Lol we already know MAGA voters aren't enough voters. The problem is where are they going to get enough voters to have a viable party if they don't dick ride them? They won’t be dumping Trump, and I'm well aware that he's been doing nothing, but losing elections and causing the party to underperform since 2018.
Update: Vice President Kamala Harris is now the Democratic presidential nominee
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
Honestly, I'm not even sure that this was Plan B.
Realistically, the GOP probably went into the election cycle thinking that they were probably going to lose against an incumbent Biden anyway. That's why you didn't see a ton of strong candidates coming into play. Trump probably gave them a sliver of a chance at winning by giving them his base at full strength, but they had to know that he would probably shoot himself in the foot. Repeatedly.
That's not to say that they won't take a Trump win, if it happens. But no one is really pushing for it outside of Trump and the closest parts of his team. They are probably more prepared to take part in a full on hater-based agenda against new-president Harris than they are to facilitate Trump for four more years.
Yep, and the mainstream Republicans see what’s coming around the corner because of what happened 2022.
Where else would they go. They're not going to become Democrats especially if a black woman is president.
A loss here finishes him and would prove he doesn't hold enough influence anymore on a national level.
A loss here and they'll go away like the Tea Party who ten years ago were viewed in the same way MAGA voters are now.
That is why I told you guys in a few weeks. The Republicans are going to drop Trump and try to save their selves. I thought Biden was going to squeak it out, but he will have lost the senate, but since Kamala came into the race, everything them flipped and you are right the Democrats can pick up one or two seats. If that happens like I said earlier, they’re going to drop Trump like a bad habit. Kamala right now is getting a lot of new voters coming in.
Yep, this is why Mrs. Lindsey “I do declare” Graham is starting to ease back from Trump.
So he's been running shitty elections and candidates that have been losing since 2018. The party knows MAGA took over so they have to side with Trump. Virtually all big name Republicans trashed him at one point or another including his VP. They all came back and kissed the ring.
They didn't dump him when he dragged the party down on the first, second, or third cycle. Then all of a sudden they going to dump him after the 4th fuckup? I don't buy it lol. Now if the party was conventional that would make sense. However they've been anything but conventional for a decade now.
Yep, like I said earlier, Trump is really losing what’s left of his mind
I hope he does.
The bar is set so low for Trump that just showing up and being attentive can be spun as a win for him.
Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose in a debate but it's the exact opposite for Kamalah.
That's not happening under Republican leadership, either.
The Democrats is going to have to get a super majority in descendent because kids will filibuster the hell out of that bill
Republican group cites notorious Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
Sun, August 25, 2024 at 7:12 AM PDT
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for presidentaccording to the Constitution.
The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots.
The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The same document included former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance on a list of preferred candidates for vice president.
The document and the citing of the Dred Scott decision were initially noted by lawyer Andrew Fleischman on X, formerly Twitter.
The group, which adopted the document during their last national convention held between October 13 and 15 last year, goes on to argue in the document that a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born, pointing to the thinking of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Kamala Harris greets supporters before boarding Marine Two at Soldier Field in Chicago. A Republican group has argued that she’s ineligible to be president (AP)
“An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases ... have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the document states.
The group then cites six cases including Dred Scott v Sandford. The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.
The NFRA’s platform document argued that “Several states, candidates, and major political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidates Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth.”
“It is the will of this convention that only candidates who meet the natural born-citizenship standard, interpreted through an originalist and strict constructionist standard, be placed on the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballots,” the document states.
The NFRA endorsed Trump during their October convention. The group’s president Alex Johnson said in a statement to The Independent that “The media’s suggestion that referencing a court case in a 30+ page document equates to endorsing every aspect of the case is inherently dishonest and misleading.”
“We firmly believe that faux Democrat Ms. Harris should never hold office for any of the many reasons people choose to highlight, including her party’s tactics on dividing people by race and class, which mirror those that have led nations like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea into totalitarian regimes,” he claimed. “These policies have historically resulted in widespread suffering, economic collapse, and the erosion of individual freedoms. The Democrat Party preys on the ignorance of voters.”
Both Haley and Ramaswamy appeared on Republican primary ballots. Former President Ronald Reagan was a member of the now 90-year-old organization, Raw Story noted.
The NFRA’s interpretation of the Constitution would have made several US presidents ineligible to hold office, such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Their parents were born in what was then the British colonies in what would later become the US, meaning that those commanders in chief would not meet the strict standards of the NFRA.
The NFRA also cited the 1939 case Perkins v Elg.
“A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States,” the case states, going against the argument of the NFRA.
The US Archives states on its site that the Scott v Sandford ruling is “considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court.”
It also notes that the decision was “overturned” by the 13th and 14th amendments which abolished slavery and stated that all people born in the US are citizens.
The 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford decision came after Dred Scott, an enslaved Black man, sued for his freedom alongside his wife Harriet in St Louis Circuit Court in 1846.
They argued that they were free as they had lived in a free territory where slavery was forbidden. They had lived with their enslaver in what was then the Territory of Wisconsin and their freedom could be established because they had been enslaved in a free territory and then returned to a slave state. Courts had previously made such rulings.
But the lawsuit grew into a legal case lasting over a decade, with Scott losing his case in the Missouri state courts before he filed a new federal lawsuit which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
During the 11 years between 1846 and 1857, the issue of slavery grew into the most contentious issue in US politics. The ruling that enslaved people weren’t citizens pushed the country closer to the Civil War, which would begin four years later.
Scott received his freedom in May 1857 after being manumitted by a Republican Congressman, but he died from tuberculosis just over a year later in September 1858.
Republican group cites Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
Group also challenged right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited:
Republican group cites notorious Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
Sun, August 25, 2024 at 7:12 AM PDT
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for presidentaccording to the Constitution.
The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots.
The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The same document included former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance on a list of preferred candidates for vice president.
The document and the citing of the Dred Scott decision were initially noted by lawyer Andrew Fleischman on X, formerly Twitter.
The group, which adopted the document during their last national convention held between October 13 and 15 last year, goes on to argue in the document that a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born, pointing to the thinking of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Kamala Harris greets supporters before boarding Marine Two at Soldier Field in Chicago. A Republican group has argued that she’s ineligible to be president (AP)
“An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases ... have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the document states.
The group then cites six cases including Dred Scott v Sandford. The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.
The NFRA’s platform document argued that “Several states, candidates, and major political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidates Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth.”
“It is the will of this convention that only candidates who meet the natural born-citizenship standard, interpreted through an originalist and strict constructionist standard, be placed on the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballots,” the document states.
The NFRA endorsed Trump during their October convention. The group’s president Alex Johnson said in a statement to The Independent that “The media’s suggestion that referencing a court case in a 30+ page document equates to endorsing every aspect of the case is inherently dishonest and misleading.”
“We firmly believe that faux Democrat Ms. Harris should never hold office for any of the many reasons people choose to highlight, including her party’s tactics on dividing people by race and class, which mirror those that have led nations like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea into totalitarian regimes,” he claimed. “These policies have historically resulted in widespread suffering, economic collapse, and the erosion of individual freedoms. The Democrat Party preys on the ignorance of voters.”
Both Haley and Ramaswamy appeared on Republican primary ballots. Former President Ronald Reagan was a member of the now 90-year-old organization, Raw Story noted.
The NFRA’s interpretation of the Constitution would have made several US presidents ineligible to hold office, such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Their parents were born in what was then the British colonies in what would later become the US, meaning that those commanders in chief would not meet the strict standards of the NFRA.
The NFRA also cited the 1939 case Perkins v Elg.
“A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States,” the case states, going against the argument of the NFRA.
The US Archives states on its site that the Scott v Sandford ruling is “considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court.”
It also notes that the decision was “overturned” by the 13th and 14th amendments which abolished slavery and stated that all people born in the US are citizens.
The 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford decision came after Dred Scott, an enslaved Black man, sued for his freedom alongside his wife Harriet in St Louis Circuit Court in 1846.
They argued that they were free as they had lived in a free territory where slavery was forbidden. They had lived with their enslaver in what was then the Territory of Wisconsin and their freedom could be established because they had been enslaved in a free territory and then returned to a slave state. Courts had previously made such rulings.
But the lawsuit grew into a legal case lasting over a decade, with Scott losing his case in the Missouri state courts before he filed a new federal lawsuit which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
During the 11 years between 1846 and 1857, the issue of slavery grew into the most contentious issue in US politics. The ruling that enslaved people weren’t citizens pushed the country closer to the Civil War, which would begin four years later.
Scott received his freedom in May 1857 after being manumitted by a Republican Congressman, but he died from tuberculosis just over a year later in September 1858.
Republican group cites Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
Group also challenged right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots
They’re letting you know what they’re going to send to the SC to challenge a Harris/Walz victory.
Generally this should be much to do about nothing attempting a Hail Mary.
But with THIS group of Supreme Court Justices?
Yeah!!!!
You should probably pay more attention to what Thomas Jefferson said in that quote
Indeed! Like I said shouldn’t even be a case.
BUT you have this special group of Supreme Court Justices. Can you be certain they’d dismiss the case out of hand?
Nationwide. I think that tweet is in error.
Last edited:
I know the Supreme Court is stupid right now, but they better not touch this bullshit or it be hell on earth, especially if she wins in a blowout.
They can not dump him. GOP is no longer just a party; It's a cult.
The voter base sees Trump as GOD.
As long as he's alive, republican reps are all hostages.
Not to mention he'll be in the midst of possibly several long jail terms..
A trifecta is called a trend, but going beyond the previous trend of net election losses (18, 20, 22) for the fourth time in 2024 with the Trump brand is madness.
But hey, FELONIOUS is their boy
Last edited:
Opinion: Ignore my brother Bobby, Max Kennedy says
Aug. 25, 2024 3 AM PT
Donald Trump shakes hands with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at an Arizona campaign rally Friday after RFK Jr. announced his support of the former president’s 2024 campaign.
(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)
I’m heartbroken over my brother Bobby’s endorsement of Donald Trump.
I think often about my father and how he might have viewed the politics of our time. I’m not sure what he would have thought about TikTok or AI, but this much I know for sure: He would have despised Donald Trump.
Trump was exactly the kind of arrogant, entitled bully my father used to prosecute. Robert F. Kennedy’s life was dedicated to promoting the safety, security and happiness of the American people. That is why he would have so admired another former prosecutor, Kamala Harris. Her career, like his, has been all about decency, dignity, equality, democracy and justice for all.
Trump is the enemy of all that. The only thing he seems to be for is himself and, disturbingly, autocrats such as Vladimir Putin, whom my father would have regarded as an existential threat to our country.
Yet my brother now endorses Trump. To pledge allegiance to Trump, a man who demonstrates no adherence to our family’s values, is inconceivable to me.
Worse, it is sordid. Earlier this month, as Harris surged in the polls, my brother offered her his endorsement in exchange for a position in her coming administration. He got no response.
Now he has offered that same deal to Trump. His is a hollow grab for power, a strategic attempt at relevance. It is the opposite of what my father admired: “the unselfish spirit that exists in the United States of America.”
It is all the more tragic because of our brother’s name. To carry the name Robert F. Kennedy Jr. means a special legacy within a legacy. It would strongly imply a desire to carry on our father’s work. But Bobby’s alliance with Trump puts this in jeopardy.
Let me go through the record.
My father was an anti-racist who joined the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in common cause, and forged a powerful bond with African Americans everywhere he went in 1968.
Donald Trump is a lifelong racist whose entire career has been shaped by his dislike of people with a different skin color.
My father believed in expanding legal immigration because he came from an immigrant family and knew how much talent and drive hard-working families bring if we open our doors to them.
Donald Trump stirs up hatred of immigrants, whom he mischaracterizes as criminals and drug addicts.
My father believed in the rule of law, as a prosecutor, and as the attorney general of the United States.
Donald Trump has contempt for the law, as evidenced by his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election and his ongoing legal struggles. He is the first felon to run as a serious candidate for the presidency.
My father believed in bringing Americans together. He said, “I don’t think that we have to shoot at each other, to beat each other, to curse each other and criticize each other, I think that we can do better in this country.”
Donald Trump’s entire campaign is about stoking division.
My father loved the priceless inheritance of our land and water and surely was an environmentalist in his way, even if the term did not catch on until later.
It feels especially hypocritical that Bobby, a genuine environmentalist, has thrown in with the most anti-environmental president in our history, who promises to “drill, baby, drill” if elected.
My father was against the “mindless menace” of gun violence. Donald Trump is against any meaningful form of regulating guns.
My father believed in democracy. Donald Trump does not.
My father believed in the truth. Donald Trump does not.
At the University of Kansas, on March 18, 1968, my father said, “[W]e as a people, are strong enough, we are brave enough to be told the truth of where we stand. This country needs honesty and candor in its political life and from the president of the United States.”
The truth is essential to democracy. And truth is essential inside a family, too. For all of these reasons, the truth requires me to set the record clear. I love Bobby. But I hate what he is doing to our country. It is worse than disappointment. We are in mourning.
Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine I would be motivated to write something of this nature. With a heavy heart, I am today asking my fellow Americans to do what will honor our father the most: Ignore Bobby and support Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic platform. It’s what is best for our country.
As my father said, in a campaign of his own, “I want all of us, young and old, to have a chance to build a better country and change the direction of the United States of America.”
Max Kennedy is an author, an attorney and the ninth child of Ethel and Robert Kennedy. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife, Vicki.
It’s the exact same thing Donald John did—we refused to debate any other candidate in the Republican primary.
Trump's messaging basically told them their racism is OK because nothing wrong in their lives was their fault. Now instead of being shunned and having to hide their racism they felt like they're part of the in group and can sit at the coll kid's table. That's why calling them weird set off the MAGA people so much. Cause if you're weird you're not cool instead you're the person everyone is laughing at and that brought back bad memories of when they had to hide their racism and conspiracy beliefs.
Everything about Trump's success boils down to racism and a bunch of white people's relationship to racism and how that affected their social lives.
Last edited: