Trump-Biden Debates set

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-21-2024, 07:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't see the calling and telling him to find the votes a big deal, more like it was taken out of context. 

As far as the fake electors, that depends on to many variables that we don't have access to. And at the time, was it illegal? Not totally sure, but what i do know is several states have passed legislation making fake electors illegal. 

Joe Biden has bragged about doing worse.

Heck, he talks and it just gets worse.

DJT is likely dirty, but when the sheep turn a blind eye to Joe Biden.

[hollodero]

(05-21-2024, 08:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And coming from a guy that was on his last straws looking for a break? or hoping there was an error somewhere? 
With the amount of ballot harvesting that goes on, it's not illogical that some votes gets missed. I have a hard time trusting the process myself, especially if it's close. 

Yeah so if it is close, you have all legal rights to demand a recount, and/or to go to court with all evidence of errors or misdeeds, these are the avenues to take. The avenue a president can absolutely not take is to just demand to find him the exact number of votes to win. That can not be excused with not trusting the ballot counts or anything. It is ordering a win, plain and simple.

How does being on his last straw even factor into it? Hillary was on her last straw in 2016 too, would that have made it ok for her to call state secretaries and demand they find her the exact number of votes to win their state? Because again, I feel you're making arguments that you would absolutely not accept if the other side made them in a similar circumstance.

(05-21-2024, 08:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Legal or not matters most, but do you really expect a guy like Trump to not find a gray area and push it? I think it was a bad move, but Trump is Trump and he's a sore loser. It's his nature.

Oh of course I expected him to. That does not remotely make it ok though, nor does the argument of "that's his nature". I have never heard anyone successfully defend himself by making this claim after a wrongdoing. I mean, what if Hillary had said yeah I run a private server and send classified mails through it, but I'm Hillary and I'm careless, that's just my nature, so get off my back? (And yeah, what she said was possibly not that far removed from that, but I guess we both agree that it was and is an inacceptable defense.)

That you care about legality above all else in the case of electors, imho, is a bit strange. I'm fairly certain it was never the idea of the founders to allow for alternate electors in an obvious betrayal of the state's voters, even if states failed to codify that in the possible belief that no serious person would ever explore that avenue. I mean, fake electors are obviously not the right thing to do, I don't need a court's judgment for that general determination. Then again, you did say it was a bad move, I guess I take what I can get.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-21-2024, 07:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-revive-bipartisan-border-security-bill-gop-vows-block-rcna153045

Bringing the bipartisan bill back to the floor is part of Democrats' broader election year strategy to go on the offense on immigration — an issue that has vexed the party in past cycles. In recent weeks, key Biden administration officials and top Democratic lawmakers have discussed holding votes on bills that the GOP would oppose and weighed various executive actions that Biden could take. This month, the administration proposed a new rule to accelerate the asylum process.

Republicans are vowing to filibuster the legislation — as they've done before — dismissing the vote as a political messaging exercise less than six months before the November election. Even Sen. James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican who negotiated the original border package with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., is vowing to vote no.

Ok. So it’s still a bipartisan bill.

Republicans just aren’t done playing politics with their favorite problem.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-21-2024, 08:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah so if it is close, you have all legal rights to demand a recount, and/or to go to court with all evidence of errors or misdeeds, these are the avenues to take. The avenue a president can absolutely not take is to just demand to find him the exact number of votes to win. That can not be excused with not trusting the ballot counts or anything. It is ordering a win, plain and simple.

How does being on his last straw even factor into it? Hillary was on her last straw in 2016 too, would that have made it ok for her to call state secretaries and demand they find her the exact number of votes to win their state? Because again, I feel you're making arguments that you would absolutely not accept if the other side made them in a similar circumstance.



Oh of course I expected him to. That does not remotely make it ok though, nor does the argument of "that's his nature". I have never heard anyone successfully defend himself by making this claim after a wrongdoing. I mean, what if Hillary had said yeah I run a private server and send classified mails through it, but I'm Hillary and I'm careless, that's just my nature, so get off my back? (And yeah, what she said was possibly not that far removed from that, but I guess we both agree that it was and is an inacceptable defense.)

That you care about legality above all else in the case of electors, imho, is a bit strange. I'm fairly certain it was never the idea of the founders to allow for alternate electors in an obvious betrayal of the state's voters, even if states failed to codify that in the possible belief that no serious person would ever explore that avenue. I mean, fake electors are obviously not the right thing to do, I don't need a court's judgment for that general determination. Then again, you did say it was a bad move, I guess I take what I can get.

I think it was a poor thing to do. It's a tricky spot for sure and doesn't look very good. If he did have the votes, would we even be discussing it still?

as far as the Founders?
Well that's fair but there is also alot of loose interpretation of what was written.


Right now we have Dems pushing the envelope in Alabama and Ohio to get Biden on the ballot. Why? The rules didn't change, but they still think they are above that. Alabama had to re-write the law to get Biden on the ballot, and now Ohio is having to do the same. 

Now my question is, If this was Kennedy or another 3rd Party candidate, would they still do the same to make sure he's on the ballot? Likely not, they would just say follow the rules. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-21-2024, 09:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Ok. So it’s still a bipartisan bill.

Republicans just aren’t done playing politics with their favorite problem.

 and it's the same bill that I looked at and was crap, it does nothing to fix the problem long term, even if the numbers are exceeded and the POTUS says no more allowed, it's not really like that, they are still mandated t allow a certain number in, and the number of days they can close reduces to zero by the 3rd or 4th year, which puts us right back where we are today. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-21-2024, 10:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  and it's the same bill that I looked at and was crap, it does nothing to fix the problem long term, even if the numbers are exceeded and the POTUS says no more allowed, it's not really like that, they are still mandated t allow a certain number in, and the number of days they can close reduces to zero by the 3rd or 4th year, which puts us right back where we are today. 

I’d bet money it would be better for us than doing nothing.

[hollodero]

(05-21-2024, 09:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think it was a poor thing to do. It's a tricky spot for sure and doesn't look very good. If he did have the votes, would we even be discussing it still?

as far as the Founders?
Well that's fair but there is also alot of loose interpretation of what was written.

Well... let me say, I have a hard time believing you feel 100% comfortable with these arguments. A lot of loose interpretation? Well, this often is true and imho part of the problem at times, but we're talking about fake elector schemes here. Like say the state of Arizona falling for Trump in a fair 2024 election without any proof of tampering - and then have the democratic-led state say, well, we do not respect this result and send alternate electors to Washington, ones that would vote for Biden in the EC instead. Or Biden pressuring Kamala Harris to disobey her constitutional duty and not certify the election because of alternate electors or completely unproven claims of massive election fraud. I mean, all that can not be within the realms of a loose interpretation, this can only be clearly wrong. If not legally, then morally, and not least for democracy itself. And that's not even mentioning all the violence and folks bringing gallows for Kamala if she does not comply, the real ugliness of it all.
Same goes for pressuring state secretaries to find Trump, or Biden, the exact number of votes to win a state he actually lost. No matter how the actual votes add up in the end, a president just can not do that and imho that is not and can not be a partisan issue. Have you ever heard the phone call in full? It's something real and unaltered within all the media noise.

Btw. I don't say all that to deter you from voting for Trump or to scold you for it or anything like that. I get that, and I get you feel there's no danger and I hope you're right. It's just, there might come the point where it's up to folks like you, reasonable conservatives, to put a stop to it if need be, no one else can. That's why I would say, just don't be delusional about Trump or folks like Trump and what they really are and thrive to be, that would be my request. I feel your vigilance is needed.

(05-21-2024, 09:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Right now we have Dems pushing the envelope in Alabama and Ohio to get Biden on the ballot. Why? The rules didn't change, but they still think they are above that. Alabama had to re-write the law to get Biden on the ballot, and now Ohio is having to do the same. 

Now my question is, If this was Kennedy or another 3rd Party candidate, would they still do the same to make sure he's on the ballot? Likely not, they would just say follow the rules. 

I have to say, I think it's good that both candidates are on the ballot on every state. Should the citizens of Alabama and Ohio really have no effective choice at all, because of some legislative issues that are not their fault? And btw. same goes for Colorado too.

And of course they would not do the same for Kennedy. I'd even be more cynical and claim they might start contemplating it as soon as he's predicted to take more votes from Trump than from Biden. I mean, I don't try to hide it, I quite dislike the democratic party too, I think they're at fault for many things and nothing I say I say on their behalf.

[*pally*]

(05-21-2024, 08:15 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Joe Biden has bragged about doing worse.

Heck, he talks and it just gets worse.

DJT is likely dirty, but when the sheep turn a blind eye to Joe Biden.

Just curious…

What is worse than using illegal electors in an attempt to overturn an election that he lost?

Republicans have been trying for 4 years to pin dirt on Joe Biden. So far they have zilch

[GMDino]

(05-22-2024, 08:16 AM)pally Wrote: Just curious…

What is worse than using illegal electors in an attempt to overturn an election that he lost?

Republicans have been trying for 4 years to pin dirt on Joe Biden.  So far they have zilch

The answer is anything Democrats did because:

1) It wasn't fair.
2) He doesn't really follow it..or
3) You have TDS!!!1!!!11!!!

[Dill]

(05-21-2024, 03:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So?
We were all informed of the same thing, yet I didn't feel some need to be there. 
Trump is being held accountable. He's only been brought up on one FEDERAL indictment that I am aware of. And it appears to be on shaky ground. 
Is it? 
Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2360SY/
New York Democrats redirecting contributions from police to bail funds
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/new-york-democrats-redirecting-contributions-police-bail-funds-n1221201

No idea what the links are meant to prove. They demonstrate that many Democrats think current laws regarding bail
discriminate against poor people. So more Dem attempts to make justice apply equally to all citizens. Relevance to this discussion? 

And there is an ATTEMPT to hold Trump accountable. But it's not easy when he has appointed many of the
judges who control his prosecution and he has a regime party behind him. 

E.g, The Republican Georgia governor has signed into law a newly passed bill by the Republican legislature which allows them to 
remove state prosecutors from office. That should be disturbing to those who thought "Well, even if he's president he won't
be able to stop prosecution or pardon himself from conviction in state courts." He may not have to.

It is still a real possibility that he could be elected president and squash all prosecution--in part because enough voters 
would be ok with trashing rule of law. The latter is the real problem. Millions of voters now don't know what rule of law is, and so can't tell whether
Trump has violated it, or they don't care; they want their Dear Leader anyway. To stop the far left fascist communists Trump warned them about.

And that is just a jaw-dropping upending of our justice system--a leader who attempted a coup back in power with the blessing of millions. 
In part because he convinced them, against all evidence, that the election which ousted him was 'rigged."  No US leader has ever had such
direct control over so many million minds, that he can convince them of his innocence against the evidence of their own eyes. 

If Trump gets off, it would not be the first time that the Right has successfully crushed the judicial system to preserve its own. '

[Dill]

(05-21-2024, 09:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think it was a poor thing to do. It's a tricky spot for sure and doesn't look very good. If he did have the votes, would we even be discussing it still?

as far as the Founders?
Well that's fair but there is also alot of loose interpretation of what was written.


Right now we have Dems pushing the envelope in Alabama and Ohio to get Biden on the ballot. Why? The rules didn't change, but they still think they are above that. Alabama had to re-write the law to get Biden on the ballot, and now Ohio is having to do the same. 

Now my question is, If this was Kennedy or another 3rd Party candidate, would they still do the same to make sure he's on the ballot? Likely not, they would just say follow the rules. 

It might not be the job of the Dem party to make sure a 3rd party candidate was on the ballot. 

How is getting Biden on the ballot in Alabama or Ohio "pushing the envelope"?  What are they "above"?

[*pally*]

(05-21-2024, 09:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think it was a poor thing to do. It's a tricky spot for sure and doesn't look very good. If he did have the votes, would we even be discussing it still?

as far as the Founders?
Well that's fair but there is also alot of loose interpretation of what was written.


Right now we have Dems pushing the envelope in Alabama and Ohio to get Biden on the ballot. Why? The rules didn't change, but they still think they are above that. Alabama had to re-write the law to get Biden on the ballot, and now Ohio is having to do the same. 

Now my question is, If this was Kennedy or another 3rd Party candidate, would they still do the same to make sure he's on the ballot? Likely not, they would just say follow the rules. 

both states have routinely done so before for candidates for BOTH parties.  This isn't a new thing except now because of the political atmosphere,  the Republican state houses are playing games

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-22-2024, 02:26 PM)Dill Wrote: It might not be the job of the Dem party to make sure a 3rd party candidate was on the ballot. 

How is getting Biden on the ballot in Alabama or Ohio "pushing the envelope"?  What are they "above"?

With your thinking, it's not the Job of the R's to make sure a D candidate is on the ballot?

(05-22-2024, 06:17 PM)pally Wrote: both states have routinely done so before for candidates for BOTH parties.  This isn't a new thing except now because of the political atmosphere,  the Republican state houses are playing games

The Deadlines haven't changed, it's not that hard to follow the rules is it?

[*pally*]

(05-22-2024, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: With your thinking, it's not the Job of the R's to make sure a D candidate is on the ballot?



The Deadlines haven't changed, it's not that hard to follow the rules is it?

The deadline was waived in 2016 and 2020 for Donald Trump to get on these 2 ballots

It’s not that hard to follow the rules is it?

it is a requirement that has been routinely waive. And it will likely happen against once they stop being jerks.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-22-2024, 07:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well... let me say, I have a hard time believing you feel 100% comfortable with these arguments. A lot of loose interpretation? Well, this often is true and imho part of the problem at times, but we're talking about fake elector schemes here. Like say the state of Arizona falling for Trump in a fair 2024 election without any proof of tampering - and then have the democratic-led state say, well, we do not respect this result and send alternate electors to Washington, ones that would vote for Biden in the EC instead. Or Biden pressuring Kamala Harris to disobey her constitutional duty and not certify the election because of alternate electors or completely unproven claims of massive election fraud. I mean, all that can not be within the realms of a loose interpretation, this can only be clearly wrong. If not legally, then morally, and not least for democracy itself. And that's not even mentioning all the violence and folks bringing gallows for Kamala if she does not comply, the real ugliness of it all.
Same goes for pressuring state secretaries to find Trump, or Biden, the exact number of votes to win a state he actually lost. No matter how the actual votes add up in the end, a president just can not do that and imho that is not and can not be a partisan issue. Have you ever heard the phone call in full? It's something real and unaltered within all the media noise.

Btw. I don't say all that to deter you from voting for Trump or to scold you for it or anything like that. I get that, and I get you feel there's no danger and I hope you're right. It's just, there might come the point where it's up to folks like you, reasonable conservatives, to put a stop to it if need be, no one else can. That's why I would say, just don't be delusional about Trump or folks like Trump and what they really are and thrive to be, that would be my request. I feel your vigilance is needed.

No, I'm not 100% fine with it, but in my eyes it's Politics, this is what happens when the 2 ruling parties refuse to work with each other over the simplest of things. So it's not a surprise that one or both will resort to this type of behavior. I'm just waiting to see what's next. 

I'm not worried about Trump, he's easy to predict what he will do. 

(05-22-2024, 07:03 AM)hollodero Wrote: I have to say, I think it's good that both candidates are on the ballot on every state. Should the citizens of Alabama and Ohio really have no effective choice at all, because of some legislative issues that are not their fault? And btw. same goes for Colorado too.

And of course they would not do the same for Kennedy. I'd even be more cynical and claim they might start contemplating it as soon as he's predicted to take more votes from Trump than from Biden. I mean, I don't try to hide it, I quite dislike the democratic party too, I think they're at fault for many things and nothing I say I say on their behalf.

I agree it shouldn't be an issue and the candidate from both parties should be on all ballots, but they are making it one by not complying with Deadlines that are Pre-set, they don't change. 

Another point, if they wouldn't do it for Kennedy then why should they expect it to be done for them?  You know, treat everyone the same follow the rules and so on and i dont' care if an R misses the deadline, tough shit. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-23-2024, 12:39 AM)pally Wrote: The deadline was waived in 2016 and 2020 for Donald Trump to get on these 2 ballots

It’s not that hard to follow the rules is it?

it is a requirement that has been routinely waive.  And it will likely happen against once they stop being jerks.

Which two states, quite hard to find. 

But this particular cycle, Several D states decided to BAN Trump from the ballots, or did you conveniently forget that? 

[*pally*]

Alabama and Ohio, the 2 states with the 90 day requirement.

Is Trump going to be on the ballot in all 50 states?

[GMDino]

(05-23-2024, 01:00 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Which two states, quite hard to find. 

But this particular cycle, Several D states decided to BAN Trump from the ballots, or did you conveniently forget that? 

Well, while Trump appears squeaky clean in all of his dealings, they thought he *may* have had a small bit to do with January 6th and were trying to follow their interpretation of the Constitution.  The SC said no.

[hollodero]

(05-23-2024, 12:54 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I agree it shouldn't be an issue and the candidate from both parties should be on all ballots, but they are making it one by not complying with Deadlines that are Pre-set, they don't change. 

Another point, if they wouldn't do it for Kennedy then why should they expect it to be done for them?  You know, treat everyone the same follow the rules and so on and i dont' care if an R misses the deadline, tough shit. 

I don't know the details, so you might just be right. Not gonna lie though, I find this whole point not to be all that important. And if it were Trump missing a deadline, I also would not insist he'd be kept off the ballot now. That is punishing the wrong people, meaning the people that want to vote for him. Even if the responsible party would deserve this outcome, these people certainly would not.

Not to mention they'd be understandably pretty angry about it, and imho the country has more than enough of this emotion already.

[GMDino]

Well...

https://meidasnews.com/news/ohio-moving-to-exclude-biden-from-ballot

Quote:Ohio Moving to Exclude Biden from Ballot
[color=var(--dek_size_c_color,#333)]This is heading for the courts.
[/color]

• Ron Filipkowski
• May 22, 2024
  

In 2010, the Ohio legislature passed a law creating an arbitrary deadline that candidates for each political party must be nominated 90 days before the election to get on the ballot. That provision has never been enforced to keep a candidate off the ballot - until now.
Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions took place after the 90 day Ohio deadline in 2012 and 2020. Both times the legislature passed a bill to extend the deadline so there were no issues. However, 2024 is the first time that only one party has their nominating convention after the deadline, and it just happens to be the Democrats which will nominate Biden on August 22, two weeks after Ohio's arbitrary deadline.


The Republican supermajority was asked again, just like in 2012 and 2020, to extend the deadline so there will not be an issue. They have refused to do so. Now, Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose has just send a letter to the Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party stating that he does not believe the legislature is going to grant an extension so the DNC is going to be forced to either change the date of their nominating convention to satisfy Ohio Republicans, or take them to court. 


[img=1041x1266]https://meidasnews.com/.image/t_share/MjA2NjE2NzM5NDU3Mjc5NDIy/img_5808.jpg[/img]





Democrats should win if challenged in court, but that is also risky given the politicization of the federal courts - especially the US Supreme Court. A challenge would be made based on the fact that his is an arbitrary deadline that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ironically, Democrats could be relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the Colorado case, where Trump was excluded for J6, to overturn Ohio's law denying Biden's place on the ballot. 

The Biden Campaign and the DNC has been largely silent on this issue, apparently attempting to resolve this behind the scenes through negotiations. However, LaRose's letter makes it clear that the time for a settlement to this appears to be at an end with Ohio Republicans prepared to force Democrats to take them to court.


More attempts by Republicans to tamper with our elections on their march towards autocracy.