It's such a ridiculous argument. Can a 17-year-old run for president? Why not, let's let the voters decide. It's the same argument they are making.
2024 U.S. Elections
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yes.
Next: a setting first-term President commits a crime. There’s a proof. But, let’s not do anything about it. Let the voters decide.
All across the Southeastern to Southwestern and up into the Mideastern and Midwestern US you'll find hundreds upon hundreds who believe the Civil War was about States' rights and tyrannical government interference. Some of it is probably bred in classrooms but much of it seems bred through familial circles and peers. I've had my fair share of endless debates with these types, it's mind-numbing but also helps one see just why a significant portion of the US think and feel the way they do.
That’s a big part of the country.
Unfortunately, she has sold the image of herself as a moderate well, she isn't actually a moderate, but sadly, the people of Maine are under that impression, and will likely vote for her again in 2026.
Its one of the few seats dems can flip in the future, and even that one is probably an uphill battle.
Sooner she retires the better.
Was a weird decision and somewhat political from the Secretary of State honestly. No doubt whatsoever that the SC overturns this nonsense (whilst declining to opine on whether he is an insurrectionist.)
Honestly, I’d be inclined to vote against it on merit, and it wouldn’t surprise me if some liberal justices did too.
edit: Collins should look no further than her own chamber for her rage though. The correct place to bar him was the senate, and they had the perfect opportunity.
Im not a Collins fanboy, but believe I am correct that she voted to impeach. (And thereafter bar) There’s nothing crazy extreme about being against this decision. It’s not the correct forum.
Not this specific decision, no.
However, i just dislike her in general, claiming to be "pro-choice", while selling out female rights quietly behind the scenes, for one.
It's appatently the law in Maine that the SoS makes the initial ruling after three complaints from the citizenry. It then moves to the courts if an appeal occurs.
TBH that's a lowball number, 10's of thousands would probably be more accurate
And they aren't always subtle about it either, first time I drove in GA on the Interstate I noticed the sign for drivers to have their seat belt on, my first thought was "they've incorporated the Confederat flag in to it" - it's not technially the same but it sure looks like it at first glance!
That's real strange. You'd imagine it'd be the AG at least as (presumably) it'd be the AG representing the state in court (representing a decision and reasoning that they may or may not agree with). Is the Maine SoS a lawyer? Add to that that the GOP haven't won Maine since the 80's and it just looks like posturing.
Millions, it’s what the text books say in the south. It’s a problem.
Time to make Victoria 3 start of the curriculum?
If I’m not mistaken, election oversight falls under the SoS’s purview in most states, something like 40. More US civics-erudite folks than me might know why this is the case @Carolina Red
In Sheena Bellows case, it looks like she is a double major in International Politics & Economics.
I can see why it would look a bit hinky, similar to how Colorado’s SC decision looks suspiciously like Dems railroading the lawsuit through to the left leaning SC yet the suit was filed by Repubs & independents (backed by CREW though but no one needs to know about that
).The cynic in me says its Trumps camp driving these decisions. It's certainly doing him more good than harm, as well as 'justifying' to those who might listen his persecution complex. I can understand Colorado sending it to the USSC; the court have to apply the law as they see it, and perhaps they can back the USSC to declare it was an insurrection somewhere in their decision. I dont understand an SoS (states executive branch) making a decision and then immediately 'pausing' it pending the courts (states legislative branch). It's akin to the US the president making a decision and then deciding to immediately pause it until the courts agree. Do executive branches ever work like that usually?If I’m not mistaken, election oversight falls under the SoS’s purview in most states, something like 40. More US civics-erudite folks than me might know why this is the case @Carolina Red
In Sheena Bellows case, it looks like she is a double major in International Politics & Economics.
I can see why it would look a bit hinky, similar to how Colorado’s SC decision looks suspiciously like Dems railroading the lawsuit through to the left leaning SC yet the suit was filed by Repubs & independents (backed by CREW though but no one needs to know about that
Typically it’s because state constitutions make the SoS the top administrator and record keeper for the state, therefore stuff like voter registration rolls falls under their office.If I’m not mistaken, election oversight falls under the SoS’s purview in most states, something like 40. More US civics-erudite folks than me might know why this is the case @Carolina Red
In Sheena Bellows case, it looks like she is a double major in International Politics & Economics.
I can see why it would look a bit hinky, similar to how Colorado’s SC decision looks suspiciously like Dems railroading the lawsuit through to the left leaning SC yet the suit was filed by Repubs & independents (backed by CREW though but no one needs to know about that
@Carolina Red what have you seen with young people thinking about slavery and Civil War? Have you heard/seen textbooks with vague text or misinformation to outright lies? Heard any faculty or stories of other schools teaching lies about it?
Judicial*
That’s not quite what happened
Colorado’s SCOTUS banned Trump from the ballot then put a stay on the order until January 4, which is the day before ballots are created, because they know there will be an appeals process that will involve the U.S. SCOTUS.
If nothing overturns their decision, the stay will be lifted, and Trump will be left off the ballot.
I taught with people at a previous school who’d present the “states’ rights” argument to the students and have seen some textbooks be vague about it. I did a bit of an end around on them and made a pretty popular elective History of the Civil War class that was promoted to all kids as a US History prep class, so a lot of my kids went to them the next year having heard a different tune already… I told them to ask “A state’s right to do what?” if they ever heard it
Our current state standards, from 2019, actually do a good job stating that the debate over slavery’s expansion vs abolition of slavery should be taught as the cause of the war.
Brain typo
I meant the maine decision; the CO one makes sense and follows procedure. Judges often stay judgments pending appeal. I’m not aware of a practice of executive branches (Maines Secretary of State) staying their decisions pending appeals to the judicial branch though.Ahhh gotcha gotcha. The Maine situation is very unique because she’s the only state SoS with the ability to remove a candidate from the ballot - but they also have a statute that allows citizen appeals, so she has to account for that process.Brain typo
No it's not.
Biden is a decent politician and human being.He is however too old for the job in my opinion.
Trump is a malignant narcissistic criminal not fit for any public office.Trump has already tried to wreck American democracy but failed but now wants the chance to wreck it again!
Incredible.
Agree
Only if you're an idiot. An ancient bumbling Biden is preferable to any Republican, and especially Trump.
Why feed the troll? They are either a shit stirrer and/or a coward. Either way, you are not getting a response.
I honestly believe that although there are clear troll posts, drive by posts that are designed to rankle and upset, the replies are usually sincere. Good faith responses from people genuinely interested in the extreme opposite positions, beliefs and opinions that are so clearly held by many others.
The trouble is, especially here, anyone who does have a different opinion is usually jumped on en masse, or as proven time and time again, has absolutely no answers. Well, certainly not satisfactory ones at any rate. It's often the case that any replies are honest yet searching questions or facts that cannot or will not be responded to honestly as they expose more serious questions to be asked or positions to be defended, and they often cannot be.
Because this forum is quite close overall, and as pointed out frequently, it's liberal/left leaning and other than that, the vast majority share the wish for equality, fairness and honesty. Holding an opinion is fine if it can be backed up or at least explained. Sadly, it's incredibly difficult to defend many opinions or beliiefs, especially controversial or extreme ones so they either don't reply or just don't post at all.
The opposite of here would be the shit show you have on places like Twitter where people just don't give a flying shit anymore and wear their hatred, ignorance, selfishness and greed like a badge of honour. However doing so here would likely get you banned. First and foremost this is a football forum and I'm sure many want to keep their opinions to themselves so they can post elsewhere like the transfer forum or football forums.
It's rare to find posters like @Amir who will argue or reply sincerely and eloquently and ignore the pile on, yet still manage to offer valuable insights from different perspectives and experiences and beliefs. I honestly can't remember the last time it happened in a US politics thread. I think it was when a poster pretended to be far right and just posted replies to keep a conversation going.
Although @Carolina Red gave as good as he got when defending guns, as does @Dr. Dwayne, and in truth I understand and respect their views and it absolutely gave me lots of thought in how things aren't always so black and white. Funnily enough that discussion often makes me question how I look at other things too.
People become too entrenched and stubborn, refusing to see another side and refusing to admit they were wrong, or concede points, let alone actually find common ground or change their opinions. That's the one downside of here at times as often all or the vast majority being in agreement on subjects is all well and good, but it's not reflective of the real world.
I routinely engage and argue with family and friends. It is not comfortable, but I hope I can chip away a little bit at a time.
You and I have had some back and forths in the past, and I have never labeled you with "troll" or once called you a name. Why? Because you actually do defend your points and do not post inflamatory things for the sole purpise of riling up others. I have no doubt you sincerely believe what you post, and while we may agree on everything I do not doubt your authenticity.
As for your last comment, I don't know where it comes from since we have never, to my mind, had a contentious back and forth, but you do you.
I agree with you, but the drive by posts, regardless of political leanings, do not drive a dialog. On retrospect you are likely right (and me wrong) that the replies, even in the absence of a genuine dialog, can lead to offshoot discussions that are useful.I honestly believe that although there are clear troll posts, drive by posts that are designed to rankle and upset, the replies are usually sincere. Good faith responses from people genuinely interested in the extreme opposite positions, beliefs and opinions that are so clearly held by many others.
The trouble is, especially here, anyone who does have a different opinion is usually jumped on en masse, or as proven time and time again, has absolutely no answers. Well, certainly not satisfactory ones at any rate. It's often the case that any replies are honest yet searching questions or facts that cannot or will not be responded to honestly as they expose more serious questions to be asked or positions to be defended, and they often cannot be.
Because this forum is quite close overall, and as pointed out frequently, it's liberal/left leaning and other than that, the vast majority share the wish for equality, fairness and honesty. Holding an opinion is fine if it can be backed up or at least explained. Sadly, it's incredibly difficult to defend many opinions or beliiefs, especially controversial or extreme ones so they either don't reply or just don't post at all.
The opposite of here would be the shit show you have on places like Twitter where people just don't give a flying shit anymore and wear their hatred, ignorance, selfishness and greed like a badge of honour. However doing so here would likely get you banned. First and foremost this is a football forum and I'm sure many want to keep their opinions to themselves so they can post elsewhere like the transfer forum or football forums.
It's rare to find posters like @Amir who will argue or reply sincerely and eloquently and ignore the pile on, yet still manage to offer valuable insights from different perspectives and experiences and beliefs. I honestly can't remember the last time it happened in a US politics thread. I think it was when a poster pretended to be far right and just posted replies to keep a conversation going.
Although @Carolina Red gave as good as he got when defending guns, as does @Dr. Dwayne, and in truth I understand and respect their views and it absolutely gave me lots of thought in how things aren't always so black and white. Funnily enough that discussion often makes me question how I look at other things too.
People become too entrenched and stubborn, refusing to see another side and refusing to admit they were wrong, or concede points, let alone actually find common ground or change their opinions. That's the one downside of here at times as often all or the vast majority being in agreement on subjects is all well and good, but it's not reflective of the real world.
This place is indeed left leaning, especially the US Politics threads where anything "left" of MAGA is basically "Marxist Fascism
" these days over here. There really is a lack of viewpoints from the right, which is what makes the drive by's so much more infuriating as they are often inflammatory and chum the waters.I still can't get my head round this one!I agree with you, but the drive by posts, regardless of political leanings, do not drive a dialog. On retrospect you are likely right (and me wrong) that the replies, even in the absence of a genuine dialog, can lead to offshoot discussions that are useful.
This place is indeed left leaning, especially the US Politics threads where anything "left" of MAGA is basically "Marxist Fascism
True, you're right.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
My God!
Is that an 8 year old girl (or thereabouts) asking about border policy? The indoctrination starts early.
I thought the same thing. She should be out riding a bike or playing in the park or watching SpongeBob.... Not discussing politics with Presidential candidates. JFC... Have to undergo active shooter drills at school, then spend Christmas holidays at political rallies. Where's the childhood? Where's the fun and innocence? It's scary and depressing enough understanding all this as an adult, let alone as a very young child. That's so sad.
Indeed. I agree with everyone word that you wrote here.
Everything in this video is disturbing, from the question by a girl to how DeSantis looked.
Having 8-year old girls memorize a difficult question and then ask an aspiring President in front of rolling cameras is perfectly normal and a sign of healthy democracy.
What’s also amazing is that immigration/border security somehow become bigger issues in election years. Must be a coincidence.
Tbf, the caravans do get bigger every four years.
All of this.
Watching that video is depressing enough because that's not a life you want for an 8-year-old. Let her have fun with her friends at this time of the year of all times, for God's sake!