Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
I don't actually think he would make a horrible president, but there is zero chance of him getting elected...Way too many people would label him socialist, communist, woke, liberal......
The Long March to 11/24
- Thread starter Bagginski
- Start date
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
He is brilliant but unelectable and most times, probably a pain in the ass.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.
apnews.com
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Maybe they sense something on the wind….Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
their own lynching....
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
that’s the beauty of it — it’s not gonna be a lynching. But since that is a Repug schtick, they can’t see it otherwise. To some still unknown extent, the mill of legal due process is gonna process them.
printer
Well-Known Member
No Labels pledges to end third-party push if Biden ‘way’ ahead of Trump in spring
Political organization No Labels committed to end its third-party push if polling shows President Biden “way” ahead of former President Trump next spring.
No Labels, a bipartisan group, has been pursuing an effort to launch a “unity ticket” in the 2024 presidential election that would include a Republican and a Democrat “if the two parties select unreasonably divisive presidential nominees.” Trump and Biden are currently leading the polls among candidates in their respective parties. Democrats are wary of third-party recruitment pushes amid concerns that they could take votes away from Biden in next year’s election.
Ben Chavis, the Democratic co-chair of No Labels, told NBC News Thursday that the group “is not and will not be a spoiler in favor of Donald Trump in 2024.” He also said the group would be prepared to “stand down” by the spring of next year, saying it will make a decision after Super Tuesday and before its convention in April.
“If we find that the polls are changed and Joe Biden is way, way out ahead, and the person who the Republicans may choose — and if they continue to choose Donald Trump, even though he’s been indicted — then No Labels will stand down,” Chavis told the outlet.
No Labels confirmed to The Hill that it will end its third-party push if Biden is ahead in the polls next spring.
No Labels claims that a third-party bid for the White House is viable as it continues its effort to get on the ballot across the country. It has already secured a spot on the ballot in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado and Oregon.
The organization has received some criticism recently for its push to get on the ballot in Maine, where the secretary of state accused the organization of misleading voters to make it onto the state’s ballot. No Labels disputed the claims in response to a cease-and-desist letter from Maine officials, saying that organizers were given “crystal-clear instructions” about how to ask voters to change their party affiliation.
No Labels also released a statement Thursday in response to reporting from The Washington Post and ABC News that top Democratic strategists met with former Republicans to discuss No Labels’ third-party push.
“Democracy is about equal ballot access and transparency. To hear that a group of my friends and leaders in the Democratic Party were recently convened at the Third Way office in Washington DC for the express purpose of coordinating efforts to prevent No Labels from getting ballot access is disturbing,” Chavis said in a statement. “Denying ballot access is another form of voter suppression.”
“We are clear and transparent about not doing anything to help our nation step backwards with Trump,” he added.
thehill.com
Political organization No Labels committed to end its third-party push if polling shows President Biden “way” ahead of former President Trump next spring.
No Labels, a bipartisan group, has been pursuing an effort to launch a “unity ticket” in the 2024 presidential election that would include a Republican and a Democrat “if the two parties select unreasonably divisive presidential nominees.” Trump and Biden are currently leading the polls among candidates in their respective parties. Democrats are wary of third-party recruitment pushes amid concerns that they could take votes away from Biden in next year’s election.
Ben Chavis, the Democratic co-chair of No Labels, told NBC News Thursday that the group “is not and will not be a spoiler in favor of Donald Trump in 2024.” He also said the group would be prepared to “stand down” by the spring of next year, saying it will make a decision after Super Tuesday and before its convention in April.
“If we find that the polls are changed and Joe Biden is way, way out ahead, and the person who the Republicans may choose — and if they continue to choose Donald Trump, even though he’s been indicted — then No Labels will stand down,” Chavis told the outlet.
No Labels confirmed to The Hill that it will end its third-party push if Biden is ahead in the polls next spring.
No Labels claims that a third-party bid for the White House is viable as it continues its effort to get on the ballot across the country. It has already secured a spot on the ballot in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado and Oregon.
The organization has received some criticism recently for its push to get on the ballot in Maine, where the secretary of state accused the organization of misleading voters to make it onto the state’s ballot. No Labels disputed the claims in response to a cease-and-desist letter from Maine officials, saying that organizers were given “crystal-clear instructions” about how to ask voters to change their party affiliation.
No Labels also released a statement Thursday in response to reporting from The Washington Post and ABC News that top Democratic strategists met with former Republicans to discuss No Labels’ third-party push.
“Democracy is about equal ballot access and transparency. To hear that a group of my friends and leaders in the Democratic Party were recently convened at the Third Way office in Washington DC for the express purpose of coordinating efforts to prevent No Labels from getting ballot access is disturbing,” Chavis said in a statement. “Denying ballot access is another form of voter suppression.”
“We are clear and transparent about not doing anything to help our nation step backwards with Trump,” he added.
No Labels pledges to end third-party push if Biden ‘way’ ahead of Trump in spring
Political organization No Labels committed to end its third-party push if polling shows President Biden “way” ahead of former President Trump next spring. No Labels, a bipartisan group, has been pu…
thehill.com
HGCC
Well-Known Member
....that uhhh, doesn't make sense to me?
So they don't want to potentially tilt it towards trump and help him walk back in. They are doing that by staying in if it's close but dropping out if biden is way ahead? And they are trying to go for centrist type voters, aka moderate Republicans that would be biden voters?
Did I read that right? Does that seem silly to anyone else?
So they don't want to potentially tilt it towards trump and help him walk back in. They are doing that by staying in if it's close but dropping out if biden is way ahead? And they are trying to go for centrist type voters, aka moderate Republicans that would be biden voters?
Did I read that right? Does that seem silly to anyone else?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You read it right.
“If we find that the polls are changed and Joe Biden is way, way out ahead, and the person who the Republicans may choose — and if they continue to choose Donald Trump, even though he’s been indicted — then No Labels will stand down,” Chavis told the outlet.
Which does not make sense if they are sincere about:
“We are clear and transparent about not doing anything to help our nation step backwards with Trump,” Chavis added
If Biden is way, way ahead then No Labels would not be able to affect the election whether they stay or fold. Assuming they don't have any real chance of winning, a third party can only have an affect when the election is extremely close between the two major party's candidates. Like when Ross Perot tipped the election to Bill Clinton or when Ralph Nader tipped the election to shrub. If that's the case, one would think that the second statement is closer to what No Labels intends.
That said, maybe we are stuck in a past paradigm where 3rd parties have zero chance of winning the presidential election. Maybe No Labels think they can win an election where neither major party's candidate is favored by the majority of the voters and they have significant support. For example, if, during the primary, pre election polls showed something like 1/3 for Trump, 1/3 for Biden and 1/3 for the No Labels candidate with 10% undecided, I think they may well hang in there.
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
they would have to have a PHENOMENAL candidate to get over 1%... Third parties traditional are just horseshit wastes of time in our system, the few times they've made a difference, you already mentioned.
In 2020, independent candidates took less than 2% of the vote, all together, and there were a few of them...
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/17/biden-campaign-2024-00102519
be nice to keep any momentum growing....
be nice to keep any momentum growing....
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Could they pick a worse candidate?
‘No Labels’ Eyes a Third-Party Run in 2024. Democrats Are Alarmed
The centrist group is gaining steam — and raising money — in its effort to get a candidate on the 2024 ballot, with Joe Manchin at the top of their list.
‘No Labels’ Eyes a Third-Party Run in 2024. Democrats Are Alarmed
The centrist group is gaining steam — and raising money — in its effort to get a candidate on the 2024 ballot, with Joe Manchin at the top of their list.
The bipartisan political group No Labels is stepping up a well-funded effort to field a “unity ticket” for the 2024 presidential race, prompting fierce resistance from even some of its closest allies who fear handing the White House back to Donald J. Trump.
At the top of the list of potential candidates is Senator Joe Manchin III, the conservative West Virginia Democrat who has been a headache to his party and could bleed support from President Biden in areas crucial to his re-election.
The centrist group’s leadership was in New York this week raising part of the money — around $70 million — that it says it needs to help with nationwide ballot access efforts.
Actually, they can
Other potential No Labels candidates being floated include Senator Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent, and former Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, a Republican, who has said he would not run for the G.O.P. nomination and is the national co-chairman of the group. But Mr. Manchin has received most notice recently after speaking on a conference call last month with donors.
I keep looking for the punchline and reference to The Onion. Especially when they say this:
“We’re well aware any independent ticket faces a steep climb and if our rigorously gathered data and polling suggests an independent unity ticket can’t win, we will not nominate a ticket,” she said.
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
Pence vows to ‘clean house’ at Justice Department if elected, citing trust issues
Former Vice President and 2024 candidate Mike Pence said he would “clean house” in federal law enforcement if he was elected president.
“The American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice. And if I’m president of the United States on day one, we’re going to clean house on the top floor of the Department of Justice and bring in a whole new group of people,” Pence told The New York Post.
Alongside a wave of new hires at the Justice Department, Pence said the first person he would fire would be FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Pence has previously questioned Justice Department investigations into former President Trump and said that discussions on whether Trump should be pardoned are “premature.”
“The President is entitled to his day in court, he’s entitled to bring a defense, and I want to reserve judgment until he has the opportunity to respond,” he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Trump was arraigned on 37 felony counts at a Miami courthouse Tuesday alleging that he mishandled classified documents. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Pence also signaled that his relationship with Trump may have faltered since they both left office, telling The New York Post that Trump “was” his friend. Pence faced criticism of the former president’s supporters after he refused to stop the certification of the election during the Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021.
thehill.com
Former Vice President and 2024 candidate Mike Pence said he would “clean house” in federal law enforcement if he was elected president.
“The American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice. And if I’m president of the United States on day one, we’re going to clean house on the top floor of the Department of Justice and bring in a whole new group of people,” Pence told The New York Post.
Alongside a wave of new hires at the Justice Department, Pence said the first person he would fire would be FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Pence has previously questioned Justice Department investigations into former President Trump and said that discussions on whether Trump should be pardoned are “premature.”
“The President is entitled to his day in court, he’s entitled to bring a defense, and I want to reserve judgment until he has the opportunity to respond,” he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Trump was arraigned on 37 felony counts at a Miami courthouse Tuesday alleging that he mishandled classified documents. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Pence also signaled that his relationship with Trump may have faltered since they both left office, telling The New York Post that Trump “was” his friend. Pence faced criticism of the former president’s supporters after he refused to stop the certification of the election during the Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021.
Pence vows to ‘clean house’ at Justice Department if elected, citing trust issues
Former Vice President and 2024 candidate Mike Pence said he would “clean house” in federal law enforcement if he was elected president. “The American people have lost confidence in the Depart…
thehill.com
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
Who is this fucking clown kidding? He'll never step foot in the white house again.Pence vows to ‘clean house’ at Justice Department if elected, citing trust issues
Former Vice President and 2024 candidate Mike Pence said he would “clean house” in federal law enforcement if he was elected president.
“The American people have lost confidence in the Department of Justice. And if I’m president of the United States on day one, we’re going to clean house on the top floor of the Department of Justice and bring in a whole new group of people,” Pence told The New York Post.
Alongside a wave of new hires at the Justice Department, Pence said the first person he would fire would be FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Pence has previously questioned Justice Department investigations into former President Trump and said that discussions on whether Trump should be pardoned are “premature.”
“The President is entitled to his day in court, he’s entitled to bring a defense, and I want to reserve judgment until he has the opportunity to respond,” he told The Wall Street Journal this week.
Trump was arraigned on 37 felony counts at a Miami courthouse Tuesday alleging that he mishandled classified documents. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Pence also signaled that his relationship with Trump may have faltered since they both left office, telling The New York Post that Trump “was” his friend. Pence faced criticism of the former president’s supporters after he refused to stop the certification of the election during the Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021.
Pence vows to ‘clean house’ at Justice Department if elected, citing trust issues
Former Vice President and 2024 candidate Mike Pence said he would “clean house” in federal law enforcement if he was elected president. “The American people have lost confidence in the Depart…
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Thought this was interesting...and fuckin lol at the backers they do know about.
No Labels declines to reveal just who is funding its third party bid
The group isn’t required under law to disclose its donors even as it takes on the look of a political party
www.politico.com
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court blocks GOP from blatant partisan Gerrymandering and worse. An extreme interpretation of a few words in the Constitution was used by GOP lawyers to argue that a legislature has unlimited power to set election rules. If they had prevailed no court could check them. That any SCOTU judges agreed is bad enough but three?
Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections
The 6-3 majority dismissed the “independent state legislature” theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a legal theory that would have radically reshaped how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set rules for federal elections and to draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.
The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the majority opinion. The Constitution, he said, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. It is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
Proponents of the strongest form of the theory say this means that no other organs of state government — not courts, not governors, not election administrators, not independent commissions — can alter a legislature’s actions on federal elections.
www.nytimes.com
Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections
The 6-3 majority dismissed the “independent state legislature” theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a legal theory that would have radically reshaped how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set rules for federal elections and to draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.
The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the majority opinion. The Constitution, he said, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. It is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
Proponents of the strongest form of the theory say this means that no other organs of state government — not courts, not governors, not election administrators, not independent commissions — can alter a legislature’s actions on federal elections.
Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections (Published 2023)
The 6-to-3 majority dismissed the “independent state legislature” theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections.
printer
Well-Known Member
So three are political hacks?Supreme Court blocks GOP from blatant partisan Gerrymandering and worse. An extreme interpretation of a few words in the Constitution was used by GOP lawyers to argue that a legislature has unlimited power to set election rules. If they had prevailed no court could check them. That any SCOTU judges agreed is bad enough but three?
Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections
The 6-3 majority dismissed the “independent state legislature” theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a legal theory that would have radically reshaped how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set rules for federal elections and to draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.
The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the majority opinion. The Constitution, he said, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. It is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
Proponents of the strongest form of the theory say this means that no other organs of state government — not courts, not governors, not election administrators, not independent commissions — can alter a legislature’s actions on federal elections.
Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections (Published 2023)
The 6-to-3 majority dismissed the “independent state legislature” theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'd call them extremist authoritarians.
They advocate unchecked ability of a legislature to decide how to run an election. No judicial review. No balancing voting laws with other constitutional rights.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
two of the three are known bought agents of the oligarchs.