Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again
Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again
It ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection by stoking the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
You're viewing a single thread.
ok now do it in a state that might have actually voted for him
Georgia would be the state most likely to do so. If Trump gets convicted of a state crime, that might kill his nomination.
Libs are deadass hoping Trump pulls a voldemort and defeats himself by breaking a rule rather than dems actually defeating Trump fair and square.
...And then DeSantis wins in a landslide after Trump endorses him and #AvengeTrump goes viral.
rather than dems actually defeating Trump fair and square
since when do we give a shit about fair play in bourgeois elections?
No, it is more hoping that the rule of law catches up to Trump before the election.
But if you want DeSantis to win, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
"rule of law" Imagine believing in such nonsense. Consider deepthroating a cactus, please and thank you.
😠
I'm going to need you to vote for Trump '24 to help with that.
no one here is voting for trump and no one here wants desantis to win. you're annoying and delusional
But it would be funny. Make the libs see that their beliefs are a lie. Just fucking rub it in their faces.
I'm voting green or socialist, depending on who's on the ballot.
Rule of law? Dude is walking around giving rallies. It took you dumbasses 2, 3 years? to actually get him sitting in a courtroom. The rule of law would’ve put him in front of a firing squad 48 hours after January 6, but we live in la la land where the instigator of a failed coup led by boat dealers get to play golf while we pay for his security.
Your rule of law is a joke. Your party only wields power when it comes to undermining poor people. Otherwise the democrats would’ve banned the GOP and arrested every single one of their politicians. If you call them as undemocratic terrorists, then where is the rule of law when they get to stand next to you in the halls of power?
Why is it my rule of law? Who gave it to me?
Being pedantic over words you clearly understand because you can’t defend your dogshit positions. Unfortunately you can’t take the Reddit out of the ex-Redditor
What dog shit positions are you protecting on me?
Which side of the brunch debate are you on? It matters deeply.
Hard to say because there's so many...
Failing to protect women
Failing to protect trans people
Building the wall
Kids are still in Cages
Aiding a genocide in Gaza
Stopping the rail strike
You're fucking stupid
I assure you, I don't want DeSantis nor Trump to win.
Why not? That would definitely own the Libs, wouldn't it?
Something can be funny without it being good or desired, like in a cosmically funny way.
Yeah, President DeSantis would be fucking hilarious.
It would absolutely be funny watching libs spin and steam and blame again instead of ever asking if there's a good reason why people hate Democrats. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's definitely funny to watch y'all twist yourselves in knots trying desperately to ignore reality
No, it will be funny so it is good. It doesn't matter if one side is better than another if both sides are bad. So let the bad happen and hope the next election will bring a communist.
I think I don't really understand your perspective here. Are you trying to tell me that because you can't find bad things funny that we can't either, so despite what we clearly say you're telling us actually we think it would be good if Desantis or Trump (or Biden) were president of the United States?
You clearly came here with an expectation about what we think, and what we actually think or say isn't about to dissuade you from that expectation.
I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm not some kind of GOP cheerleader, I'm mostly making a joke about how infuriatingly lucky the GOP is, and part of it is that democrats are controlled opposition.
Given the sclerotic and partisan nature of the US "rule of law" isn't it irresponsible of them to hope that the courts solve the problem for them instead of trying to run a convincing campaign for their side?
That assumes the legal option is the only one being pursued.
There are tons of posts here calling out the political arguments that inflation is falling and the economy isn't in a recession as political propaganda that may be technically accurate but hide the suffering of common Americans and should therefore be treated as nothing but propaganda to be forgotten.
I'm not sure how that deals with the problem? Joe is deeply unpopular, people don't like him and whether you think it's fair or not people are not enjoying the way things are going right now. Doubling down on "voters feel wrong about how things are going and should vote for this unpopular old man" is not actually pursuing an electoral strategy.
You suggested they were hoping the law would solve this problem, which is more coherent than suggesting that they're trying to campaign by calling everybody who dislikes their candidate (almost 2/3 of voters, last count) wrong over and over.
I suggested it was an option, but not the only one. Others believed that I was suggesting it was the only option.
"rule of law"
Oh you mean imaginary things like the tooth fairy?
Wait hang on I have one better.
The rule of law:
It's taken 80 years but you're planning on it getting him in the next 11 months?
I ain't planning shit.
This is such a stupid bit.