unclevlad Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: My bet is that DeSantis is angling for a cushy post-gubernatorial job in a future Trump administration. Donnie is infamous for overlooking almost any past offense, if the offender subsequently grovels to him enough. After his term...that's '27. I suppose nothing's impossible, but...to what post? And is DeSantis going to be viewed as loyal *enough*? I'm not gonna say it can't happen, but I don't think Trump's people will rush to bring him in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asperion Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 On 1/22/2024 at 7:39 AM, Ternaugh said: It should technically be the same as if someone who doesn't meet the age requirements or other restrictions--the candidate is ineligible, and can't be certified per the Constitution. Additionally, each state determines if write-in votes are accepted, this is Nevada's take: What I was wondering was who would become the President in that case. Since the leading candidate is declared ineligible and the next highest candidate does not have sufficient votes, who will become the President? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 22 minutes ago, Asperion said: What I was wondering was who would become the President in that case. Since the leading candidate is declared ineligible and the next highest candidate does not have sufficient votes, who will become the President? Whoever has enough firepower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 I didn't think America had a "minimum vote total" threshold for the Presidential election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 2 hours ago, Asperion said: What I was wondering was who would become the President in that case. Since the leading candidate is declared ineligible and the next highest candidate does not have sufficient votes, who will become the President? Pretty sure there's procedures for this. It's no different from, say, the president-elect becoming incapacitated or dying between election day and the certification of the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Love the ruling. Hate pontificating for a full 2 minutes before getting into anything of substance https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-allows-federal-agents-to-cut-razor-wire-texas-installed-on-us-mexico-border MUCH more informative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 26 minutes ago, unclevlad said: Love the ruling. Hate pontificating for a full 2 minutes before getting into anything of substance https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-allows-federal-agents-to-cut-razor-wire-texas-installed-on-us-mexico-border MUCH more informative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Maybe it's time to let Texas have that independence they crave so much, and pull all federal funding. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 And yet again, Republican officials reject the legitimate rule of law when it works against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Fascist States Of America? Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 To which I reply... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 (edited) 4:38 of straightforward analysis. Further clarifying details: Donald Trump is leading Nikki Haley in the New Hampshire primary, 54.8% to 43.2% according to the latest figures I could find (Associated Press), with 90% of votes tallied. Per analysis on MSNBC, the party identification for those voting was roughly 48% Republican, 6% Democrat, 45% Independent. Among Republicans, Trump leads 74% to Haley's 25%. Among Independents, Haley leads 61% to Trump's 37%. Edited January 24 by Lord Liaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asperion Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Trump is attempting to muddy very clear waters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 From the On Politics NYT newsletter just in, reiterating the points Beau made, albeit more cautiously: Quote Donald Trump has romped through Iowa and New Hampshire, muscling out rivals for the Republican nomination and soaking up adoration from crowds convinced he will again be the president of the United States. But a harsher reality may await him outside the welcoming bubble of Republican primaries. His campaign has enduring vulnerabilities that were laid bare in New Hampshire, where many independents and college-educated voters supported his rival, Nikki Haley. That points to trouble ahead for Trump when the presidential race leaves MAGA world for the broader U.S. electorate, which narrowly elected him in 2016 and rejected him less than four years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Journal of the American Medical Association: Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans Quote In the 14 states that implemented total abortion bans following the Dobbs decision, we estimated that 519 981 completed rapes were associated with 64 565 pregnancies during the 4 to 18 months that bans were in effect (Table 2). Of these, an estimated 5586 rape-related pregnancies (9%) occurred in states with rape exceptions, and 58 979 (91%) in states with no exception, with 26 313 (45%) in Texas. For those of you who are related to at least one woman. Ranxerox, Lawnmower Boy, Lord Liaden and 2 others 1 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 UAW Endorses Pres. Biden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 (edited) The DNC and GOP are warming up their best pitchers this year. Roe v Wade and Immigration are on deck. Fresh faced star hitter Israel vs Hamas is at bat, hard to know how this is going to play out with the public but it’s going to be called by two candidates who were in grade school with Bob Uecker. Edited January 25 by Iuz the Evil Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 On 1/23/2024 at 5:39 PM, Pattern Ghost said: Maybe it's time to let Texas have that independence they crave so much, and pull all federal funding. If NASA's Johnson Space Center wasn't in Houston, I would be much more enthusiastic about this option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 What the federal government saved in funding for Texas should finance the construction of a new center elsewhere. Many of the facilities are sixty years old anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 Elsewhere than Texas? Latitude matters for orbital launch. The only other contiguous state that far south is Florida, which not only has a worse lunatic government problem, it also has a worse climate change problem. No, the answer is to kick Texas out of the Union--and then invade it and seize it. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 I'm leaning towards charging Abbott et al with insurrection, should they continue to defy the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, Old Man said: Elsewhere than Texas? Latitude matters for orbital launch. The only other contiguous state that far south is Florida, which not only has a worse lunatic government problem, it also has a worse climate change problem. No, the answer is to kick Texas out of the Union--and then invade it and seize it. American space launches aren't from Texas. That's where Mission Control is, but vehicles don't take off from there. They take off from Florida, and that's a whole other discussion. 1 hour ago, unclevlad said: I'm leaning towards charging Abbott et al with insurrection, should they continue to defy the Supreme Court. Insurrection would not apply, unless Abbot tried to oppose federal law enforcement or military with state officers using force. Contempt of court would seem to be more applicable. Edited January 26 by Lord Liaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: Insurrection would not apply, unless Abbot tried to oppose federal law enforcement or military with state officers using force. He has/had Texas National Guard blocking border patrol agents' access after the SCOTUS ruling. I'd say that qualifies. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) I haven't found anything saying that Abbot ordered the TNG to continue to block Border Patrol subsequent to the SCOTUS ruling. Could you cite a source? What I have found is that Abbot has declared he'll continue to have the Guard put up razor wire at that park on the border (2.5 miles). The SCOTUS ruling didn't say he couldn't, only that Border Patrol have the right to cut the wire without interference. That isn't defiance of the SCOTUS, it's just a legal loophole allowing Abbot to continue his PR stunt, and distract from the fact Republicans are now trying to sabotage the Senate bipartisan border security bill. Now, if Abbot does make that order -- two rival armed groups with conflicting orders -- that could definitely go sideways. Edited January 26 by Lord Liaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.