the duly elected representatives of the US, even if a foreign government was not involved.
 

Well, it isn’t treason, because that is VERY clearly defined in the US constitution. 
 

Note the ‘shall consist only’ predicate.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court

3 hours ago, Josh said:

 

The specific reason Smith did not charge Trump with Insurrection is because nothing Trump personally did was violent, and the legal description explicitly describes it as a violent act.

Welcome to how law works in a free society vs a Society where folks like you can claim guilt for crimes you don’t even understand. 
 

That is a prime example of rule of law over rule of man. 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

If Biden had Trump murdered to win the election, would you not consider that treason of some flavor? Would you think that Biden should get immunity?

No, because Treason is clearly defined. 
 

It would be murder, possibly a bunch of other federal crimes, at lease some civil rights violations (deprivation of rights under color of law Section 1983 or some such of I think title 40).

 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I have no doubt some of the country feels that way; I also have no doubt that those people are in the minority and have been in the last two elections. Any way, all I did was quote you:

 

I am sure you have your finger on a pulse. Who’s remains to be seen.  

3 hours ago, Josh said:

"Trump is an amateur at government he only vaguely understands the constitutional workings of government"

You thrown that out there as some kind of excuse for overturning the government or any failure he might have encountered when in office, when in fact it is a weakness that makes him minimally less fit for the job, particularly as he seems to have no interest in learning anything.

 

There’s a constant tension of what is legal and not. Yet the Dems have no trouble declaring someone guilty of a crime and moving to remove them from a ballot. Was that Treason in your book? 
 

You do understand why its illegal to vote someone guilty as a government act outside a court room right? Do you know what a bill of attainder is? 

 

Whats Obama’s excuse for spying on the Trump campaign? Or for having federal agents argue that a court hearing isn’t necessary for a fine to be levied? (See Sackett v EPA) 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I think they are both unfit. You just seem to live in some kind of la la land where Trump is innocent of all crimes and more capable than Biden.

You’re guilty of 10 crimes right now. I probably am too. There’s a reason the right is pushing back. 
 

 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Anyone who wants to contest any other firearm law can take it back to the supreme court.

The court has spoken. How many times do we need to explain Bruen? 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

 

I personally consider the entire current standing interpretation of the 2nd amendment flawed.

Sorry, you don’t even understand Treason and its clearly defined. Your interpretation of the 2nd is probably as bad as AOC’s.  You’re welcome prove me wrong though.  

3 hours ago, Josh said:

But in any case, as you love to point out, there is a system for that,

That’s skywalkre who likes to do that. I don’t think we need to gave to tell government the same thing over and over again when there’s clear case law. 
 

After a certain point, I think cops and officials need to be charged with felonies for deprivation of rights under color of law. 

 

3 hours ago, Josh said:

You are equating laws you do not like that can be overturned by the SCOTUS with someone overturning the entire executive branch, and some how do not see the difference.

No I am pointing out that your argument that Trump violated the constitution is a special and unique case is bull crap and that Biden has been doing it for decades.

I still remember how the left and the media was mad that Trump was  NOT using declaratory fiat to control the economy and people during COVID. I was walking across the atrium level at CNN laughing ay the report and complaints that Trump was a tyrant for NOT forcing the states to all do the same thing  and not nationalizing the economy to control production. 

Also can you explain the difference in penalties for violating one section of the constitution as compared to another? 
 

 

 

[Skywalkre]

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

And yet the system worked didn't it? You're VERY big on "the system worked, what are you complaining about?"

Trump is an amateur at government he only vaguely understands the constitutional workings of government. Sort of Like how AOC does. Overall, his objectives are not out of line with presidential direction.

That's the best you can come up with to defend Trump's actions?!  So if someone conspires (note that word... almost like it's in most of his charges in the DC filing) to commit a crime and fails... they should never be charged?

It's not just you, the R party as a whole either has no good answer or just troubling answers like this.  You do know Stefanik has said that if she was in Pence's place on 6Jan she would have not certified (so even if that was tried and failed... that'd still be ok?).  It's just remarkable, and terrifying, that that statement from her hasn't been met with derision from the entire R party.  A party, that growing up, was all about upholding and defending the Constitution... now is quite fine with tossing that aside because all that matters is the 'objectives' and defeating 'the other side'.

FFS...

[Skywalkre]

On 6/17/2024 at 1:09 PM, 17thfabn said:

The Trump vs. Biden race is succeeding in unifying the American people! A record number of us hate them both!

Record Number of Americans Hate Both Major Presidential Candidates: Poll

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/record-number-of-americans-hate-both-major-presidential-candidates-poll/

 

To build off this...

What worries me is that whoever wins this Nov will proceed to think they have support for their 'agenda' from the people, will miss what's actually driving the electorate, and will only further piss off what is clearly a dissatisfied population.

If Biden wins it has nothing to do with him and everything to do with him not being Trump.  If Trump wins it has everything to do with so many Americans desperately hoping for change in a country where more and more are falling behind and the American dream is effectively dead (even though, that trend continued downwards under Trump last time as well).

I have a feeling whichever side wins will get absolutely hammered in the midterms and the following Presidential election because nothing will change, yet again.