So, if all states held a caucus. Only people with long standing in the party have a say in who the candidates are going to be for the general election. Voters wont have to or be able to vote between Vivek and Trump, per say. Also, ranked choice voting wouldbt even exist since the public isnt voting for who is on the ballot. You would have the party of your side selecting one. Also in a caucus, local level sets who that candidate will be. So more power of choice at a much more granular level and can easily keep foreign money out.
The first CC occurred during the late 1780s and its when state legislatures sent delegates to Philly to establish the layout of the US government while working on the Constitution.
I dont believe a federal-level CC has ever convened (state-level CCs happen occasionally) except for the one time in the 1780s however in the midst of a real Constitutional crisis then a CC might happen (guessing unless someone else knows).
The only requirement you would need to meet in order to participate in a caucus is party affiliation. That leaves out independents and members affiliated with the opposing party.
Truth. I'll only vote trump. That's my choice. All other choices are not a choice. I'm independent because there is no viable libertarian party that can perform yet
As I stated in another thread, this is an engineered problem to elevate Vivek and fix his credibility problem.
The Colorado SC [CSC] did rule that Trump cannot be on the primary ballot due to the 14th amendment and his “engaging in insurrection”. They know its bullshit and they didn’t want to create too much grief for themselves by actually enforcing it.
So they stayed their own ruling until Jan 4, and if the US-SCOTUS takes up the issue in anyway, it its stayed until they make a ruling. And there is no way they would agree with the lunacy of holding DJT accountable for a crime he has not even been legally accused of, much less found guilty of and affect a national election. So much so, I think there is a good chance they are unanimous in their decision.
To put a bow on it, Vivek cannot win. Not the primary, not the general.
So why is he being sold to MAGA as a DJT Mini-Me? He is being positioned to be a Pence 2.0 cabal failsafe. An insider, if that is enough, and “continuity” if its not.
Also, his very presence is a corruption, because afaik he is not a Natural Born Citizen, so like Barak Obama, Kamala Harris and Ted Cruz, he cannot be President.
Look my myopic "fren"... I never once said or implied "Vivek is uniquely unable to win". I assume the made up facts are just you coping for not being able to make an coherent argument.
Vivek is uniquely "MAGA" [quotes for a reason] in the primary space. Although that is not even my primary point. My primary point, for the "special kids", is that elites of both [uni] parties often collude to manage their bases. This is one of those times.
I'd love to say I am interested in what your point actually is, but that would be untrue. I like just watching you flail about all butt hurt and downvoting everyone. Carry on.
You absolutely implied that Vivek not being able to win was somehow specifically relevant to him and his campaign.
And talk about fucking butthurt... you certainly seem to be displaying some symptoms, fren.
And you know, I admit that I do like a lot of what Vivek says and personally think that he has an appealing personality. Obviously, this doesn't mean he's a good guy, it's easy to say stuff and act a certain way, but what I really don't like is how irrational people seem to be when it comes to him. Like there isn't a shred of evidence he's with the cabal (it's certainly never presented when people cry about him), yet somehow despite doing and saying the right things consistently throughout his campaign, which again I understand means nothing, people just conclude he must be a deepstate clown.
So my point is that you have absolutely nothing but conjecture to base your point on, and maybe a side point would be that a bunch of people around here are too fucking jaded to accept that there may be a good guy other than Trump. Which fair enough, our country and the world is pretty fucked right now, but can we at least try to present things with some level of factual basis? And not just slap everyone who isn't Trump with the "bad" sticker and start hypothesizing a bunch of shit based on that unsubstantiated premise?
It's almost like everyone is just butthurt people are running against Trump. As if every single person knows the plan and must either be working with white hats or black hats. Some people are neither, and also, working with white hats may entail running against Trump.
Edit: this shit reminds of the anti-Tucker and anti-Elon types. Maybe they're right, and it's a long-game scenario, but they're usually pretty fucking quiet these days.
How disingenuous (and how unfortunate that I made such a typo kek).
Shit like this is why people don't give genuine arguments online and play all the bullshit games to instead just try to "win" the "argument". No one wants to be on the receiving end of this shit when they're actually trying to make an honest argument, admit to their biases, but still present their argument from their perspective.
But why bother when this is the response? Unilateral invalidation of my entire argument because I was intellectually honest and upfront with my position. Real nice.
And yea, I downvoted a couple comments because I find it tiring to see people paint anyone who isn't the Big Don with the deepstate brush. Particularly when, again, I see no evidence of it. Vivek is uniquely "MAGA" in the debates, and sure, maybe that's the ploy, maybe they are trying to make him out like the Trump character in these debates, but I see no great evidence of this. Logical doesn't always mean true. Plenty of people said the same about Trump in 2016. Some still do. And obviously, I'm not voting for anyone but Trump, but that doesn't make every single other person on the political stage a villain.
I find it curious that he's the only Republican up there that isn't marching in lockstep with the deepstate, establishment agenda. Again, it's possible that it's a trick, but I see no reason to think it's as obvious as people try to make it seem. And frankly, I'd rather have hope that there are more good people left on our side than not, while losing nothing because I'm voting for Trump anyway. Me having hope does nothing other than open me up to being let down.
So apologies for being a little salty, I'm sure I came across as such because I am, I just find the frequently jaded discussions to be a bit tiring I guess.
Gotta be careful with caucuses, the libs are still counting the caucus votes in Des Moines. Anyone remember that insanity where they robbed Bernie and installed Joe?
He will remain on the ballot per the courts order. From page 9 of the order >>>>
"If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court."
The Colorado case only addressed the primaries. Not the national election. Doesn't mean they can't try the same thing for the national election, but this case didn't go that far because I think they assumed keeping him off the primary ballot would make it impossible for him to even get on the national ballot in Colorado. They didn't see the caucus thing coming (neither did I). Looks like they got cocky.
Go ahead Democrats you think this is smart, but it will come and bite you like nothing before. You are losing voters faster than a volcanic eruption. Not because they like Trump, but because what you are doing which is nothing except going after Trump and wasting time and OUR DOLLARS. Dems have become really good at overplaying their hand and it will bite them hard in the end, actually it already is but the are too arrogant to see it. And in the end there needs to be some people executed for what they did.
As I recall, the Republican Party in Washington has a primary, but they consider it "advisory" and use the caucus system to choose their nominee. That may have changed though, since it's been a few years since I was very involved with that side of things
Now they will step up the attacks again Clarence Thomas. All of this is by design. Comfy AF home baking Chrismas cookies watching this craziness unfold.
lets say for some bizarre reason that SCOTUS upholds, would it prevent write in candidates?
I know when BC was up for re-election I wrote in Mickey Mouse, of course knowing what I know today I would write in something different.
So, if all states held a caucus. Only people with long standing in the party have a say in who the candidates are going to be for the general election. Voters wont have to or be able to vote between Vivek and Trump, per say. Also, ranked choice voting wouldbt even exist since the public isnt voting for who is on the ballot. You would have the party of your side selecting one. Also in a caucus, local level sets who that candidate will be. So more power of choice at a much more granular level and can easily keep foreign money out.
Let's do it! Caucus all 50 states!
Is that tantamount to calling a Constitutional Convention?
Whatever happened to that? Was one formed? I’d Google it but I don’t trust search results that are manipulated.
What happened. I thought they were getting close to the required number of states?
How I would love that!
What is a constitutional convention
The first CC occurred during the late 1780s and its when state legislatures sent delegates to Philly to establish the layout of the US government while working on the Constitution.
I dont believe a federal-level CC has ever convened (state-level CCs happen occasionally) except for the one time in the 1780s however in the midst of a real Constitutional crisis then a CC might happen (guessing unless someone else knows).
https://www.theconstitutional.com/blog/2019/09/04/constitutional-convention
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-ushistory1/chapter/the-constitutional-convention/
The only requirement you would need to meet in order to participate in a caucus is party affiliation. That leaves out independents and members affiliated with the opposing party.
But on the toppic of chosing which candidate will be on the ballot. Not having independants, swing voters, or democrats part of that is a benefit
Yes, people with no affiliation to a party should have no voice in which candidate that party chooses to run.
Truth. I'll only vote trump. That's my choice. All other choices are not a choice. I'm independent because there is no viable libertarian party that can perform yet
Fuck RCV. But also fuck party affiliation. 🤷♀️😅
Good. That's a scam designed to push through terrible candidates that no one actually wants.
First past the post or you are getting cheated.
And just like the CSC Decision, your comment is STAYED, unless it gets PETITIONED, then the STAY becomes PERMANENT.....
It's just Word Games.....
Trump is not off the ballot. <—100% fact
As I stated in another thread, this is an engineered problem to elevate Vivek and fix his credibility problem.
The Colorado SC [CSC] did rule that Trump cannot be on the primary ballot due to the 14th amendment and his “engaging in insurrection”. They know its bullshit and they didn’t want to create too much grief for themselves by actually enforcing it.
So they stayed their own ruling until Jan 4, and if the US-SCOTUS takes up the issue in anyway, it its stayed until they make a ruling. And there is no way they would agree with the lunacy of holding DJT accountable for a crime he has not even been legally accused of, much less found guilty of and affect a national election. So much so, I think there is a good chance they are unanimous in their decision.
But it did allow the great Brown White Knight to come in and play the hero. https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1737290316527370495. The CO GOP is merely trying to add a level of drama and credibility to the situation in that same effort.
Theater.
Very plausible. Nice read of the situation. +1
Appreciate it.
To put a bow on it, Vivek cannot win. Not the primary, not the general.
So why is he being sold to MAGA as a DJT Mini-Me? He is being positioned to be a Pence 2.0 cabal failsafe. An insider, if that is enough, and “continuity” if its not.
Agreed with that.
Also, his very presence is a corruption, because afaik he is not a Natural Born Citizen, so like Barak Obama, Kamala Harris and Ted Cruz, he cannot be President.
Kompromat.
The world runs on blackmail.
Nobody can win except Trump. Certainly not in a Republican primary.
Making it out like Vivek is uniquely unable to win is a weak dig. Using it as some explanation for "why he's being sold to MAGA" is weak logic.
Look my myopic "fren"... I never once said or implied "Vivek is uniquely unable to win". I assume the made up facts are just you coping for not being able to make an coherent argument.
Vivek is uniquely "MAGA" [quotes for a reason] in the primary space. Although that is not even my primary point. My primary point, for the "special kids", is that elites of both [uni] parties often collude to manage their bases. This is one of those times.
I'd love to say I am interested in what your point actually is, but that would be untrue. I like just watching you flail about all butt hurt and downvoting everyone. Carry on.
Evidence?
Oh, you don't have any. Just an assumption.
You absolutely implied that Vivek not being able to win was somehow specifically relevant to him and his campaign.
And talk about fucking butthurt... you certainly seem to be displaying some symptoms, fren.
And you know, I admit that I do like a lot of what Vivek says and personally think that he has an appealing personality. Obviously, this doesn't mean he's a good guy, it's easy to say stuff and act a certain way, but what I really don't like is how irrational people seem to be when it comes to him. Like there isn't a shred of evidence he's with the cabal (it's certainly never presented when people cry about him), yet somehow despite doing and saying the right things consistently throughout his campaign, which again I understand means nothing, people just conclude he must be a deepstate clown.
So my point is that you have absolutely nothing but conjecture to base your point on, and maybe a side point would be that a bunch of people around here are too fucking jaded to accept that there may be a good guy other than Trump. Which fair enough, our country and the world is pretty fucked right now, but can we at least try to present things with some level of factual basis? And not just slap everyone who isn't Trump with the "bad" sticker and start hypothesizing a bunch of shit based on that unsubstantiated premise?
It's almost like everyone is just butthurt people are running against Trump. As if every single person knows the plan and must either be working with white hats or black hats. Some people are neither, and also, working with white hats may entail running against Trump.
Edit: this shit reminds of the anti-Tucker and anti-Elon types. Maybe they're right, and it's a long-game scenario, but they're usually pretty fucking quiet these days.
There we go...
How disingenuous (and how unfortunate that I made such a typo kek).
Shit like this is why people don't give genuine arguments online and play all the bullshit games to instead just try to "win" the "argument". No one wants to be on the receiving end of this shit when they're actually trying to make an honest argument, admit to their biases, but still present their argument from their perspective.
But why bother when this is the response? Unilateral invalidation of my entire argument because I was intellectually honest and upfront with my position. Real nice.
And yea, I downvoted a couple comments because I find it tiring to see people paint anyone who isn't the Big Don with the deepstate brush. Particularly when, again, I see no evidence of it. Vivek is uniquely "MAGA" in the debates, and sure, maybe that's the ploy, maybe they are trying to make him out like the Trump character in these debates, but I see no great evidence of this. Logical doesn't always mean true. Plenty of people said the same about Trump in 2016. Some still do. And obviously, I'm not voting for anyone but Trump, but that doesn't make every single other person on the political stage a villain.
I find it curious that he's the only Republican up there that isn't marching in lockstep with the deepstate, establishment agenda. Again, it's possible that it's a trick, but I see no reason to think it's as obvious as people try to make it seem. And frankly, I'd rather have hope that there are more good people left on our side than not, while losing nothing because I'm voting for Trump anyway. Me having hope does nothing other than open me up to being let down.
So apologies for being a little salty, I'm sure I came across as such because I am, I just find the frequently jaded discussions to be a bit tiring I guess.
This is exactly what I said.
Good call
Gotta be careful with caucuses, the libs are still counting the caucus votes in Des Moines. Anyone remember that insanity where they robbed Bernie and installed Joe?
Bernie took it up the ass, happily, a couple of times. Bernie bros should be seeing the light of that demon by now.
No Refunds!
I am once again asking for your donation.
You would think......
If you haven't figured it out yet, this is a Christmas gift to Trump. His poll numbers have just went orbital over this shit.
Can you explain what that means for non Americans?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/caucus-and-primary-what-is-the-difference
He'll remain on the ballot because the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that what Colorado did is unconstitutional and it will be a 9-0 decision.
As long as the caucus doesn't cock us....
He will remain on the ballot per the courts order. From page 9 of the order >>>>
"If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court."
This was all for show.
Love it. That solves primaries - what about the national vote though? I don't think addresses that.
The Colorado case only addressed the primaries. Not the national election. Doesn't mean they can't try the same thing for the national election, but this case didn't go that far because I think they assumed keeping him off the primary ballot would make it impossible for him to even get on the national ballot in Colorado. They didn't see the caucus thing coming (neither did I). Looks like they got cocky.
Write in name ?
The COSC said in their brief that no write-in vote could be counted for Trump with this decision.
Wow that is pure evil Hope they r on Epstein list
Go ahead Democrats you think this is smart, but it will come and bite you like nothing before. You are losing voters faster than a volcanic eruption. Not because they like Trump, but because what you are doing which is nothing except going after Trump and wasting time and OUR DOLLARS. Dems have become really good at overplaying their hand and it will bite them hard in the end, actually it already is but the are too arrogant to see it. And in the end there needs to be some people executed for what they did.
Saying Dems are terrified of Trump would be an understatement at this point. They know the moment he steps back into office, they are finished.
...do what?
As I recall, the Republican Party in Washington has a primary, but they consider it "advisory" and use the caucus system to choose their nominee. That may have changed though, since it's been a few years since I was very involved with that side of things
Now they will step up the attacks again Clarence Thomas. All of this is by design. Comfy AF home baking Chrismas cookies watching this craziness unfold.
lets say for some bizarre reason that SCOTUS upholds, would it prevent write in candidates? I know when BC was up for re-election I wrote in Mickey Mouse, of course knowing what I know today I would write in something different.
Check out the election laws in your state. You might be able to write him in. That's probably the easiest thing to do.