2024 Primary

[BDKJMU]

Tim Scott endorses Trump. Preach it!

[kalm]

Tim Scott endorses Trump. Preach it!

‘We need a law and order president!’

‘We need a president who doesn’t see black and white!’

[houndawg]

Marco "Tatoo" Rubio

Boss! De plane! De plane!

See, America isn't racist, er, darn it, maybe we are.

Its the memes...whenever I see Marco I see Herve Villechez...same thing with Marjorie Taylor Green, whenever I see her I see Dog the Bounty Hunter...

[UNI88]

See, America isn't racist, er, darn it, maybe we are.

Its the memes...whenever I see Marco I see Herve Villechez...same thing with Marjorie Taylor Green, whenever I see her I see Dog the Bounty Hunter...

[UNI88]

Asking if a candidate who attempted to fraudulently and violently prevent the Constitutional transfer of power should be on the ballot is a valid question.

Your opinion, as Trump has been convicted of none of that.

Why are you against letting the voters decide who they want to elect?

I said I think it's a valid question. I didn't say I agreed with it. I agree with Ganny that he should remain on the ballot.

I also believe he should have been impeached the second time (and would have if the russia collusion impeachment hadn't muddied the waters) and that Senate Republicans let partisan bias interfere with them doing their jobs.

He hasn't been convicted but he has been indicted. I want to let voters decide and I want voters to have as much information as possible. Those trials should be completed before November 2024 to give voters the truth about trump.

Why are you against giving the voters the full story? And no whiny bullshit about biased judges, juries, etc. Why is delaying the trials good for voters?

[houndawg]

Asking if a candidate who attempted to fraudulently and violently prevent the Constitutional transfer of power should be on the ballot is a valid question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your opinion, as Trump has been convicted of none of that yet.

Why are you against letting the voters decide who they want to elect?

fyp

Makes you wonder why he doesn't want a verdict before the election.

[kalm]

Your opinion, as Trump has been convicted of none of that.

Why are you against letting the voters decide who they want to elect?

I said I think it's a valid question. I didn't say I agreed with it. I agree with Ganny that he should remain on the ballot.

I also believe he should have been impeached the second time (and would have if the russia collusion impeachment hadn't muddied the waters) and that Senate Republicans let partisan bias interfere with them doing their jobs.

He hasn't been convicted but he has been indicted. I want to let voters decide and I want voters to have as much information as possible. Those trials should be completed before November 2024 to give voters the truth about trump.

Why are you against giving the voters the full story? And no whiny bullshit about biased judges, juries, etc. Why is delaying the trials good for voters?

I’m pretty sure innocent people demand absolute immunity from crimes after they’ve been committted.

[BDKJMU]

Your opinion, as Trump has been convicted of none of that.

Why are you against letting the voters decide who they want to elect?

I said I think it's a valid question. I didn't say I agreed with it. I agree with Ganny that he should remain on the ballot.

I also believe he should have been impeached the second time (and would have if the russia collusion impeachment hadn't muddied the waters) and that Senate Republicans let partisan bias interfere with them doing their jobs.

He hasn't been convicted but he has been indicted. I want to let voters decide and I want voters to have as much information as possible. Those trials should be completed before November 2024 to give voters the truth about trump.

Why are you against giving the voters the full story? And no whiny bullshit about biased judges, juries, etc. Why is delaying the trials good for voters?

The voters have the full story. Thisbthing has been covered ad nauseum from all angles for 3+ years, including the whole shampeachment.

Why were all these cases just happened to be delayed until an election year, as opposed to being held during the preceeeding 3 years (where if there was a conviction there would be enough time for an appeals process to play out)?

The most likely case Trump woukd be convicted in, the DC case, is just trumped up BS. With a lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country = would convict Trump of virtually anything. This case could have been brought a year or 2 earlier, but no, it was timed for maxium effect, to take place at the height of the election year so would = conviction before the election, and AFTER the election SCOTUS would likely toss the conviction (too late). The process is the punishment.

[UNI88]

I said I think it's a valid question. I didn't say I agreed with it. I agree with Ganny that he should remain on the ballot.

I also believe he should have been impeached the second time (and would have if the russia collusion impeachment hadn't muddied the waters) and that Senate Republicans let partisan bias interfere with them doing their jobs.

He hasn't been convicted but he has been indicted. I want to let voters decide and I want voters to have as much information as possible. Those trials should be completed before November 2024 to give voters the truth about trump.

Why are you against giving the voters the full story? And no whiny bullshit about biased judges, juries, etc. Why is delaying the trials good for voters?

The voters have the full story. Thisbthing has been covered ad nauseum from all angles for 3+ years, including the whole shampeachment.

Why were all these cases just happened to be delayed until an election year, as opposed to being held during the preceeeding 3 years (where if there was a conviction there would be enough time for an appeals process to play out)?

The most likely case Trump woukd be convicted in, the DC case, is just trumped up BS. With a lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country = would convict Trump of virtually anything. This case could have been brought a year or 2 earlier, but no, it was timed for maxium effect, to take place at the height of the election year so would = conviction before the election, and AFTER the election SCOTUS would likely toss the conviction (too late). The process is the punishment.

If we have the full story why do voters such as yourself refuse to believe it? He incompetently and unsuccessfully tried his damnedest to subvert the results of the 2020 election which he lost.

There you go again making excuses in advance - if he's convicted it's because of "lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country". If we apply that logic to the documents case it's because of a cons judge who he appointed = wouldn't convict trump of anything.

[BDKJMU]

The voters have the full story. Thisbthing has been covered ad nauseum from all angles for 3+ years, including the whole shampeachment.

Why were all these cases just happened to be delayed until an election year, as opposed to being held during the preceeeding 3 years (where if there was a conviction there would be enough time for an appeals process to play out)?

The most likely case Trump woukd be convicted in, the DC case, is just trumped up BS. With a lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country = would convict Trump of virtually anything. This case could have been brought a year or 2 earlier, but no, it was timed for maxium effect, to take place at the height of the election year so would = conviction before the election, and AFTER the election SCOTUS would likely toss the conviction (too late). The process is the punishment.

If we have the full story why do voters such as yourself refuse to believe it? He incompetently and unsuccessfully tried his damnedest to subvert the results of the 2020 election which he lost.

There you go again making excuses in advance - if he's convicted it's because of "lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country". If we apply that logic to the documents case it's because of a cons judge who he appointed = wouldn't convict trump of anything.

Refuse to believe what? I don’t believe he did anything illegal.

No, because in that case you have a more balanced jury pool. Might lean a little red, but (without looking up the exact breakdown) something like 55-45, not 93-7.

And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?

[UNI88]

If we have the full story why do voters such as yourself refuse to believe it? He incompetently and unsuccessfully tried his damnedest to subvert the results of the 2020 election which he lost.

There you go again making excuses in advance - if he's convicted it's because of "lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country". If we apply that logic to the documents case it's because of a cons judge who he appointed = wouldn't convict trump of anything.

Refuse to believe what? I don’t believe he did anything illegal.

No, because in that case you have a more balanced jury pool. Might lean a little red, but (without looking up the exact breakdown) something like 55-45, not 93-7.

And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?

A more balanced jury? REALLY? If I use your chicken little, sky-is-falling, approach to evaluating juries then I have to consider the margin of mullah deconkis' gubernatorial victory (you know the one you like to point out) and conclude that floridastan is a deep red state and there is no way the government can get an impartial jury. Plus Cannon was appointed by trump and can't be trusted to rule based on the merits of the case. If needed, she will certainly poison the jury to get the desired result.

Or, we could look at the trials with some common sense and a basic understanding of civics (which MAGAt yahoos either don't have or suspend in their fainting couch histrionics) and realize that the judge and (prosecuting and defense) attorneys will ask questions and excuse potentially biased jurors will be be excused. trump's attorneys will also likely have the opportunity to excuse a set number of jurors without reason. The jury will not automatically be biased against trump in DC or for him in Florida.

Maybe you should move if your faith in the American justice system is too fragile to believe that. I hear russia has a shortage of men. Maybe that will be more to your liking.

[UNI88]

Haley questions Trump’s mental fitness after he confuses her with Nancy Pelosi

Haley told a crowd of voters in Keene, New Hampshire: “The concern I have is – I’m not saying anything derogatory, but when you’re dealing with the pressures of a presidency, we can’t have someone else that we question whether they’re mentally fit to do it.”

And Stefanik pushes back on reports Trump mixed up Haley, Pelosi

[UNI88]

Haley leads Biden in New Hampshire poll; president tops Trump, DeSantis

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley holds a 3-point lead over President Biden in a hypothetical general election match-up in New Hampshire, while Biden leads former President Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in separate match-ups, according to poll results released Friday.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

I said I think it's a valid question. I didn't say I agreed with it. I agree with Ganny that he should remain on the ballot.

I also believe he should have been impeached the second time (and would have if the russia collusion impeachment hadn't muddied the waters) and that Senate Republicans let partisan bias interfere with them doing their jobs.

He hasn't been convicted but he has been indicted. I want to let voters decide and I want voters to have as much information as possible. Those trials should be completed before November 2024 to give voters the truth about trump.

Why are you against giving the voters the full story? And no whiny bullshit about biased judges, juries, etc. Why is delaying the trials good for voters?

The voters have the full story. Thisbthing has been covered ad nauseum from all angles for 3+ years, including the whole shampeachment.

Why were all these cases just happened to be delayed until an election year, as opposed to being held during the preceeeding 3 years (where if there was a conviction there would be enough time for an appeals process to play out)?

The most likely case Trump woukd be convicted in, the DC case, is just trumped up BS. With a lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country = would convict Trump of virtually anything. This case could have been brought a year or 2 earlier, but no, it was timed for maxium effect, to take place at the height of the election year so would = conviction before the election, and AFTER the election SCOTUS would likely toss the conviction (too late). The process is the punishment.

In retropect maybe delay wasn't his wisest strategy.... maybe he should have asked for a speedy trial like somebody who wasn't guilty would have done.

[houndawg]

If we have the full story why do voters such as yourself refuse to believe it? He incompetently and unsuccessfully tried his damnedest to subvert the results of the 2020 election which he lost.

There you go again making excuses in advance - if he's convicted it's because of "lib democrat judge amd the most lib jury pool in the country". If we apply that logic to the documents case it's because of a cons judge who he appointed = wouldn't convict trump of anything.

Refuse to believe what? I don’t believe he did anything illegal.

No, because in that case you have a more balanced jury pool. Might lean a little red, but (without looking up the exact breakdown) something like 55-45, not 93-7.

And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?

...yeah the Leopard has changed his spots. You don't even believe that bullshit yourself, BDPSHT.

He's a guilty-as-fuck career criminal and everybody knows it - if he weren't guilty he'd be pushing for a trial to happen yesterday as a not guilty verdict would guarantee his victory.

But he doesn't do that.

Because he's guilty as fuck and a traitor to boot.

[kalm]

Refuse to believe what? I don’t believe he did anything illegal.

No, because in that case you have a more balanced jury pool. Might lean a little red, but (without looking up the exact breakdown) something like 55-45, not 93-7.

And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?

...yeah the Leopard has changed his spots. You don't even believe that bullshit yourself, BDPSHT.

He's a guilty-as-fuck career criminal and everybody knows it - if he weren't guilty he'd be pushing for a trial to happen yesterday as a not guilty verdict would guarantee his victory.

But he doesn't do that.

Because he's guilty as fuck and a traitor to boot.

[Caribbean Hen]

Tim Scott endorses Trump. Preach it!

‘We need a law and order president!’

‘We need a president who doesn’t see black and white!’

Oh that’s rich seeing JoBozos record

[BDKJMU]

Refuse to believe what? I don’t believe he did anything illegal.

No, because in that case you have a more balanced jury pool. Might lean a little red, but (without looking up the exact breakdown) something like 55-45, not 93-7.

And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?

A more balanced jury? REALLY? If I use your chicken little, sky-is-falling, approach to evaluating juries then I have to consider the margin of mullah deconkis' gubernatorial victory (you know the one you like to point out) and conclude that floridastan is a deep red state and there is no way the government can get an impartial jury. Plus Cannon was appointed by trump and can't be trusted to rule based on the merits of the case. If needed, she will certainly poison the jury to get the desired result.

Or, we could look at the trials with some common sense and a basic understanding of civics (which MAGAt yahoos either don't have or suspend in their fainting couch histrionics) and realize that the judge and (prosecuting and defense) attorneys will ask questions and excuse potentially biased jurors will be be excused. trump's attorneys will also likely have the opportunity to excuse a set number of jurors without reason. The jury will not automatically be biased against trump in DC or for him in Florida.

Maybe you should move if your faith in the American justice system is too fragile to believe that. I hear russia has a shortage of men. Maybe that will be more to your liking.

And of course you ignored my question.

[BDKJMU]

Refuse to believe what? I don’t believe he did anything illegal.

No, because in that case you have a more balanced jury pool. Might lean a little red, but (without looking up the exact breakdown) something like 55-45, not 93-7.

And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?

...yeah the Leopard has changed his spots. You don't even believe that bullshit yourself, BDPSHT.

He's a guilty-as-fuck career criminal and everybody knows it - if he weren't guilty he'd be pushing for a trial to happen yesterday as a not guilty verdict would guarantee his victory.

But he doesn't do that.

Because he's guilty as fuck and a traitor to boot.

Wrong.

And everything else is like your opinion man.

[BDKJMU]

BREAKING- Desantis suspends campaign, endorses Trump!

[Skjellyfetti]

BREAKING- Desantis aborts campaign, endorses Trump!

FYP

[BDKJMU]

No more Desanktus..

Statement From The Trump Campaign

With only a few days left until President Donald J. Trump’s victory in New Hampshire, we are honored by the endorsement from Governor Ron DeSantis and so many other former presidential candidates. It is now time for all Republicans to rally behind President Trump to defeat Crooked Joe Biden and end his disastrous presidency.

Nikki Haley is the candidate of the globalists and Democrats who will do everything to stop the America First movement. From higher taxes, to decimating Social Security and Medicare, and to open borders, she represents the views of Democrats more than the views of Republicans.

It’s time to choose wisely.

https://djt.nucleusemail.com/amplify/v/ ... s=Lr9YigXr

[kalm]

[GannonFan]

Democrats are getting what they wanted - Trump looks like he's going to be on the GOP ticket come November. Still a chance that Haley can win New Hampshire and maybe turn the tide. Unlikely, but still possible and I'm hoping for that. Unfortunately for the Dems, Biden looks so increasingly mentally incapable of holding the job that it's actually possible that Trump could beat Biden in a second matchup. So we could actually have Trump as a President for the next four years (assuming he doesn't die or gets impeached and removed from office).

All of this could've been avoided if we had 1) impeached and removed him from office, and barring further holding, in the immediate aftermath of 1/6 (see my prior posts about how the Dems overreaching on the first impeachment help to scuttle the second attempt) or 2) actually charged Trump with insurrection and gotten him convicted on that anytime in the past 3 years. Instead, we had a hodge-podge of criminal cases that won't actually bar Trump from running or holding office - some of the cases are just trumped-up cases without a lot of substance that actually do look like weaponization of the legal system (NYC fraud case) and other cases are substantial but seem to purposely fall short of the insurrection charge. The Dems wanted Trump tarnished, but they didn't want him out of the race. Well, looks like they're getting what they wanted, even if they'd probably reconsider that now given how risky Biden now looks. Yay America.

[UNI88]

A more balanced jury? REALLY? If I use your chicken little, sky-is-falling, approach to evaluating juries then I have to consider the margin of mullah deconkis' gubernatorial victory (you know the one you like to point out) and conclude that floridastan is a deep red state and there is no way the government can get an impartial jury. Plus Cannon was appointed by trump and can't be trusted to rule based on the merits of the case. If needed, she will certainly poison the jury to get the desired result.

Or, we could look at the trials with some common sense and a basic understanding of civics (which MAGAt yahoos either don't have or suspend in their fainting couch histrionics) and realize that the judge and (prosecuting and defense) attorneys will ask questions and excuse potentially biased jurors will be be excused. trump's attorneys will also likely have the opportunity to excuse a set number of jurors without reason. The jury will not automatically be biased against trump in DC or for him in Florida.

Maybe you should move if your faith in the American justice system is too fragile to believe that. I hear russia has a shortage of men. Maybe that will be more to your liking.

And of course you ignored my question.

This question - "And why do you refuse this is politically timed lawfare? Do you believe that in 76 years of his life, 0 criminal cases, then in his 77th year, which just happens to be an election year, 4 cases brought, is just some random coincidence?"

So you, who don't think a judge appointed by a Democrat can rule based on the law or that a jury in a state that that votes Democratic can be impartial wants me to believe that because trump has no criminal record after 76 years he's incapable of committing a crime?

You want me to believe that:

• trump's millionaire father never used his money and influence to make a criminal charge against a young trump go away? The same father who used his power and influence to help trump dodge the draft?
• a person involved in thousands of civil suits never did anything worthy of criminal charges?
• a new york developer never did anything illegal like bribing a building inspector?
• trump never used his own money and influence to make a criminal charge go away?

trump' is a entitled member of the establishment who is used to gaming the system for his own benefit. His lack of a criminal record is not proof that he's never done anything criminal and most importantly that he isn't capable of committing a crime.