Trump 2024 ???

[Route 45]

Minnesota Supreme Court rejects effort to block Trump from 2024 ballot

Former President Donald Trump, who is running to reclaim the office, will be allowed to appear on state ballots in the 2024 election, the state's high court ruled Wednesday.

kstp.com

 

[KLB]

Cameron lost because Louisville has armies of dedicated pink hairs willing to take one or more for the cause. Whatever it takes.

Why did they only vote for him? The Rs did well in the other state wide races.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

She's a neolib, wants to go to war with most of the world, and bark off braindead insults rather than respond to criticisms.

Just kamala harris with an (R) next to her name. But because """"conservatives"""" are hopelessly obsessed with israel, they will eat up anyone who makes even a vaguely pro-israel statement, regardless of the rest of the person's qualities.

Which is why after israel was attacked, she started rising in the polls, even though she never managed to articulate a single policy standpoint or plan.

She articulated her position well, especially in contrast to the insanity of Vivek. I think the contrast with her and Biden on stage would be an easy win in November where Trump is still a long shot. I think her ideas are much more mainstream.

 

[LeftyGunner]

The primaries are about appealing to the base, the general is all about appealing to the centrists, Trump’s problem is that he motivates his opposition and the centrists to show up and vote against him.

Due to Biden’s performance as president I don’t want to vote for him again, but I will show up and vote for literally anyone to keep Trump from taking office again.

Don’t give me Trump to vote against, and I’m less likely to vote at all. I doubt I’m alone in that sentiment.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So is this the analysis of how the news reported results on election night? Or the over/unders of the other Republican votes in the state but not for Trump? Or something else?

There's so much spaghetti on the wall, it's hard to figure which particular pasta strand you're referring to...

@Ingomike since you never replied back on this, I'll just assume it was the nuthin' burger of the timing of election day and mail in voting reporting...

Buying a large block of a stock prior to market-moving news being publicly available is suspicious and might indicate insider trading. It might be a singular trade that a close to an insider mortgaged his house to make... or it might be one of a 1000 trades that entity made that day. It constitutes "smoke", not "fire".

A large block of (Biden) mail-in votes reporting out on election night at the same time as a large number of (Trump) in-person votes might be monkey-business, or it might just be counting and reporting the votes.

Had "they" reported them (mail-in votes) earlier in night, then they did so because they knew the Trump votes were coming.

Had "they" reported them later, then they were scrambling to make up the deficit.

That they released them at the same time means exactly what?

What is the evidence the votes were anything other than actual votes? What is the evidence that the timing of the release of the vote tallies was anything other than reporting what they had at the time of that traunch of releases?

 

[Ingomike]

@Ingomike since you never replied back on this, I'll just assume it was the nuthin' burger of the timing of election day and mail in voting reporting...

Buying a large block of a stock prior to market-moving news being publicly available is suspicious and might indicate insider trading. It might be a singular trade that a close to an insider mortgaged his house to make... or it might be one of a 1000 trades that entity made that day. It constitutes "smoke", not "fire".

A large block of (Biden) mail-in votes reporting out on election night at the same time as a large number of (Trump) in-person votes might be monkey-business, or it might just be counting and reporting the votes.

Had "they" reported them (mail-in votes) earlier in night, then they did so because they knew the Trump votes were coming.

Had "they" reported them later, then they were scrambling to make up the deficit.

That they released them at the same time means exactly what?

What is the evidence the votes were anything other than actual votes? What is the evidence that the timing of the release of the vote tallies was anything other than reporting what they had at the time of that traunch of releases?

It is in the forum. Look it up. You likely didn’t understand it the first time so why bother now.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It is in the forum. Look it up. You likely didn’t understand it the first time so why bother now.

Yup, the nuthin' burger I already reviewed.

 

[Ingomike]

Yup, the nuthin' burger I already reviewed.

Then you lack the tools to understand. Likely TDS clouds your judgement on this.

 

[Ingomike]

Minnesota Supreme Court rejects effort to block Trump from 2024 ballot

Former President Donald Trump, who is running to reclaim the office, will be allowed to appear on state ballots in the 2024 election, the state's high court ruled Wednesday.

kstp.com

Thought this was interesting.

MN Supreme Court Punts on 14th Amendment Challenge to Trump​

“The Court dismissed Growe’s petition without addressing the Fourteenth Amendment argument. Rather, the Court held that it’s up to the parties to determine the candidates that are to appear on Minnesota’s primary ballot even if the candidate is ineligible for office. The Court reserved the Fourteenth Amendment issue to resolve later in the event that Trump becomes the Republican candidate for president in the general election. The Court’s order dismissing Growe’s petition is posted online here.”

“I think the underlying idea is that the United States Supreme Court may resolve the issue in other litigation and save the Minnesota Supreme Court the trouble. If not, the Minnesota Supreme Court will deal with it when the time (or the issue) is “ripe.” As King Lear puts it in Shakespeare’s greatest play, “ripeness is all.”

[Gutless. I had assumed that the court addressed this on the merits rather than punt on ripeness when I first saw the headline late yesterday. But is it really the Minnesota supreme court’s petition that parties can place ineligible candidates on primary ballots? If the MN GOP put Arnold Schwarzenegger on the ballot, they’d allow it even though he’s not a natural-born citizen of the US? That seems like a very strange argument, and I think the 14th Amendment challenge is ridiculous. — Ed]

MN Supreme Court Punts on 14th Amendment Challenge to Trump

The Court dismissed Growe’s petition without addressing the Fourteenth Amendment argument. Rather, the Court held that it’s up to the parties to determine the candidates that are to appear on Minnesot...

hotair.com

 

[KLB]

I'm confused about what the court said that was wrong. The primaries are not elections for an actual office, but rather for the right to represent a party in an election. The party should be able to put whomever them want on the ballot. That means there is no 14th Amendment argument to be had at this time.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Then you lack the tools to understand. Likely TDS clouds your judgement on this.

What I lack (among other things, but for what's pertinent to this discussion) is the ability to believe any and everything that issues from Trump's mouth... call that TDS if you'd like, which is apparently what TDS means now... anything other than absolute adoration and unquestioning belief is TDS.

When he says there's irrefutable proof that the election was stolen from him... I expect to see some, you know, actual proof.

 

[Route 45]

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

They said the same thing in 2020. Trump landed right on the historical average. He ran that ad on his criminal justice reform and spent extra money trying to pump the black vote. He didn't gain at all. Then Biden won.

 

[oze]

They said the same thing in 2020. Trump landed right on the historical average. He ran that ad on his criminal justice reform and spent extra money trying to pump the black vote. He didn't gain at all. Then Biden won.

Yeah, I recall reading that same type of story 4 years ago, and thinking, "Wow, finally!" Then, reality set in.

 

[Route 45]

Then Biden won.

 

[BugI02]

Well yeah but easy is for lazy. If I am to draw a conclusion on the value of his endorsement, I need to know if it swings the needle in a swing state.

Then do the ****ing research, your highness. Oy

 

[jamil]

If the Democrats are done, why did they kick R's ass in 2023 elections? I'll believe Democrats are done when people stop voting for them.

 

[BugI02]

It IS a truism that they cannot win without monolithic support among blacks. I think the minimum they need is something like 84% (pretty much 7 out of 8)

 

[Ingomike]

They said the same thing in 2020. Trump landed right on the historical average. He ran that ad on his criminal justice reform and spent extra money trying to pump the black vote. He didn't gain at all. Then Biden won.

Even though the media and those with TDS want to diminish the accomplishments Trump did better than all previous republican candidates but Bush in the afterglow of 9/11 attracting non-white votes. Bush got 28% Trump in one if the most divisive elections ever git 26%. He also increased his vote percentage with all the individual non-white segments.

Newsweek reports polling that shows higher numbers than politifact (a notoriously anti-Trump outfit.) What would be record numbers.

“According to surveys conducted by Edison Research and published by The New York Times, Trump has boosted his share of the Black vote by 4 percentage points since 2016, when just 8 percent of Black voters supported him.”

“The commander-in-chief has also seen his backing among Hispanic and Latino voters jump by 4 points over his first term, with 32 percent telling exit pollsters they backed Trump on Tuesday compared to the 28 percent who said so in 2016.”

Blunt’s wrong: Trump did not get the highest minority vote percentage in 100 years

President Donald Trump found some success attracting the support of non-white voters in the 2020 election. So much, in f

www.politifact.com

Donald Trump Increases His Share of Black, Latino Voters: Exit Poll

The president has boosted his share of the Black vote by 4 points since the 2016 election.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Ingomike]

Almost no one wants to give Trump credit for his long standing beliefs concerning trade and MAGA. He has been beating that drum since the early 80’s. Everyone should read the middle of this article as the meat is loo long to repost here.

“Trump’s views on trade, tariffs and multinational trade deals were set in stone long before he became president.”

“In the 1980s, Trump lambasted Japan for “taking advantage of” the U.S., along with other countries. He railed against the trade deficits the U.S. had amassed with Japan and other trade partners. “It’s time for us to end our vast deficits by making Japan, and others who can afford it, pay,” Trump wrote in an open letter “To The American People” that ran as a full-page newspaper ad in 1987.”

Trump's hard-line views on trade were formed long before he targeted China with tariffs

President Trump's views on trade, tariffs and multinational trade deals were set in stone long before he became president.

www.cnbc.com