WalrusDragonOnABike

You mean an organization that seems to primary exist as an opposition to those so-called “adults” meddling in the middle east? A lot of their other broad geopolitical strategies, like funding the Taliban, also has been a great success in the region. I’m sure they will do so much good for the region and won’t do more to empower terrorist groups like Hamas for their own personal gain.

The US should stop providing the US with military weapons based on their history of use in the middle east as well.

Don’t provide weapons to either of them?

Why would the Democrats themselves label him genocide Joe?

Some 3rd parties have ran ineligible candidates. If they actually won, the electors wouldn’t actually cast their votes for them, but the votes are counted and tallied AFAIK. Given these are parties that make the Green Party and Libertarian parties look like first parties, they’ve just been ignored.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Notably, Colorado is one of the states that wouldn’t let Calero on the ballot because he was ineligible.

Courts enforcing plain laws is gamesmanship?

If the RNC decides to unilaterally change their candidate to Haley or DeSantis or another candidate just because Trump is removed from a swing state ballot, I feel like Trump won’t admit defeat and his supporters will just write him in or just not vote. His supporters are already distrustful of organizations like Fox. Winning any elections ever would become much more difficult for a long time.

Should we start allowing people under the legal age and non-citizens run for president without first amending the constitution to allow that as well?

If people want to change that outcome, then they should tell their representatives (the Constitution says Trump needs 2/3rds vote by both houses of Congress to be allowed to run for office in the US now) or amend the constitution. Its simply following the election laws that was accepted by the elected officials.

If that makes a difference, the RNC might just decide to go the DNC route and give themselves the power to ignore delegates and just pick a candidate if they so feel like.

But it’s not. There is no question: it’s explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a political question. Or just abandoning the Constitution is an option. And of course the Constitution gives Congress the political power to re-add someone to the ballot by a political vote. The Court did what they should (except I think there is legitimate legal question about whether this should only have applied to the final ballot instead of primaries). What is done next is the political part.

So courts should just violate the law to keep trump on the ballot? Why even have courts?

Congress can overturn it or you can pass a constitutional amendment changing the Constitution to fix it.

Because not liking two different things is definitely equivalent to saying they’re the same. Pantser is definitely the one doing a false equivalence and definitely not hypnotoad.

/S

Didn’t he supposedly keep a copy of it by his bed at some point? Seems like a weird book to just keep around for decor. Whether he ever finished it is a separate issue, but I think it’s fair to assume he’s at least read parts of it.

NBies too.

I wear panties instead of men’s underwear and have a dick and balls. Not uncomfortable at all. Just gotta find ones that fit right (I do have some that do cause such issues on occasion)). Wouldn’t consider myself a man tho.

No spoiler tags?
/j

They can: the two statements are not contradictory. You’re making more specific claims unrelated to the topic.

Reagan got almost every electoral vote in 84, with the exceptions of Minnesota and DC. But in landslide wins, your vote matters even less.

No one is disagreeing about that. Its irrelevant to the topic.

If they won, they would no longer be a third party. If democrats became a third party, another party would become first party.

I’d bet its not democrats if people stopped voting for them.