What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.

Trump thread part 2 (Or anything else we want to talk about that's ridiculous in politics today)

RobFromTX

Well-known member
Very doubtful with the population density of Denver/suburbs and Boulder, there are probably people in Denver partying over this, not to mention all of the non-English speakers here

Boebert is pretty much a meme/laughing stock for the state, and it's to the point if someone like her supports Trump it's going to make her look even worse

Even Paul Ryan is like fuck this guy lol
Yeah Boeberts a bimbo for sure
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
Ive been all over the state. Its hardly a liberal bastion and this will just piss off swing voters. My guess is it gets shot down on appeal and Colorado ends up voting more republican than they have in a decade.

People don't like being told their business. Especially when it comes to voting
Maybe it gets shot down and maybe it doesn't. If the SCOTUS shoots it down it will cause widespread outrage across the country. Given that the SCOTUS is already facing historically low approval ratings because of overturning Roe, as well as a very questionable ruling on the voting rights act with lots of ethics violations due to unreported substantial gifts I'm thinking the SCOTUS won't be as quick to rule in Trump's favor and thereby risk further outrage by the public who might then pressure Congress to tighten down on the oversight and ethics rules for the SCOTUS. I don't really think SCOTUS will risk upsetting the sweet arrangement they currently have just to save Trump from the consequences of his action. Especially given that Gorsuch published an opinion when he was at the 10th Circuit Court in Denver that supports the right of states to make a ruling that can effect elections. You know the three liberal justices are likely to vote to uphold Colorado's ruling and if Gorsuch actually believes what he wrote in the past then he would be likely to uphold the decision so they would need only get one more ruling in Colorado's favor.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that Colorado was a "liberal bastion", so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. What I do know is that Biden won Colorado with 55% of the vote and a 13.5% margin over Trump. So clearly Colorado is not the MAGA bastion you seem to think it is. As for swing voters, if they are truely swing voters that means they're already questioning how good a choice Trump is. Not many Trump supporters could be honestly labelled as swing voters. Plus removing someone from the ballot is not telling people their business. It's saying that the constitution disqualifies him for being part of an insurrection. In fact removing Trump from the ballot is more likely to make things easier for swing voters. I'm not saying they'll definitely vote for Biden but they'll have a legitimate excuse for not voting for Trump, "Hey I couldn't vote for him because he wasn't on the ballot." If they really wanted to they could still write Trump in but it would be an empty gesture because that state rules say that if someone was removed from the ballot then if people still write him in that vote won't be counted. In fact writing Trump in would be the 2nd best outcome for Biden (obviously a vote for Biden would be the best outcome0 because it would have the effect of reducing the number of votes by however many voters do that. The only good option for someone who doesn't want Biden would be to vote for one of the other parties like the Libertarian party. Although it still wouldn't be enough to cause Biden to lose the state.
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
Denver isn't full of rich people. Ever take a drive down Colfax ?
co.png
 

RobFromTX

Well-known member
Maybe it gets shot down and maybe it doesn't. If the SCOTUS shoots it down it will cause widespread outrage across the country. Given that the SCOTUS is already facing historically low approval ratings because of overturning Roe, as well as a very questionable ruling on the voting rights act with lots of ethics violations due to unreported substantial gifts I'm thinking the SCOTUS won't be as quick to rule in Trump's favor and thereby risk further outrage by the public who might then pressure Congress to tighten down on the oversight and ethics rules for the SCOTUS. I don't really think SCOTUS will risk upsetting the sweet arrangement they currently have just to save Trump from the consequences of his action. Especially given that Gorsuch published an opinion when he was at the 10th Circuit Court in Denver that supports the right of states to make a ruling that can effect elections. You know the three liberal justices are likely to vote to uphold Colorado's ruling and if Gorsuch actually believes what he wrote in the past then he would be likely to uphold the decision so they would need only get one more ruling in Colorado's favor.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that Colorado was a "liberal bastion", so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there. What I do know is that Biden won Colorado with 55% of the vote and a 13.5% margin over Trump. So clearly Colorado is not the MAGA bastion you seem to think it is. As for swing voters, if they are truely swing voters that means they're already questioning how good a choice Trump is. Not many Trump supporters could be honestly labelled as swing voters. Plus removing someone from the ballot is not telling people their business. It's saying that the constitution disqualifies him for being part of an insurrection. In fact removing Trump from the ballot is more likely to make things easier for swing voters. I'm not saying they'll definitely vote for Biden but they'll have a legitimate excuse for not voting for Trump, "Hey I couldn't vote for him because he wasn't on the ballot." If they really wanted to they could still write Trump in but it would be an empty gesture because that state rules say that if someone was removed from the ballot then if people still write him in that vote won't be counted. In fact writing Trump in would be the 2nd best outcome for Biden (obviously a vote for Biden would be the best outcome0 because it would have the effect of reducing the number of votes by however many voters do that. The only good option for someone who doesn't want Biden would be to vote for one of the other parties like the Libertarian party. Although it still wouldn't be enough to cause Biden to lose the state.

It just serves to divide even further. The least they could have done is wait until a conviction. Then he couldn't run anyway. No judgement here though. I'd like to put a rule on the books where nobody over 70 can run
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
For decades it's been junkies, crack hoes and street hookers. A dump.
Far from your description "rich people" and too short time to become gentrified since I was last there.


Who the hell cares. First state to kick Chump out! More to come.
Happy to see people who have the rocks to tell the criminal to get fucked.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
It just serves to divide even further. The least they could have done is wait until a conviction. Then he couldn't run anyway. No judgement here though. I'd like to put a rule on the books where nobody over 70 can run
we're so far apart now it's ridiculous. the problem with waiting for a conviction is that there are numerous folks that won't vote for a conviction if they were eyewitnesses to the crime. they refuse to see/believe the evidence & say "not guilty". it only takes one partisan clown to derail justice. in some places, a jury does not have to be unanimous to reach a verdict...we might want to consider looking into that for the future. :unsure:
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
It just serves to divide even further. The least they could have done is wait until a conviction. Then he couldn't run anyway. No judgement here though. I'd like to put a rule on the books where nobody over 70 can run
See there are things two opposing sides can agree on. I'd prefer some sort of age and health restriction on the Presidency as well. I'd prefer a President that the only thing preventing him/her from finishing a term is because of a freak accident or heaven forbid assassination. Reason being that while there is an illusion that we sort of vote for the Vice President we don't. He or she is totally up to the nominee and that process has allowed dangerous people to close to the reignes of power. Imagine if McCain got elected and died from cancer while in offic and we were left with President Sarah Palin. Or in current times Biden passed in office and we got left with President Kamala Harris. Before anyone goes there I didn't pick those examples because they were women. There have been plenty of male VP's that I would have been concerned about them gaining the Presidency outside of being nominated and elected.

I'd also like to see them change the person third in line given how the Speakership has produced some truely scary people if they suddenly became President.

There is no reason though that this Colorado decision should divide people at all. It is all laid out in the constitution and was set up to be self executing. There is no need to wait for a conviction, we all saw what happened, we all saw it exposed in the Jan 6 hearings and we all have followed the court cases of the insurrectionists, and heard their confession and/or testimony. It's not by accident that the Trump campaign doesn't fight the Colorado verdict by saying he wasn't involved in an insurrection but instead argues lame points like he never swore an oath that has "support" in the wording. Even Trump knows he was involved in an insurrection.
 

GOT_BUD?

Weed is a gateway to gardening
ICMag Donor
Veteran
This is funny and one of the main reasons why I don't believe the polling, especially when you consider that neither Joe nor Donald are actually the official nominee for their party.

5 hours ago this...

Followed up by this from 2 hours ago..
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
This is funny and one of the main reasons why I don't believe the polling, especially when you consider that neither Joe nor Donald are actually the official nominee for their party.

5 hours ago this...

Followed up by this from 2 hours ago..
I've said it before and I'll say it again, places that do polls are just another type of business that like any business gives the customers what they want. You want a poll that shows the nation favors one candidate, fine they can give you that. You want a poll that shows you the nation prefers the other candidate, fine they can give you that too. They start from a position of asking the customer what results they're looking for and theen the select a "scientific cross section" most likely to give you that result. Most polling companies, at least the most popular ones, have huge databases that they have a pretty good idea what answers they will get. Then once they've selected the pool of people to be polled that then sit down with the customer and work out a series of questions worded in such a way as to nudge the person being polled to answer the way the customer wants. That's why many of the questions seem kind of vague and if you ask them for a clarification they'll say something like, "just answer it the way you think it means. They're so good at it they could produce a pool of respondents that would give a result of 100% in favor of what the customer wants. They're smart enough however to know that would make the poll less believable so they make sure to include just enough opposing views to make it seem legit. I'm not saying this based on rumor or opinion or a gut feeling, I used to work for a polling company and I got to see how it worked from the inside.

Now that being said, there are some that aren't businesses per se and the polls those produce might be a bit more legit but you have to be carefull because some of those organizations have well established biases and so they'll tend to only do polls that lean towards that bias.
 
Top