POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
They’re Democrats in name only. They’re actually Marxists. Following the orders of their leader Barry Obama.
He isn’t a bad candidate, he’s already won lt governor as a Republican while the state elected a Democrat gov.
This narrative building is what’s bad, likely by the same person under different screen names, you make it too obvious.
I don't trust polls in general, still found this interesting:
In a 9 poll average Trump is up +0.9.
On this same date in 2020 as you can see the average was Biden +10.2, and 8 years ago on this date the average was Hillary +5.9.
This Day In History: June 23, 2020: Biden +10.2 | June 23, 2016: Clinton +5.9
In a 9 poll average Trump is up +0.9.
On this same date in 2020 as you can see the average was Biden +10.2, and 8 years ago on this date the average was Hillary +5.9.
This Day In History: June 23, 2020: Biden +10.2 | June 23, 2016: Clinton +5.9
| pollster | date | sample | moe | Trump (R) | Biden (D) | spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCP Average | 6/3 - 6/21 | — | — | 46.1 | 45.2 | Trump+0.9 |
| CBS News | 6/17 - 6/21 | 1881 RV | 3.4 | 50 | 49 | Trump+1 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 6/20 - 6/20 | 1000 LV | 3.0 | 49 | 40 | Trump+9 |
| FOX News | 6/14 - 6/17 | 1095 RV | 3.0 | 48 | 50 | Biden+2 |
| Morning Consult | 6/14 - 6/16 | 10132 RV | 1.0 | 43 | 44 | Biden+1 |
| NPR/PBS/Marist | 6/10 - 6/12 | 1184 RV | 3.8 | 49 | 49 | Tie |
| Reuters/Ipsos | 6/10 - 6/11 | 930 RV | 3.0 | 41 | 39 | Trump+2 |
| Daily Kos/Civiqs | 6/8 - 6/11 | 1140 RV | 3.1 | 45 | 45 | Tie |
| Yahoo News | 6/3 - 6/6 | 1239 RV | — | 44 | 46 | Biden+2 |
| Emerson | 6/4 - 6/5 | 1000 RV | 3.0 | 46 | 45 | Trump+1 |
His lead was a blip that faded as soon as he got it. Yes noone thought Trump would win either I never said anyone thought he would win. Try again
That doesn't matter and was not my point.
My point was people like you were wrong about Trump then like you're wrong now. You can't win on a platform that isn't America First even more so than you couldn't before with Romneyor McCain; politics has changed.
You still don't see. That's the point.
Different pills show different results right now that's not the big question. The big question is how is it even close remotely when Biden clearly has dementia n is barely even aware of where he is most the time. And that's just the tip of the Biden shit iceberg. Yet it's close somehow.National polls have directionally moved Biden's way over the last two weeks or so.
National : President: general election : 2024 Polls
The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.projects.fivethirtyeight.com
I'll wait for the MAGA comments that I'm supposedly happy about that.
Yes, somehow it would';ve been much better for you if you nominated someone heavily backed by Dem donors like Halye.
Somehow.
My gosh, the more you post lately, the more I begin to think English is not your first language. Taxation does not define whether something is a religion. It only states how the entity wishes to be perceived by the government. Most people in the Alphabet Cult misperceive themselves as irreligious, so they are unlikely to categorize as a religion. Yet, they are some of the most fundamentalist religious people in our country.
And, if you think the constitution is based on the tax code, then when you tax religions, we will put the Bible into every public school and you will have to just accept it. 😝
We need D-Sus to tell us how Hezbollah are allies to Democracy.
“We are not going to stay silent while US tax dollars kill babies” - that from a crazed liberal Democrat - lol - yeah, the irony.
Go pull a fire alarm, you fringe nut.
Yeah, that is exactly what I said and you know it is true. Those injured Palestinians should be afraid, because Hamas would just assume cut off their heads than care about how they were being transported.
D-Sus, I bet I could raise the funds here quickly for you to vacation for a week with Hamas. Just say the word, and we will have you on a plane so you can join your comrades.
We ruined a “cosmic gift.” What a dumbass headline. That reads like the Babylon Bee.
I know it would be light-years better for even Haley to be Potus than Biden or any Dem.. I know this is the biggest election of my lifetime and likely much further than that. It's also the easiest election to win agsinst a man who should be in a nursing home and a vp who is the embodiment of a ditzy air head with a Joker laugh. Yet it's a damn coin flip! Trump is probably the most polorizing figure in American political history at least modern era. That's not who you run in an election you must win at all costs. The Dems can swing and miss and be fine they got the media and education system that will always back them Conaervatives can't miss here.
But we are where we are I have no choice but to support Trump but I don't have to like the fact he's the nominee to do it. This election should have been a slam dunk walk.
I mean…Lt Gov is way less profile than Gov, especially in NC.
Stein is a tough opponent, who has also won statewide office…in 2016 and 2020 when NC went for Trump.
Again, I said that I believe NC will go Trump…but it’s not the layup people think. And probably will be split ticket with Trump/Stein winning.
Don’t disagree. AZ is going to be the toughest state to handicap all cycle, wouldn’t touch it either way.
FOR THE ODDS, I’d go money line for Trump in NH. Think it goes Biden, but think it’s a lot closer than -625 Biden.
They are basically saying Biden has a better chance of winning Texas than Trump does winning NH.
They would've just ran some plan B, like say Newsom, because not running Trump would give them the excuse to "move the country forward with a new generation."
You (general anti-Trump conservatives) are completely clueless if you think Haley could beat Newsom, which is an extension of my point. They can't swing and miss either because they believe they too must win at all costs; there's no way they couldn't use the media to make it 50-45% Newsom like what they did with Obama. It would be comparatively child's play; style over substance.
Last edited:
Im convinced trump was the only scenario where they stick with Biden. Anyone else and newsom would've been it
Does anyone think Newsom is a good candidate? Or does everyone just think it’s his turn?
I don't think the D has a "good" candidate. They have candidates who could win if the cheat is big enough.
Look at that partisan Rasmussen outlier though skewing the average up. If that was a more reasonable Trump +2 or 3 instead of 9 it'd be very different.
You guys calling for homeschooling, I have a question. Don't you realize that those kids are missing out on an opportunity to become homosexual communist?
Newsome is loved by the celebrity elite who use their platform to tout him. That’s pretty much it.
They just have a lot of people as clueless as them that listen to their platform.
They just have a lot of people as clueless as them that listen to their platform.
My biggest fear is the Oprah factor. In the future one of these celeb types will run for President. They will win because of women.
Section 2 of Moore v. Harper. Most of the cases and precedents cited are from the 17 and 18 hundreds my friend:
"2. The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, famously proclaimed this Court’s authority to invalidate laws that violate the Federal Constitution. But Marbury did not invent the concept of judicial review. State courts had already begun to impose restraints on state legislatures, even before the Constitutional Convention, and the practice continued to mature during the founding era. James Madison extolled judicial review as one of the key virtues of a constitutional system, and the concept of judicial review was so entrenched by the time the Court decided Marbury that Chief Justice Marshall referred to it as one of society’s “fundamental principles.” Id., at 177.. The Elections Clause does not carve out an exception to that fundamental principle. When state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. Pp. 11–26.
(a) In Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565, this Court examined the Elections Clause’s application to a provision of the Ohio Constitution permitting the State’s voters to reject, by popular vote, any law enacted by the State’s General Assembly. This Court upheld the Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that the Federal Elections Clause did not preclude subjecting legislative acts under the Clause toa popular referendum, rejecting the contention that “to include the referendum within state legislative power for the purpose of apportionment is repugnant to §4 of Article I [the Elections Clause].” Id., at 569. And in Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, this Court considered the effect of a Governor’s veto, pursuant to his authority under the State’s Constitution, of a congressional redistricting plan. This Court held that the Governor’s veto did not violate the Elections Clause, reasoning that a state legislature’s “exercise of . . . authority” under the Elections Clause “must be in accordance with the method which the State has prescribed for legislative enactments.” Id., at 367. The Court highlighted that the Federal Constitution contained no “provision of an attempt to endow the legislature of the State with power to enact laws in any manner other than that in which the constitution of the State has provided that laws shall be enacted.” Id., at 368. This Court recently reinforced the teachings of Hildebrant and Smiley in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U. S. 787, a case concerning the constitutionality of anArizona ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution and to vest redistricting authority in an independent commission. Significantly for present purposes, the Court embraced the core principle espoused in Hildebrant and Smiley: Whatever authority was responsible for redistricting, that entity remained subject to constraints set forth in the State Constitution. The Court dismissed the argument that the Elections Clause divests state constitutions of the power to enforce checks against the exercise of legislative power. The basic principle of these cases—reflected in Smiley’s unanimous command that a state legislature may not “create congressional districts independently of” requirements imposed “by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws,” 285 U. S., at 373—commands continued respect. Pp. 15–18.
(b) The precedents of this Court have long rejected the view that legislative action under the Elections Clause is purely federal in character, governed only by restraints found in the Federal Constitution. The argument to the contrary does not account for the Framers’ understanding that when legislatures make laws, they are bound by the provisions of the very documents that give them life. Thus, when a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmakingbody created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the Federal Constitution. Both constitutions restrain the state legislature’s exercise of power. This Court’s decision in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, in which the Court analyzed the Constitution’s similarly worded Electors Clause, is inapposite. That decision did not address any conflict between state constitutional provisions and state legislatures. Nor does Leser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, which involved a contested vote by a state legislature to ratify a federal constitutional amendment, help petitioners. That case concerned the power of state legislatures to ratifyamendments to the Federal Constitution. But fashioning regulations governing federal elections “unquestionably calls for the exercise oflawmaking authority.” Arizona State Legislature, 576 U. S., at 808, n. 17. And the exercise of such authority in the context of the Elections Clause is subject to the ordinary constraints on lawmaking in the state constitution. Pp. 18–22.
(c) Petitioners concede that at least some state constitutional provisions can restrain a state legislature’s exercise of authority under the Elections Clause, but they read Smiley and Hildebrant to differentiate between procedural and substantive constraints. But neither case drew such a distinction, and petitioners do not in any event offera defensible line between procedure and substance in this context. Pp.22–24.
(d) Historical practice confirms that state legislatures remain Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023) 5 Syllabus bound by state constitutional restraints when exercising authority under the Elections Clause. Two state constitutional provisions adopted shortly after the founding expressly constrained state legislative action under the Elections Clause. See Del. Const., Art. VIII, §2 (1792); Md. Const., Art. XIV (1810).
In addition, multiple state constitutions at the time of the founding regulated the “manner” of federal elections by requiring that “elections shall be by ballot.” See, e.g., Ga. Const., Art. IV, §2.
Moreover, the Articles of Confederation—from which the Framers borrowed—provided that “delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct.” Art. V. Around the time the Articles were adopted, multiple States regulated the appointment of delegates, suggesting that the Framers did not understand that language to insulate state legislative action from state constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Del. Const., Art. XI (1776). Pp. 24–26."
JOY BEHAR 2028!!!
Republican movements in the ME are significantly better than the monarchies we align ourselves with.
Whatever this post is, at least you saw with your own eyes the IDF using human shields. We'll see if you remember next time you try to paint them as the good guys with your 'false equivalency'.
Yes sure. These packed major events that somehow noone is posting on social media?
I think hes awful but i also think he's slick enough to be formidable. He will have the libs no matter what. All hed have to do is slick talk his way into 10% or so and he has it. Very doable with msm backing imo.
Dems have a weak bench…but I’d still be more concerned with half a dozen candidates over Newsome.
What is it with the left and diddling kids
Similar threads
