[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*
- Thread starter Zeberdi
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is it true, I don’t know, he has obviously denied it. Joe Biden himself has been accused of sexual assault, not to mention sniffing little girls and showering with his daughter. Even his son Hunter refers to him as Pedo Pete.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,223
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,223
'Yeah but Joe Biden' indeed
Nonsensical answer'Yeah but Joe Biden' indeed
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,223
Would you answer this question ?
chickens said:
The fact that so many of these cases are going to trial suggests that there is at least some evidence of potential wrongdoing. Though I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and reserve judgment until each case concludes.
However, Trump’s involvement in inciting the Capitol riots is plain and established as a matter of record. Similarly his phone call demanding that somebody find him “x more votes” - how does anyone who believes in American democracy of either party rationalise those actions, setting apart any irregularities in his business affairs?
- Oct 20, 2022
- 6,942
- Thread starter
- #1,347
As stated, these things have been noted as a matter of record but Trump hasn’t been convicted of ’inciting’ anything yet so these are just charges which the Federal Court of Washington DC has ruled can proceed. The Washington DC indictment doesn’t actually mention ‘incitement’ or ‘insurrection’ either but other equally serious charges to do with trying to overturn the election on Jan 6:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
Federal appeals court rules Trump can be sued for inciting violence on Jan. 6
A federal appeals court says lawsuits against Donald Trump brought by Capitol Police officers and Democratic lawmakers over the U.S. Capitol riot can move forward.
www.pbs.org
Trump has been trying for months to argue that he is afforded Presidential immunity against these charges “ But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.” but the trial would proceed in the meantime.
Now here is the best bit - on the one hand, you have Trump Appealing to SCOTUS that art 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t bar him from being on ballots because he was not President on Jan 6 (art 3 says no official who commits insurrection while in office can run for office again) - so, if SCOTUS rules in favour of Trump by saying article 3 doesn’t apply he can stay on the ballots BUT success in the Appeal while allowing him to run again, means he will not logically be able to at the same time claim immunity from prosecution in the Washington DC Jan 6 charges by arguing he was President at the time the District of Columbia will have a Supreme Court decision that Trump was not.
If however, SCOTUS rules against Trump in that he was President at the time and Art 3 applies, Trump will be probably be removed from the ballots of every Democratic States and maybe a few swing ones (but he might be able to convince the District of Columbia at least he is afforded Presidential immunity from prosecution for Jan 6!)
Ooops
Last edited:
***cough*** "Lock her up, lock her up!"
People get locked up for saying things all the time. Abuse, threats, incitement are all criminal activities.
- Oct 12, 2022
- 2,702
As stated, these things have been noted as a matter of record but Trump hasn’t been convicted of ’inciting’ anything yet so these are just charges which the Federal Court of Washington DC has ruled can proceed. The Washington DC indictment doesn’t actually mention ‘incitement’ or ‘insurrection’ either but other equally serious charges to do with trying to overturn the election on Jan 6:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
Federal appeals court rules Trump can be sued for inciting violence on Jan. 6
A federal appeals court says lawsuits against Donald Trump brought by Capitol Police officers and Democratic lawmakers over the U.S. Capitol riot can move forward.
Trump has been trying for months to argue that he is afforded Presidential immunity against these charges “ But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.” but the trial would proceed in the meantime.
Now here is the best bit - on the one hand, you have Trump Appealing to SCOTUS that art 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t bar him from being on ballots because he was not President on Jan 6 (art 3 says no official who commits insurrection while in office can run for office again) - so, if SCOTUS rules in favour of Trump by saying article 3 doesn’t apply he can stay on the ballots BUT success in the Appeal while allowing him to run again, means he will not logically be able to at the same time claim immunity from prosecution in the Washington DC Jan 6 charges by arguing he was President at the time the District of Columbia will have a Supreme Court decision that Trump was not.
If however, SCOTUS rules against Trump in that he was President at the time and Art 3 applies, Trump will be probably be removed from the ballots of every Democratic States and maybe a few swing ones (but he might be able to convince the District of Columbia at least he is afforded Presidential immunity from prosecution for Jan 6!)
Ooops
The Vicky Pollard school of political argument.
Edit: (I mean Trump, not you)
Last edited:
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
He lost a court case last year and the judge has said that it did happen. So yes it’s true. Saps ds like he had loads of fun at Epstein gaff.
as for Biden ….. I find it very hard to believe that his son would call him that. where did you hear/see that? Let me guess. From the net, from some bloke in an underground bunker in Montana who believes the worlds flat, chem trails are mind control drugs and Democratic are lizard people.
Well if it was "Pedo" Pete, as you've stated, it was probably nothing more than an innocent reference to his father's fondness for step excercise.
Brightonfan1983
Well-known member
According to Wikipedia, his term ended when Biden was inaugurated on January 21st, no?
Brightonfan1983
Well-known member
Very interesting, thanks for that. Had to read through it twice but it was worth it!It is complicated but as brief as I can:
1. Caucuses - are meetings organised throughout the State by the political parties in some States instead of State-run Primaries - there are only 5 States which have caucuses. (See ‘Caucus States 2024’ link) The others have State wide elections in March (the Primaries) in which anyone registered to vote, can vote. The purpose of caucuses and Primaries are to decide how many delegates each candidate gets to attend each party Convention - each delegate represents a vote at the Convention - anyone can attend a caucus but only if they are registered party members - they just turn up and basically go and stand near their candidates in a large room - after speeches there is a show of hands. The Democratic caucuses will be decided by all mail in ballots not by casting votes at the caucuses. We have no equivalent unless you count hustings which have no vote but where the candidates address voters/make speeches.
2. Each State that uses caucuses, has caucuses usually every two years - first to select delegates who will represent the candidates. Then caucuses to determine how many delegates each candidate will have going forward to the respective Convention. Each State has different ways of allocating delegates to candidates - winner takes all, proportional representation or minimal threshold of votes to get through - Each State also has a quota of unpledged delegates who go to the Convention and vote freely. Each State has a proportionate number of available delegates/voters allowed to attend the Convention - eg Iowa has 40 Republican delegates available - out of that number Trump won a majority (20?) —all those 40 Republican Iowa delegates including Iowas ‘super delegates’ (ie those that can vote freely) then attend the Republican Party Convention locked into their candidate or if unpledged, free to vote for whomever they want. The Presidential Candidate for each party is the one that has won the most delegates to each respective party Convention from all caucuses and Primaries combined . At the Republican party Convention for example, a Candidate needs to have at least 1,215 votes ( a majority of the votes out of a total of 2,400 delegate votes) to be nominated as the Presidential Candidate
3. The nominee is the Candidate that has won the most delegate votes from the primaries and caucuses (so it is more often than not just a formality), however, if no one candidate has won such a majority, the votes are all disregarded and the Convention votes from scratch. The respective ‘nominee’ is who each party‘s Convention decides will represent their party in the General Election as the Presidential candidate and race to the White House. As it stands currently, Biden and Trump are looking likely to be the nominees for Presidential Candidates based on opinion polls and the lead they have over other candidates. The Republicans have 6 candidates, the Democrats 3. (Biden, Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson - plenty of info on Wiki about the latter two).
Caucus States 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
What is a caucus? How Nevada's two days of voting are different
Nevada will hold both a Republican primary and caucuses in 2024. Here's what will be different about the two days of voting and how the caucuses work.www.cbsnews.com
It strikes me as quite the snapshot of America circa 250 years ago and a very logical process for the time. A massive country (geographically at least, quite something to think that the (white) population in 1776 was only about 2.5 million), the founders wanting to create a much fairer system than the one they had left behind, it makes perfect sense that these logistics were a way of ensuring everyone from everywhere felt represented.
Fascinating.
Last edited:
Brightonfan1983
Well-known member
double post
Last edited:
If you say you're 'English', yeah. You get arrested and thrown in jail. These days.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
SCOTUS simply cannot rule that Trump had absolute immunity as President because it would be the end of democracy in the US. As has been pointed out several times, it would allow Biden to stay in power indefinitely. He can invoke the insurrection act, lock Trump up, cancel the next election and do whatever he wants and needs to do to stay in power. The constitution does not allow that, if interpreted logically. I cannot see even the christofascists on the Supreme Court taking that step. It would also allow Biden to have them removed, locked up, killed or whatever he wanted to do.As stated, these things have been noted as a matter of record but Trump hasn’t been convicted of ’inciting’ anything yet so these are just charges which the Federal Court of Washington DC has ruled can proceed. The Washington DC indictment doesn’t actually mention ‘incitement’ or ‘insurrection’ either but other equally serious charges to do with trying to overturn the election on Jan 6:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
Federal appeals court rules Trump can be sued for inciting violence on Jan. 6
A federal appeals court says lawsuits against Donald Trump brought by Capitol Police officers and Democratic lawmakers over the U.S. Capitol riot can move forward.
Trump has been trying for months to argue that he is afforded Presidential immunity against these charges “ But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.” but the trial would proceed in the meantime.
Now here is the best bit - on the one hand, you have Trump Appealing to SCOTUS that art 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t bar him from being on ballots because he was not President on Jan 6 (art 3 says no official who commits insurrection while in office can run for office again) - so, if SCOTUS rules in favour of Trump by saying article 3 doesn’t apply he can stay on the ballots BUT success in the Appeal while allowing him to run again, means he will not logically be able to at the same time claim immunity from prosecution in the Washington DC Jan 6 charges by arguing he was President at the time the District of Columbia will have a Supreme Court decision that Trump was not.
If however, SCOTUS rules against Trump in that he was President at the time and Art 3 applies, Trump will be probably be removed from the ballots of every Democratic States and maybe a few swing ones (but he might be able to convince the District of Columbia at least he is afforded Presidential immunity from prosecution for Jan 6!)
Ooops
Last edited:
schmunk
Why oh why oh why?
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Yes, I spotted that and corrected it after posting.
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,243