2024 Elections - Let's get Ready to Rumble!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Prediction. If Trump wins the nomination, Nikki Haley will stay in the race a 3rd party candidate

The No Labels party; that’s the Never Trumpers.

Between her and RFK, we might just see a real break in the 2-party system. Hallelujah.

[Martin Hash]

Prediction. If Trump wins the nomination, Nikki Haley will stay in the race a 3rd party candidate

The No Labels party; that’s the Never Trumpers.

Between her and RFK, we might just see a real break in the 2-party system. Hallelujah.

Until there’s a parliament, 3rd parties are masturbation.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The No Labels party; that’s the Never Trumpers.

Between her and RFK, we might just see a real break in the 2-party system. Hallelujah.

Until there’s a parliament, 3rd parties are masturbation.

I’m picturing more of a full replacement of the existing parties. Can’t even imagine anyone taking these shit shows seriously at this point. But I’m usually early.

[Martin Hash]

Between her and RFK, we might just see a real break in the 2-party system. Hallelujah.

Until there’s a parliament, 3rd parties are masturbation.

I’m picturing more of a full replacement of the existing parties. Can’t even imagine anyone taking these shit shows seriously at this point. But I’m usually early.

I think they have both been replaced since I ran the 1st time: MAGA took over Republicans & FMWs took over Democrats.

[The Conservative]

Prediction. If Trump wins the nomination, Nikki Haley will stay in the race a 3rd party candidate

1. No one wants to touch her, she is toxic DNC trash.
2. RFK already is running 3rd party, he will destroy her.
3. I don't think she will ever get another chance to run after this one, she is broken goods.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Secession seems more possible by the day.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation ... ve-fubars/

[The Conservative]

9-0 ruling BTW.

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of- fices, especially the Presidency."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

In English, Trump cannot be taken off the ballot by the state, period.

[SuburbanFarmer]

9-0 ruling BTW.

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of- fices, especially the Presidency."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

In English, Trump cannot be taken off the ballot by the state, period.

Never made sense in the first place, which leaves us to wonder what the fucking point was.

[The Conservative]

9-0 ruling BTW.

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of- fices, especially the Presidency."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

In English, Trump cannot be taken off the ballot by the state, period.

Never made sense in the first place, which leaves us to wonder what the fucking point was.

Colorado and the Democrats tried to say Section 3 was enforceable by the states, but it's not. The Government couldn't provide anything showing that a state had in the past ever kept someone off the federal election, they did show on the state level, but the whole point of this was that the Colorado SC said that Colorado could do it.

It went to the SCTOUS to reverse it, because with that requirement about 35 states were attempting the same thing. Now that this has been reversed, no state can do it again.

The reason they went into such depth instead of making it a 5-page ruling is that they wanted to make it perfectly clear, that there is no way to get around this, the state can not override federal constitutional election law, even if they think they should be able to.

Sort of like telling the woke out there, your feelings don't matter.

[SuburbanFarmer]

9-0 ruling BTW.

"This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal of- fices, especially the Presidency."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

In English, Trump cannot be taken off the ballot by the state, period.

Never made sense in the first place, which leaves us to wonder what the fucking point was.

Colorado and the Democrats tried to say Section 3 was enforceable by the states, but it's not. The Government couldn't provide anything showing that a state had in the past ever kept someone off the federal election, they did show on the state level, but the whole point of this was that the Colorado SC said that Colorado could do it.

It went to the SCTOUS to reverse it, because with that requirement about 35 states were attempting the same thing. Now that this has been reversed, no state can do it again.

The reason they went into such depth instead of making it a 5-page ruling is that they wanted to make it perfectly clear, that there is no way to get around this, the state can not override federal constitutional election law, even if they think they should be able to.

Sort of like telling the woke out there, your feelings don't matter.

What constitutional statute has ever been enforced by a state in the first place?