Election 2024 & Presidential Cage Match: Dark Brandon 46 vs Felonious Farty 45

[88Comrade2000]

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

Is your ChatGPT broken or somethin?

No labels claims to be an alternative to Biden and Trump.  Though their funding is secret and it’s suspected that Trump supporting donors are funding them.

 

They plan on running a ticket with  Dem/Repub. So one would prez and one would be veep. Joe and Larry are with No Labels and could run on a No Label ticket next year.

Edited September 5, 2023 by 88Comrade2000

[Renegade7]

51 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

No labels claims to be an alternative to Biden and Trump.  Though their funding is secret and it’s suspected that Trump supporting donors are funding them.

 

They plan on running a ticket with  Dem/Repub. So one would prez and one would be veep. Joe and Larry are with No Labels and could run on a No Label ticket next year.

 

The concept doesn't keep the convo honest.

 

A big federal government candidate and small federal government candidate can't be on the ticket together.

 

It sounds good, but those fundamental cores have been butting heads since our founding so acting like they don't exist then just putting them in the same ticket like it doesn't matter isn't fixing anything.

 

The idea is to find compromises between the two ideologies, not pretending they don't exist out of frustration we struggling to make them now.

[PleaseBlitz]

No Labels exists to take a few thousand or ten thousand votes away from Joe Biden in the critical swing states and hand a victory to Trump.  They are trying to trick low information voters into voting for them by claiming to be moderates, despite the entire organization being full of life-long partisan politicians and funded by dark money. They have no chance of actually winning, and they all know it. 

 

Here is a good analysis by Never-Trump Republicans who dislike Biden but view Trump as an existential threat to American democracy:

 

www.thebulwark.com/how-the-no-labels-gambit-could-wreck-the-2024-election/

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[The Evil Genius]

Personally, I don't think someone who votes for a No Labels candidate was ever going to vote for Biden (absent that No Labels candidate).

Edited September 5, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Personally, I think anyone voting for a No Labels candidate was not going to ever vote for Biden. 

 

I mean, I think there are plenty of people that think Biden is too old, but view Trump as an asshole and a criminal, and so would vote for Biden if those were the two choices, but if presented with a 3rd option that they don't have much information about, would choose the third option. 

[Ball Security]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I mean, I think there are plenty of people that think Biden is too old, but view Trump as an asshole and a criminal, and so would vote for Biden if those were the two choices, but if presented with a 3rd option that they don't have much information about, would choose the third option. 

There’s also a number of people who would never vote for Obama/Hilary/Biden but really don’t like to be associated with Trump.

 

How those two sides balance out, I dunno.
 

It’s different than Nader or Stein on the ballot.

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I mean, I think there are plenty of people that think Biden is too old, but view Trump as an asshole and a criminal, and so would vote for Biden if those were the two choices, but if presented with a 3rd option that they don't have much information about, would choose the third option. 

 

The 3rd option being 5 years younger than Biden (Manchin)? Yeah, those people aren't voting Biden. Ever. They just want an excuse why they voted for an asshole. 

[LadySkinsFan]

6 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

 

 

 

 

A recent Wall Street Journal poll announced that most voters think Joe Biden is too old to be president for a second term—and a 2024 matchup between Biden and Donald Trump would be evenly split. The poll has since been covered across multiple mainstream media outlets, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox.

 

There’s just one problem: The poll was conducted in part by Trump’s former campaign pollster.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-poll-showing-trump-biden-204914227.html

 

 

 

[China]

Member of ‘Tennessee Three’ looks to challenge Blackburn for Senate

 

Tennessee state Rep. Gloria Johnson (D), a member of the “Tennessee Three” who gained national recognition advocating for gun control, announced Tuesday she would launch a bid to unseat Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) in 2024. 

 

Johnson made the announcement Tuesday morning while speaking outside the high school where she previously worked as a teacher. 

 

In a statement, Johnson stressed her experience “fighting for justice,” including her 27 years teaching special education and her efforts to lobby for gun safety legislation in the wake of a school shooting in her state that resulted in the deaths of three children and three adults.

 

“Tennesseans are fed up with corrupt, ‘do nothing’ politicians, like Marsha Blackburn, who has taken millions from the pharmaceutical industry, the NRA and the insurance industry while voting against lowering our drug costs, against bipartisan gun reform, and for denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions,” Johnson said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:59 AM, China said:

 

Another candidate has brought suit:

 

Republican presidential candidate files lawsuit to keep Trump off New Hampshire ballot

 

As challengers for the 2024 Republican nomination struggle to dethrone Donald Trump as the clear frontrunner, a virtually unknown candidate is trying to get the former president disqualified.

 

John Anthony Castro, a Texas-based attorney running a longshot bid for the GOP nomination, filed a lawsuit in Merrimack Superior Court this week seeking an injunction that would force New Hampshire's Secretary of State to keep Trump's name off the ballot.

 

In the court filing, Castro argues Trump violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars anyone who engaged in or provided aid or comfort to an insurrection from holding office.

 

In an interview with News 9, Castro pointed to then-President Trump telling members of the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by" during a 2020 debate ahead of the November election, and his messages posted to social media during the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as instances of "providing comfort" to an insurrection.

 

"We had someone who was watching TV giddy as a school kid, seeing the U.S. Capitol getting attacked," Castro said. "He can't hold any office, local, state or Federal. He can't even get elected in the Palm Beach city council. That's how serious it is."

 

The lawsuit comes as other members of Trump's party, including some in New Hampshire, have raised the argument of Trump's potential ineligibility because of the 14th Amendment.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

 

he legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.

 

The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.

 

Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes."

 

The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, China said:

 

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

 

he legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.

 

The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.

 

Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes."

 

The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Honestly, he shouldn't have to establish standing as a political rival, simply being an American citizen should give you standing.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Honestly, he shouldn't have to establish standing as a political rival, simply being an American citizen should give you standing.

 

As I understand it, "standing" means that one can show that he has been impacted more than the average citizen has been.  

 

Not sure I agree with it.  But that's my understanding.  

 

------

 

And I think if I'm a cowardly USSC justice who doesn't want to touch this political hot potato, I rule that discussions of the 14th are moot, until such time as the subject has been convicted of something that can be claimed as "insurrection or rebellion".  

 

[Simmsy]

5 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Honestly, he shouldn't have to establish standing as a political rival, simply being an American citizen should give you standing.

 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

As I understand it, "standing" means that one can show that he has been impacted more than the average citizen has been.  

 

Not sure I agree with it.  But that's my understanding.  

 

------

 

And I think if I'm a cowardly USSC justice who doesn't want to touch this political hot potato, I rule that discussions of the 14th are moot, until such time as the subject has been convicted of something that can be claimed as "insurrection or rebellion".  

 

 

Haha! Oh, NOW the court cares about standing? Pretty sure they making decisions based on made up cases.

 

This will screw the country, but vitalize the liberal voting base, rule in his favor and lets topple Trump once and for all. You can't force him the people if the people staunchly reject him.

[PleaseBlitz]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

As I understand it, "standing" means that one can show that he has been impacted more than the average citizen has been.  

 

This is not correct.  

 

In general, for a party to establish Article III standing, he must allege (and ultimately prove) that he has a genuine stake in the outcome of the case because he has personally suffered (or will imminently suffer): (1) a concrete and particularized injury; (2) that is traceable to the allegedly unlawful actions of the opposing party; and (3) that is redressable by a favorable judicial decision.

 

Although I agree with @Simmsy that the plaintiff in the "I won't make websites for the gays" case should not have been found to have standing because no gay person ever asked her to make a website for them, but this SCOTUS plays pretty fast and loose with the facts to get to the outcomes it wants. See also Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. 

[LD0506]

Oh tis the season again

 

Football? Nope, polls

 

Polls polls polls polls polls, here a poll, there a poll, everywhere a poll poll

 

And never once anywhere in the process do I see anyone honestly acknowledge the 800lb gorilla in the poll

 

A substantial fraction of the populace is so gut wrenchingly stupid it's a wonder they don't forget to breathe in their sleep

[PokerPacker]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

And I think if I'm a cowardly USSC justice who doesn't want to touch this political hot potato, I rule that discussions of the 14th are moot, until such time as the subject has been convicted of something that can be claimed as "insurrection or rebellion". 

Part of the clause that people aren't giving as much emphasis on is "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".  And with some of the convictions that have been handed out for seditious conspiracy, that gives us a jumping off point.

 

That said, the corrupt supreme court won't care.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

Oh tis the season again

 

Football? Nope, polls

 

Polls polls polls polls polls, here a poll, there a poll, everywhere a poll poll

 

And never once anywhere in the process do I see anyone honestly acknowledge the 800lb gorilla in the poll

 

A substantial fraction of the populace is so gut wrenchingly stupid it's a wonder they don't forget to breathe in their sleep

 

Numerous political pundits who I hold in high regard (David Axelrod, Mike Murphy, Robert Gibbs) all agree that national polls do not matter at this stage of the race. The results from Iowa and NH will set the tone for the rest of the primary, and the general has simply not started yet and too much is going to happen between now and then. 

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

A recent Wall Street Journal poll announced that most voters think Joe Biden is too old to be president for a second term—and a 2024 matchup between Biden and Donald Trump would be evenly split. The poll has since been covered across multiple mainstream media outlets, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox.

 

There’s just one problem: The poll was conducted in part by Trump’s former campaign pollster.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-poll-showing-trump-biden-204914227.html

 

 

I'm not sure why that's a "problem".  It isn't like the poll is a huge outlier. 

 

HarrisX (which was one of the most accurate polling companies last time) on Aug 26 has it as 45% to 44% Biden.

 

Are they suspect now too?  Just because somebody worked for Trump doesn't mean they don't know how to run a poll.

 

YouGov/Economist which don't have a great track record but are generally considered pretty reputable actually have it 44-43% Trump.

 

Unless something significantly changes (and a conviction won't be a significant change), Trump is going to get 40%+ of the popular vote.

 

Generally, dismissing information simply because of the source is badly flawed.

Edited September 6, 2023 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Unless something momentous happens (which doesn't included Trump being convicted), national polls are always going to be meaningless for this election.  It is going to come down to a few states.  Until there is real polling in those states, making a meaningful prediction is impossible.  And I suspect some of those states will be so close even then the polling accuracy will be an issue.

 

I'd love see a landslide, but I just don't see it happening.

 

**EDIT**

What a conviction might do, if it comes early enough in the process, is to open the door for somebody else to the GOP nominee.  That I could see.  But if he's allowed on ballots even with a conviction, Trump is going to get a 40+% of the popular vote.  Unless something else big drops.

Edited September 6, 2023 by PeterMP

[skinsfan4128]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Unless something momentous happens (which doesn't included Trump being convicted), national polls are always going to be meaningless for this election.  It is going to come down to a few states.  Until there is real polling in those states, making a meaningful prediction is impossible.  And I suspect some of those states will be so close even then the polling accuracy will be an issue.

 

I'd love see a landslide, but I just don't see it happening.

 

**EDIT**

What a conviction might do, if it comes early enough in the process, is to open the door for somebody else to the GOP nominee.  That I could see.  But if he's allowed on ballots even with a conviction, Trump is going to get a 40+% of the popular vote.

The only 40 I want to see that horrendous waste of oxygen to get is years in prison.

 

But I get your point as crazy as it is that these dumbasses will vote for him.

 

HTTR!

[88Comrade2000]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Numerous political pundits who I hold in high regard (David Axelrod, Mike Murphy, Robert Gibbs) all agree that national polls do not matter at this stage of the race. The results from Iowa and NH will set the tone for the rest of the primary, and the general has simply not started yet and too much is going to happen between now and then. 

Since there’s allegedly a gop primary, the focus is that until Trump is crowned GOP emperor and master again.

 

Biden though needs to get enthusiasm for his reelection up before, the face off starts next fall.

[Spaceman Spiff]

21 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

www.thebulwark.com/how-the-no-labels-gambit-could-wreck-the-2024-election/

 

 

 

Quote

We could see that party result flip in 2024, with a No Labels candidate taking enough electoral votes to cause the incumbent Democrat to lose to the Republican.

 

This sounds like a ****ing nightmare.  

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Why assume that the votes will be taken from a Democrat? Isn't it just as likely that the votes will be taken from a Republican?

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Why assume that the votes will be taken from a Democrat? Isn't it just as likely that the votes will be taken from a Republican?

 

General assumption here is the intent is to steal more votes from Dems then GOP, why this supposedly almost exclusively backed by conservatives and barely a peep from liberals about wanting this.

 

I'd love to see a democrat anywhere that with a straight face would want the cluster**** of having a republican as the VP, it sounds non-functional, Jefferson almost immediately laughed off the notion of picking the loser of the general as VP in 1800.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Renegade7

[@DCGoldPants]

14 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Why assume that the votes will be taken from a Democrat? Isn't it just as likely that the votes will be taken from a Republican?

 

It's a tactic to motivate Dems to vote. The idea that someone (not them) who could typically vote for the Dem here, would go to this No Labels thing. 

 

I personally wonder if there are more Repub voters who think it's all rigged so they don't bother to stand in line next year than anyone who might go to No Labels.