Donald Trump's 2024 POTUS campaign

[Swordsmyth]

Paxton is not corrupt and is the best AG in the nation.

[unknown]

They've now flipped the script and are portraying Trump as the elderly, weak, senior citizen.

[acptulsa]

They've now flipped the script and are portraying Trump as the elderly, weak, senior citizen.

They'll call him everything before they're through. Gotta keep Republicans pissed off or they might think about what they're doing.

[unknown]

Paxton is not corrupt and is the best AG in the nation.

You're missing the point there swift.

LaCivita is Trump's current campaign manager.

[acptulsa]

You're missing the point there swift.

LaCivita is Trump's current campaign manager.

Maybe we found out whose campaign manager really is a CIA asset.

[Sonny Tufts]

Paxton is not corrupt and is the best AG in the nation.

You gotta be kidding. Paxton is a politically-motivated scumbag and Trump ass-kisser who filed a totally baseless suit in the Supreme Court complaining about how another state ran its 2020 presidential election. Any first year law student could have seen that Texas had no standing, which is probably why the Texas Solicitor General refused to participate in the case. SCOTUS (including two Trump appointees) dismissed the case due to lack of standing.

He has been under indictment for securities fraud for years, but just today he cut a sweetheart deal in the case under which the charges will be dismissed if he takes legal ethics classes, pays around $270,000 in restitution to the men he allegedly defrauded and does 100 hours of community service (reportedly to be done in a food bank).

[acptulsa]

Paxton is not corrupt and is the best AG in the nation.

Paxton is a politically-motivated scumbag and Trump ass-kisser ...

And just exactly what characteristics did you think he was looking for in an AG?

[unknown]

Once again, Trump has surrounded himself with people who hate him.

[Swordsmyth]

You're missing the point there swift.

LaCivita is Trump's current campaign manager.

I'm not, I'm adding to the point.
But Trump just replaced him.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe we found out whose campaign manager really is a CIA asset.

Yes, RFK's.

[Swordsmyth]

You gotta be kidding. Paxton is a politically-motivated scumbag and Trump ass-kisser who filed a totally baseless suit in the Supreme Court complaining about how another state ran its 2020 presidential election. Any first year law student could have seen that Texas had no standing, which is probably why the Texas Solicitor General refused to participate in the case. SCOTUS (including two Trump appointees) dismissed the case due to lack of standing.

He has been under indictment for securities fraud for years, but just today he cut a sweetheart deal in the case under which the charges will be dismissed if he takes legal ethics classes, pays around $270,000 in restitution to the men he allegedly defrauded and does 100 hours of community service (reportedly to be done in a food bank).

A bunch of Leftist and Bush wing (redundant) lies.
The 2020 election theft was every state's business.
The persecution of Paxton has been just as fraudulent as the lawfare against Trump and the refusal to deal with election fraud.

[acptulsa]

[Sonny Tufts]

A bunch of Leftist and Bush wing (redundant) lies.
The 2020 election theft was every state's business.

Oh, so Trump's hand-picked Justices who threw out Paxton's case are leftists? Who knew? What does that tell you about Trump's judgment in appointing them?

Texas has no more right to tell Pennsylvania how to run its election than California has the right to tell Texas how to run its internal affairs.

[Occam's Banana]

Texas has no more right to tell Pennsylvania how to run its election than California has the right to tell Texas how to run its internal affairs.

Analogy fail. Pennsylvania's federal elections are not merely a matter of Pennsylvania's "internal affairs". The consequences of federal-level elections affect all states, and if Texas, et al. are going to be expected to accept those consequences, then they damn well ought to have "standing" to dispute the matter, if they will.

Texas has (or ought to have) as much a right to reject the results of Pennsylvania's federal-level elections if those elections are not legitimate as Pennsylvania has a right to expect Texas to accept the results of its federal-level elections if those elections are legitimate (all that "lack of standing" shuck-and-jive to the contrary notwithstanding).

Disputes between states over whether such federal-level elections are legitimate or not are just the sort of thing that federal-level courts ought to exist in order to deal with, not shirk. If not, then what the hell is even the point of them?

In the limit, states should assign their electors however they damn well please - and if any state for whatever reasons (1) doesn't like how some other state does it, and (2) isn't able to arrive at a tolerable (if not satisfactory) reconciliation with the other state (via federal courts or otherwise), and (3) feels sufficiently strongly about the matter, then that state should be free to remove itself from political union with the other state. But the same $#@!s who tell us that no state should be granted any "standing" to dispute any other state's federal-level elections (or elector assignments) will also tell us that no state should be permitted to take its marbles and go home. (Funny how that works out, ain't it?)

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, so Trump's hand-picked Justices who threw out Paxton's case are leftists? Who knew? What does that tell you about Trump's judgment in appointing them?

Texas has no more right to tell Pennsylvania how to run its election than California has the right to tell Texas how to run its internal affairs.

Garbage, SCOTUS chickened out, like they have many times.

The right of Texans to have a fair election was abridged when the PA government cheated, Texans had a right to have Trump as POTUS instead of Biden in a fair election.
The details of how PA conducts elections are not any business of Texans, but cheating in a national election is.

[Swordsmyth]

Analogy fail. Pennsylvania's federal elections are not merely a matter of Pennsylvania's "internal affairs". The consequences of federal-level elections affect all states, and if Texas, et al. are going to be expected to accept those consequences, then they damn well ought to have "standing" to dispute the matter, if they will.

Texas has (or ought to have) as much a right to reject the results of Pennsylvania's federal-level elections if those elections are not legitimate as Pennsylvania has a right to expect Texas to accept the results of its federal-level elections if those elections are legitimate (all that "lack of standing" shuck-and-jive to the contrary notwithstanding).

Disputes between states over whether such federal-level elections are legitimate or not are just the sort of thing that federal-level courts ought to exist in order to deal with, not shirk. If not, then what the hell is even the point of them?

In the limit, states should assign their electors however they damn well please - and if any state for whatever reasons (1) doesn't like how some other state does it, and (2) isn't able to arrive at a tolerable (if not satisfactory) reconciliation with the other state (via federal courts or otherwise), and (3) feels sufficiently strongly about the matter, then that state should be free to remove itself from political union with the other state. But the same $#@!s who tell us that no state should be granted any "standing" to dispute any other state's federal-level elections (or elector assignments) will also tell us that no state should be permitted to take its marbles and go home. (Funny how that works out, ain't it?)

If the PA legislature wants to assign its Electors directly and forgo an election it has that right, but it must do it officially, and the PA executive branch doesn't get to just bypass the legislature and the legislated electoral process and cheat surreptitiously.

[unknown]

Ian coming on strong.

Usually they do this at an Izraeli gathering, AIPAC etc.

Anyone know if this was at a regular campaign event?

[unknown]

Wow.

https://x.com/AFpost/status/1824550193863213261

[unknown]

If you re-watch Trump's debates or speeches from 2015 2016, he really only had or mentioned 3 primary issues:

Muslims.

China.

The border.

This is literally what got him elected.

Now, he's flipped, at a time when it's much worse...

Did he say just Indian?

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/...056293357.html

[PAF]

Wow.

https://x.com/AFpost/status/1824550193863213261

Well, that's what I've been saying for how long now. The right-feed-the-left-feed-the-right. Follow The Money.

Not only is our tax-dollars paying the NGO's to invite them here, Trump is going to implement "Nationalized" Police-State "solutions" to handle this "critical emergency".

Every "Patriot" Act, TSA, $8+T, ANTI-Posse Comitatus republican president enacts ANTI-Bill of Rights agendas, every time. And the "R's" give piece of cake passes. It's a religion.

[unknown]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

WTF


https://x.com/USTechWorkers/status/1803926021542154323

[WarriorLiberty]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

WTF


https://x.com/USTechWorkers/status/1803926021542154323

Whatever happened to America first putting Americans of all first?

[WarriorLiberty]

If you re-watch Trump's debates or speeches from 2015 2016, he really only had or mentioned 3 primary issues:

Muslims.

China.

The border.

This is literally what got him elected.

Now, he's flipped, at a time when it's much worse...

Did he say just Indian?

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/...056293357.html

There are many Canadians in Canada who now want less Indian graduates, that hasn't worked out well in Canada...

[PAF]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

WTF


https://x.com/USTechWorkers/status/1803926021542154323

“I promise to staple a Green Card to anyone who graduates from ANY college, even 2-yr community colleges.”

That's where his Agenda47 "Nationalized" American University comes in. Trump is going to fine/tax/sue Private donors and use that money to offer it for "FREE".

When are folks going to put 2 and 2 together.


Go ahead and vote for him. He is going to fix it all

[spudea]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

Wrong. He has always said we need legal immigration and it should be merit based for people that benefit our country.

[PAF]

Wrong. He has always said we need legal immigration and it should be merit based for people that benefit our country.

Merit based, via his "FREE" college? lol

Oh you Trump-Humpers really crack me up

That's where his Agenda47 "Nationalized" American University comes in. Trump is going to fine/tax/sue Private donors and use that money to offer it for "FREE".

When are folks going to put 2 and 2 together.


Go ahead and vote for him. He is going to fix it all

Boy, if Biden/Harris even uttered such a thing I can't even imagine all of the memes that would be circulating

[Sonny Tufts]

In the limit, states should assign their electors however they damn well please...

Funny, that's just what the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

This matter has been hashed out before. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on#post7018494 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Election-Rules

The bottom line is that SCOTUS (including 2 and possibly 3* Trump appointees) held that Texas had no standing, just as I had predicted in 2000. When 7 (and possibly 9*) justices pour you out, it's a good indication that your suit is meritless.

So you can bitch and moan about the "cowardly" or "corrupt" Supreme Court justices, but it doesn't change the fact that Paxton wasted Texas taxpayers' money by filing a baseless petition with the Court.

* 7 justices declined to hear Texas' petition due to lack of standing. Alito and Thomas would have heard the petition but would not have granted other relief. While not totally clear, their statement (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.) can be interpreted as indicating that they too believed that Texas lacked standing.

EDIT: All three Trump appointees agreed Texas had no standing. Neither Alito nor Thomas was appointed by Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

Funny, that's just what the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

This matter has been hashed out before. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on#post7018494 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Election-Rules

The bottom line is that SCOTUS (including 2 and possibly 3* Trump appointees) held that Texas had no standing, just as I had predicted in 2000. When 7 (and possibly 9*) justices pour you out, it's a good indication that your suit is meritless.

So you can bitch and moan about the "cowardly" or "corrupt" Supreme Court justices, but it doesn't change the fact that Paxton wasted Texas taxpayers' money by filing a baseless petition with the Court.

* 7 justices declined to hear Texas' petition due to lack of standing. Alito and Thomas would have heard the petition but would not have granted other relief. While not totally clear, their statement (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.) can be interpreted as indicating that they too believed that Texas lacked standing.

If the PA legislature wants to assign its Electors directly and forgo an election it has that right, but it must do it officially, and the PA executive branch doesn't get to just bypass the legislature and the legislated electoral process and cheat surreptitiously.

And Texas has standing, since they suffer under the consequences of the cheating in PA and other states.
SCOTUS chickened out and caved to the deepstate.

[Sonny Tufts]

If the PA legislature wants to assign its Electors directly and forgo an election it has that right, but it must do it officially, and the PA executive branch doesn't get to just bypass the legislature and the legislated electoral process and cheat surreptitiously.

You haven't a clue what the issue with the PA process was. The PA Supreme Court had held that the PA Constitution's provision for free and equal elections required extending the deadline for submitting mail-in and absentee ballots. Texas's argument was based on the astonishing claim that in devising the rules for selecting electors a state legislature isn't bound by its state constitution. This theory, called the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, had been previously rejected by SCOTUS in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), a case involving the authority of state legislatures under the Article I Elections Clause. It was rejected again in Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), another case involving the Article I Elections Clause. The reasoning in those cases would also apply to a case involving the Article II Elections Clause, such as Texas' complaint.

And Texas has standing, since they suffer under the consequences of the cheating in PA and other states.

B.S. Texas wasn't injured at all; all of its electoral votes went to Trump, and that's all Texas and its voters were entitled to.

All three Trump appointees were of the view that Texas lacked standing. But Trump lemmings such as yourself would never consider for a second that those three and the other 4 in the majority just might know a bit more than you about the law of standing and that maybe, just maybe, they got it right. No, under your outlook they "chickened out", as if their lifetime appointments were meaningless.

[LibertyEagle]

That's where his Agenda47 "Nationalized" American University comes in. Trump is going to fine/tax/sue Private donors and use that money to offer it for "FREE".

When are folks going to put 2 and 2 together.


Go ahead and vote for him. He is going to fix it all

No one said he was going to fix it all. Even Ron Paul couldn’t.

There is no liberty candidate running and even if there were, they wouldn’t be perfect either.

Some of us nonetheless would prefer if we had more time to take action before our country totally imploded. Trump, with all his many warts, is clear to me to be far less damaging than gun confiscation, communist Harris/Walz.

However, aren’t you the guy rooting for the country to hurry up and go belly up?