The Last Time Democrats Took a GOP Candidate Off the Ballot Was in 1860 -They Would Not Allow Abraham Lincoln's Name on the Ballot in Their Slave States
Their reasoning was probably a lot more shaky. There was no amendment that Lincoln might have violated. We will have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says. I am more concerned about how soon they might take up and hear the case. For comparison, an NRA case that was appealed to them
over a month ago won't likely be decided until Summer.
Their reasoning was probably a lot more shaky. There was no amendment that Lincoln might have violated. We will have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says. I am more concerned about how soon they might take up and hear the case. For comparison, an NRA case that was appealed to them over a month ago won't likely be decided until Summer.
HAHAHA... Texas AG is talking about removing Biden from the Texas ballots... He says if you can make stuff up to do this why can't Texas use the border as
insurrection and bump Biden off... Ron said a similar thing for Florida... Ge
your popcorn folks!!!!
Their reasoning was probably a lot more shaky. There was no amendment that Lincoln might have violated. We will have to wait and see what the SCOTUS says. I am more concerned about how soon they might take up and hear the case. For comparison, an NRA case that was appealed to them over a month ago won't likely be decided until Summer.
HAHAHA... Texas AG is talking about removing Biden from the Texas ballots... He says if you can make stuff up to do this why can't Texas use the border as
insurrection and bump Biden off... Ron said a similar thing for Florida... Ge
your popcorn folks!!!!
your popcorn folks!!!!
It will remain to be seen if they can make that hold up in court. Colorado didn't make anything up. They determined, after a court case complete with witness testimony and Trump lawyers being given the opportunity to cross-examine, that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection
and that Trump played a part in it.
The last time a candidate was removed was not Lincoln. That is internet misinformation. In particular, the Colorado case cited a previous case where Judge Neal Gorsich (sp?) ruled in favor of Colorado removing an Independent candidate from their ballot when it was determined that he
was not elligible to be President per the Constitution -- he was not a natural born US citizen.
So there is precidence for removing a candidate who Constitutionally cannot hold office.
A constitutional president... Constitution states you have to be A Naturally Born Citizen of the US. That's
no brainer...
BTW I posted some videos yesterday with Never Trumper stating what I just stated.
They did make things up... Would you please site me the court case, date and location, where Trump was found
guilty of the crime of insurrection.
The 14th Amendment is also a constitutional precident. What is in question is whether or not he is an
insurrectionist. The court date that determined this was the Colorado district court date, where Trump's
Now it goes to the SCOTUS. To turn it over, they have to side with
Trump and say that he is not an
insurrectionist, or they have to say that the original Colorado district court did not have jurisdiction to
decide that.
A constitutional president... Constitution states you have to be A Natu Born Citizen of the US. That's
no brainer...
The 14th Amendment is also a constitutional precident. What is in question is whether or not he is an
insurrectionist. The court date that determined this was the Colorado district court date, where Trump's
lawyers were present, that stated that Trump was an insurrectionist. That happened in Oct-Nov of this year.
That court case also said that the Colorado SoS would not be able to
take Trump off of the ballot.
BOTH Trump's lawyers and the group that brought the suit appealed. That is how it wound up in Colorado Supreme
Court. They decided, 4-3, that the lower court was correct re: insurrection but was not correct re: the ballot
. They said that because Trump was not legally able to hold offce, per the 14th Amendment, that the SoS had
a duty to remove him.
Now it goes to the SCOTUS. To turn it over, they have to side with
Trump and say that he is not an
insurrectionist, or they have to say that the original Colorado district court did not have jurisdiction to
decide that.
BTW I posted some videos yesterday with Never Trumper stating what I ju stated.
It does not matter what a Never Trumper says. What matters is whether
or not the SCOTUS believes the Colorado
district court finding -- that Trump is an insurrectionist -- is correct or not. I don't need to watch a video
where someone who isn't part of the case gives some opinion. All I have to do is to be able to read the
opinion the CO SC published.
As an aside, I hate the syncrhonet full screen editor.
It was in Oct-Nov this year in Colorado District Court. It was the case that was appealed ... by Trump's
lawyers because of the Insurrection finding, and by the other side's lawyers because of the finding that
Trump could stay on the ballot .... that lead to the CO Supreme Court case.
I don't believe he is an insurrection but, right now, you have a court opinion that states otherwise, and that
is what the SCOTUS would have to disagree with in order for Trump to be
on the ballot. Otherwise, he is not
eligible per the 14th Amendment.
If it was not for the insurrection finding, Trump's lawyers would have
had no reason to ask the CO Supreme
Court to review the case.
The 14th Amendment is also a constitutional precident. What is in question is whether or not he is an
insurrectionist. The court date that determined this was the Colorado district court date, where Trump's
Are you for real??
One of the main things that will hinder the Colorado decision is section 5... ere it CLEARLY states that "Congress"... That's the US congress not a
State legislature or a state court.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the ovisions of this article.
This insurrection charge would be a federal charge... Its would be a criminal arge and state matter.
There is a reason Jack Smith has not charged Trump with insurrection is becaus
he'd loose the case.... Trump wanted to give Nancy 10,0000 national guard sold
s to help protect the capital. Trump wanted yo go to the Capital to plea with
he protesters, his secret service said no. Trump would also have access, via scovery, about the government involvement... Nancy's communications... The FBI
CIA and all the stuff they don't want to talk about.
Now it goes to the SCOTUS. To turn it over, they have to side with Trump and say that he is not an
insurrectionist, or they have to say that the original Colorado district court did not have jurisdiction to
decide that.
Colorado went to a place that was not in their jurisdiction. This falls under
he jurisdiction of Congress and not the state, as put forth in the constitutio
s amendment 14...
Conservative States are now talking about removing Biden, because apparently y
can pull reasons out of your ass... Mark Levin stated that the border crisis
lone, where Biden is refusing to follow US law... or the fact that he found an
nconstitutional work around to pay student debt after the Supreme Court said n
.. Could/Should be used.... Now the Red states are considering to fight fire w
h fire...
BTW, because Trump was never charged criminally with insurrection... the only medy congress has given... All of what the Colorado Supreme Court used as rati
al was unconstitutional because it deprived Trump of his due process...
I sent a 5 minute video that should help you... I think. Jack Smith should ha
manned up and Just charged him with Insurrection in DC a while back. This wo
d all be moot if he had done that... That's if he succeeded.
Instead he's trying a shot gun approach seeing what will stick and it's only
aking him look bad and Trump looking like a victim of prosecutorial over reach
Hence his polls go up every time they do something to him.
Mike Powell wrote to IB JOE <=-
It will remain to be seen if they can make that hold up in court.
Colorado didn't make anything up. They determined, after a court case complete with witness testimony and Trump lawyers being given the opportunity to cross-examine, that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection
and that Trump played a part in it.
So there is precidence for removing a candidate who Constitutionally cannot hold office.
I don't think that Smith is trying anything in this case. Sounds like it was state electors who are concerned that they might nominate a candidate who is not eligible to hold office, which would be a problem.
I don't see it holding up.
1. We have many legal experts already speaking out saying that the 14th Amendment is not applicable to the President.
2. Also that states cannot apply it. Only the Feds.
3. No "insurrection" occured and we have mountains of evidence of that now. 4. Trump was never convicted of playing a part in it.
What the difference a day makes... HAHAHA... 19 AG's have filed documents wi the US Supreme Court claiming that Jack Smith does not have the authority to Special Counsel on Trumps case.
Apparently anyone who is Special Counsel has to be agreed upon by the senate This is to ensure that a partisan hack doesn't run a-muck during an election year working interference for the party in power.
don't have to determine, or necessarily convict, Trump of insurrection
if they can prove he provided some comfort or aid to those who have been
So who appointed/agreed upon Smith? Was the Senate not involved?
Apparently there are 9, or more, red states using the exact same logic with Joe Bidem to remove him from their state ballots..... Because of
the insurrection going on at the southern boarder... Because the Big Guy received 10%.... Bla Bla Bla... Clearly he is guilty and as a result should be removed off the state ballot. Trump and as well as Biden
should be afforded due process as the constitution states.
We're gonna find out who are real friends are ahead of the election!
Those states who let "insurrectionists" remain on their ballots are tryants!
There are patriots working hard... I'm trying to recall... so far no one has been charged with insurrection... And an insurrection is when you
try to overthrow a sitting government... AND Trump was the head of that government... So the left, and their media, want us to believe that
Trump was trying to overthrow himself with no guns....
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
The 14th does not only cover insurrectionist, but anyone who provides comfort or aid to insurrectionists. Persons HAVE been convicted of insurrection for 1/6, even if we don't agree that it happened. So they don't have to determine, or necessarily convict, Trump of insurrection
if they can prove he provided some comfort or aid to those who have
been convicted.
IB Joe wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
There are patriots working hard... I'm trying to recall... so far no
one has been charged with insurrection... And an insurrection is when
you try to overthrow a sitting government... AND Trump was the head of that government... So the left, and their media, want us to believe
that Trump was trying to overthrow himself with no guns....
People are starting to see this...
They created a spectacle.
When Hitler incited an insurrection in Poland in 1939, he deployed 2000 tanks, 900 bombers, and 400 fighter planes. Thousands of Polish troops were taken into German captivity.
Plus, Hitler actually ordered an insurrection, unlike Trump, who
"incited" protesters to protest "peacefully and patriotically."
Questions we need answers to:
1) How many tanks, bombers, and fighter planes did Trump deploy in D.C.?
2) How many US soldiers did Trump take into captivity?
3) Did Trump mistreat his captives while he held them in captivity?
4) The weapons that were found in someone's car; did they come from Russia? ;)
Mike... Look up the punishment for "Insurrection" ... It says... up to 10 ye in Jail and a $250,000.00 fine.... Is Trump in jail right now?? NO... Becau he was not found, as fact, to have participated in am Insurrection.
Now, based on your opinion he's guilty... 4 judges on the Colorado Supreme Court said what you are saying.... Without deliberation of FACT in a court o LAW we think that Trump is clearly guilty and as a result he should be remov from the ballot.
When Hitler incited an insurrection in Poland in 1939, he deployed 2000 tank 900 bombers, and 400 fighter planes. Thousands of Polish troops were taken i German captivity.
Plus, Hitler actually ordered an insurrection, unlike Trump, who "incited" protesters to protest "peacefully and patriotically."
The 14th does not only cover insurrectionist, but anyone who provides comfort or aid to insurrectionists. Persons HAVE been convicted of insurrection for 1/6, even if we don't agree that it happened. So they don't have to determine, or necessarily convict, Trump of insurrection if they can prove he provided some comfort or aid to those who have been convicted.
And what's interesting is that by this logic (and I'm agreeing with your logic), most congress-critters in office today are inelegible to be on the ballot.
You don't have to be convicted for a federal court to determine that you aided or comforted -- also against the 14th.
If you have read my OPINION is is that I don't think there was an insurrection, so no one can be guilty of it. But my opinion is worth about as much as a talking head on youtube or on the MSM because I am
not a judge. Judges have convicted persons of insurrection as a result
of what happened on 1/6/2021. That is fact. Because persons have been convicted, in the courts eyes there was one, and others could be found
as providing aid or comfort. IMHO, because Trump is not convicted, that will be the angle that will be used -- aid and comfort.
Just because we like a politician doesn't mean we can put on blinders
and play pretend -- that makes us as bad as any Democrat who has
ingorned what HRC got up to or what the Obamas or Bidens have got up to.
Plus, Hitler actually ordered an insurrection, unlike Trump, who "incit protesters to protest "peacefully and patriotically."
That was not an insurrection, that was an invasion. If you want to read about Hitler and insurrection, google "Beer Hall Putsch".
It's like someone calling Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell "racist". You
get that Lost in Space robot voice in your head "That does not compute!".
Plus, Hitler actually ordered an insurrection, unlike Trump, who "incited" protesters to protest "peacefully and patriotically."
Plus, Hitler actually ordered an insurrection, unlike Trump, who "incite protesters to protest "peacefully and patriotically."
Jan 6 was not a protest. It was not peaceful. It was not patriotic.
Jan 6 was not a protest. It was not peaceful. It was not patriotic.
Ok,
USA 1/6/2021 wasn't a protest. Trump's fault! Right? He let it happen!
Ukraine 2/24/22 wasn't a protest. Biden's fault! Right? He let that happen!
What's the difference? The narration of words & definitions!
Blaming Russia for everything is what the globalists want us to do because it's convenient, trendy, and it grants them unlimited access to billions of dollars.
It's Joe's fault that Ukraine was invaded. Joe left his money-rabbits hopping around near a predator, and some of them got eaten.
When snakes start slithering around my mice, I kill them to protect my mice. I don't sit back for months & months and let the snakes eat my mice, and then begin a proxy war against snakes.
"America, give me all your f'n money because this is a stick up. I need the money to fight a war against snakes because I was too ignorant to do anything about it when they first came a' slitherin'."
"Can you put a price on freedom?"
Ukraine 2/24/22 wasn't a protest. Biden's fault! Right? He let that happ
How is Ukraine Biden's fault? Russia launched an invasion into Ukraine.
Biden had nothing to do with that.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I consider Larry Elder a "traitor." He's a cool radio guy, but that's
all he knows how to do. He had a chance to help millions of
Californians and he blew it bigtime.
"Vote for me because I'm the cool radio guy" <- Not good enough!
Mike Powell wrote to IB Joe <=-
You don't have to be convicted for a federal court to determine that
you aided or comforted -- also against the 14th.
IB Joe wrote to Mike Powell <=-
But then again... Everyone thus far has been charged with anything but Insurrection...
"Vote for me because I'm the cool radio guy" <- Not good enough!
While I won't go as far as calling him a "traitor", I do agree with you. Just because someone's a good radio host doesn't mean he will be a good politician.
That's sort of why I'm chilly on Vivek. He can talk a good talk, but I have no idea if he can walk the walk.
The Ignorant Elitists have two main problems.
1. They can't make a coherent argument to save their lives.
2. The have relied on smearing their opponent to get them to go away.
Now they are running into a wall where they need to provide the coherent arguments and trying to smear Trump isn't working.
You don't have to be convicted for a federal court to determine that you aided or comforted -- also against the 14th.
Yes you do... That is how things are settled in the US, among other countries... We do it by law and not public opinion...
BTW, do you recall the QAnon Shaman?? The guy with the Buffalo hat... He's ru
ing for Congress, Arizona... A man convicted and sent to jail because of his ings during January 6th... Running for office... and no one cares.
Trump's second impeachment was all about January 6th and he was acquitted by t
senate.
The Deep State is trying their best, but are failing miserably at succeeding t
keep Trump out of office.
If you have read my OPINION is is that I don't think there was an insurrection, so no one can be guilty of it. But my opinion is worth about as much as a talking head on youtube or on the MSM because I am not a judge. Judges have convicted persons of insurrection as a result of what happened on 1/6/2021. That is fact. Because persons have been convicted, in the courts eyes there was one, and others could be found as providing aid or comfort. IMHO, because Trump is not convicted, that will be the angle that will be used -- aid and comfort.
I don't have to agree with your opinion...
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow the government... Wait... Trump was
he leader of that government... He was trying to overthrow himself... Interest
g...
Trump was not there to lead anything. He said go to the Capital and make your
oices hear... PEACEFULLY...
He offered 20,000 National Guard to Nancy and the Mayor of DC to assist on Jan
ry 6th... This was turned down by both of them.
A crowed showed up to the Capital and agitators whipped them up. NO Trump sup
rters had guns or demanded to overthrow the government... The people who enter
the Capital were let in by the people protecting the Capital... They took som
selfies and left.
The reason Trump was found not guilty of it during his senate hearing was, in rt, because of what I mentioned above. Double Jeopardy prevents a revisit of is...
That was not an insurrection, that was an invasion. If you want to read about Hitler and insurrection, google "Beer Hall Putsch".
Has there ever been an insurrection before? I used the first thing that came t
mind. Perhaps the Revolutionary War was slightly more similar, because it was lonists fighting the government that ruled them.
Either way, the media and the crats want people to believe that Trump organize
a violent uprising against the government, but I don't understand how there's y truth in that. I apologize if you tried to explain it, I just don't get it.
You don't have to be convicted for a federal court to determine that
you aided or comforted -- also against the 14th.
But you do have to be convicted of aiding and comforting.
I think the problem here is that if the 14th Amendment can be applied without conviction, then it's in conflict with the 4th and 5th Amendments and the Due Process clause.
Plus, Hitler actually ordered an insurrection, unlike Trump, who "incited" protesters to protest "peacefully and patriotically."
Jan 6 was not a protest. It was not peaceful. It was not patriotic.
Jan 6 was not a protest. It was not peaceful. It was not patriotic.
Ok,
USA 1/6/2021 wasn't a protest. Trump's fault! Right? He let it happen!
Trump told those who were present to go down to the capitol.
Anyway, that's fine I guess, but here's the part that's not fine:
Russia amassed troops along the northern Ukraine border as soon as Joe Biden go
elected. Once they had enough troops there, they started attacking (2/24/22.)
oes that sound like proper management of American assets to you?
He doesn't have to be CONVICTED. The court just has to determine that he aided and comforted. The US Supreme court can do that without him being CONVICTED. I am not even sure what the charge or punishment would be for aiding and comforting, other than you can't hold office.
No one has challenged it, have they? What was he convicted of? Must
not have been anything major if he is already out and running (which,
yes, I knew he is). Criminal Tresspass, for example, may not keep him
out of office.
That is for the Supreme Court to decide. Like I said before, best to get it out of the way now than later, when he is the nominee or already elected.
Not sure this was Deep State motivated, but there is certainly some desperation showing in the MSM. MSNBC has been telling audiences that if the SCOTUS overturns, then they are certainly making political decisions and can't be trusted. MSNBC is trying to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court.
If they overturn based on the lack of an insurrection conviction and lack of evidence of any 14th Amendment violations, I disagree with MSNBC's conclusion. If they overturn based on Colorado having no jurisdiction, I would also disagree with MSNBC.
He told them to go peacefully, but he also instructed them to do other things that could be considred an attempt to prevent the certification,
so it would depend on how the SCOTUS looks at it.
Trump told those who were present to go down to the capitol.
He also told them to peacefully make their voices heard but you are correct in pointing out that not all of them heeded this request.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
He seems radical or progressive enough for me to want to give him a chance. Anyone who calls out the media in a harsh way, seems like a
good choice.
I just wish that he had a political track record; he just don't.
IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
Things are about to get messy... The elites are desperate... Trudeau
was on the news complaining about the Climate agenda and what Trump
will do to the progress... Even Canada's most hated leader can read the tea leaves.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
But you do have to be convicted of aiding and comforting.
What would the charge be, I wonder.
These people want to decide Reality and cannot accept Reality even when it's biting them on the rear.
Thats the way its worked for over 250 years... and that's the way it works now
The constitution restricts the government and doesn't give powers to remove t
right of the people to vote people into office.
It sounds like you really-reall-really want this to be so... But it's not so. say let democracy win and the people can vote whoever they want.
That is for the Supreme Court to decide. Like I said before, best to get
it out of the way now than later, when he is the nominee or already elected.
Not sure this was Deep State motivated, but there is certainly some desperation showing in the MSM. MSNBC has been telling audiences that if
the SCOTUS overturns, then they are certainly making political decisions and can't be trusted. MSNBC is trying to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court.
If they overturn based on the lack of an insurrection conviction and lack
of evidence of any 14th Amendment violations, I disagree with MSNBC's conclusion. If they overturn based on Colorado having no jurisdiction, I
would also disagree with MSNBC.
I'm not sure if you're new to the US... But just because you really-really-rea
y want something doesn't make it so...
He told them to go peacefully, but he also instructed them to do other things that could be considred an attempt to prevent the certification, so it would depend on how the SCOTUS looks at it.
I think I understand now and agree. I wasn't there, so I can't say what was sa
; I can't make a judgement based on video footage from the media, and I don't ow precisely what the laws are in Colorado. It's possible that Trump may have olated Colorado law, by their standards, without ever having visited Colorado.
He also told them to peacefully make their voices heard but you are correct in pointing out that not all of them heeded this request.
But of course, if we were there, we might have seen a different story unfold.
can't take the media's word for it about ANYTHING.
But you do have to be convicted of aiding and comforting.
What would the charge be, I wonder.
I thought aiding and abetting a criminal act was a criminal act.
It's kind of hard to discuss something when "good" can mean "bad" in one sentance, then mean "mostly bad" in another.
Trump told those who were present to go down to the capitol.
He also told them to peacefully make their voices heard but you are correct in pointing out that not all of them heeded this request.
You mean the feds that were planted in the crowds?
Except it clearly does have that power if they are not old enough, not born here, or if they violate the 14th Amendment. Gorsuch previously ruled that it has such power.
Google "Trump Jan 6 speech." The AP has the full text available, with expletives redacted. I have read it. I don't think that he ever specifically asks them to do anything wrong. The only basis I would see is that he knew he was talking to an angry audience, and asking them to march down Pennsylvania Avenue while angry was enough.
The other basis could be that it is not heard of for a losing candidate
to hold a rally in Washington, DC, on cerification day and that asking rallygoers to march is enough -- i.e. the intent is in holding a rally
and a march to begin with. That was a mistake, and I don't think we need hindsight to tell us that.
Based on the speech alone, I honestly don't see a basis for holding him responsible. I do think it is likely for the SCOTUS to overturn, but
they do need to look at it and not just toss it. Otherwise, we have a section of the population that won't believe it wasn't done for
political reasons.
All I can say is if you were there that day, and did not leave as soon as things got ugly, that was a big mistake.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
But you do have to be convicted of aiding and comforting.
What would the charge be, I wonder.
I thought aiding and abetting a criminal act was a criminal act.
It is I am sure, but is there such a thing as aiding and abetting an insurrection?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I can't find anything wrong with what he said. But lawyers probably
can.
The other basis could be that it is not heard of for a losing candidate to hold a rally in Washington, DC, on cerification day and that asking rallygoers to march is enough -- i.e. the intent is in holding a rally and a march to begin with. That was a mistake, and I don't think we need
hindsight to tell us that.
Yes but nothing Trump ever did was heard of. The loser's rally was unheard of,
ut it was a way for Trump to let supporters know that he's not abandoning them
(Some of them just disappear into the darkness and go back to working at some w firm.)
All I can say is if you were there that day, and did not leave as soon as >MP> things got ugly, that was a big mistake.
I was very disappointed with the news that "Trump lost." But not disappointed e
ough to damage government property! Who is that insane? Not me, not you.. But >MAGA People?" That defies logic, but it supports the narrative that "that is ho
Trump supporters behave."
Without the motivation from the plant, do they even ever get around to doing anything?
Nope. But the FBI has a track record of doing that. They just don't plant someone to get information and stop them when they start to actually do something. Instead they push the group "over the edge" into something that they really would never have done.
It's entrapment and should be handled as such.
I can't find anything wrong with what he said. But lawyers probably can.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men,
I will find something in them which will hang him."
Yes but nothing Trump ever did was heard of. The loser's rally was unhea of,
ut it was a way for Trump to let supporters know that he's not abandonin them
(Some of them just disappear into the darkness and go back to working at w firm.)
And it was a big mistake. We'd be going through none of this "insurrection" stuff of the past nearly 3 years if he'd not done that.
He has made a lot of mistakes since then. We now have another "perfect phone call" of him asking Michigan officials not to certify election results. No way you can reframe that one as "asking for a recount."
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
And yet they are unable to stop others they have knowledge of until they've shot up a grocery store or a church or... They are really not
very good at what they are supposed to be doing.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men,
I will find something in them which will hang him."
Which Democrat said that? ;)
And it was a big mistake. We'd be going through none of this "insurrection" stuff of the past nearly 3 years if he'd not done that. He has made a lot of mistakes since then. We now have another "perfect phone call" of him asking Michigan officials not to certify election results. No way you can reframe that one as "asking for a recount."
Let's hope it doesn't yield another Biden term.
And yet they are unable to stop others they have knowledge of until they've shot up a grocery store or a church or... They are really not very good at what they are supposed to be doing.
Yup. It's hard, especially with the Elitists running the show, to tell whether
they are just incompetent or doing it on purpose.
Regardless, they need to be fired.
Let's hope it doesn't yield another Biden term.
Indeed. Trump's polling numbers did shift some after the news of the Michigan phone call got out. Not numbers vs. Biden necessarily, but numbers regarding whether or not people believe he should be President again.
What I had not paid attention to before until this discussion came up... in the 1/6 speech, a lot of Trump's justification for claiming the election was stolen involved citing polls. Political polls have been pretty bad wrong since at least 2016 when it comes to foretelling the future so someone not winning who appears to be ahead in the polls
should surprise no one.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 253 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 14:56:29 |
| Calls: | 1,646 |
| Files: | 3,994 |
| Messages: | 387,903 |