ewsieg

People have bashed the media in this country before we were our own country. That said, the media has not been great the last 20 years and there are a multitude of reasons for that (Internet, the need to be the first to report, proliferation of media sources that cater to one side, loss of local journalist, etc). I feel like Chuck and Pfife are responding less on what i'm trying to say, and more on what they infer my likely "MAGA" thoughts they perceive I have. I'm just saying it's a concern.

I don't always dig for the full source on an article/poll unless there is a dispute about it. As for Heartland, I'm still not sure what that is unless they are a part of this JL Partners polling group. Again, my point and I apologize I used an article that provided a poll, but my point was many younger kids are getting their information through influencers, not journalists. The Bin Laden letters, and their propagation on TikTok, was reported by many reputable news sources and that's where my head was when I posted this which reminded me of that. Rather how much that truly affected the views of users, I won't argue this poll shows that. Still, seems like a concern.

I'm not going to pretend to know how rigorous this poll was, from the dailymail article: I quick google search of that and I see they have done polling work for Theresa May so i'm guessing you won't give it any credence. Even if the numbers are off, my concern and the reason I posted it was the fact that more younger Americans are getting their news from Tik Tok.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/gen-z-positive-view-osama-bin-laden/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral I apologize if this was posted and I missed it. I heard about this last week but just saw this article.

Ok, just read up on Thomas.... he may deserve the vote. lol

I think you have to go with Millen. I fear Troy Weaver may beat him some day and it looks like Gores will give him the ability to hang on as long as Millen too. I hated Quinn, but it was also short lived. I think both Smith and Avila have some legitimate owner interference issues that didn't help them and we are seeing some players from the Avila era that might make an impact with the Tigers that elevates him, at least from the bottom. I can't speak to Thomas, I really don't know much about it outside of if he was the Lions GM, sometimes after the 1950's, he probably at least deserves to be on this list.

Whelp, hate to break it to you, but tons of racist tropes being spread about immigrants by democrats lately.

Yup, bad answer. I don't think that's simply a north thing either, throughout history you have the basic facts of an issue, and then you can go in depth to learn about how it got to those basic facts. What started WW2, Germany invades Poland, yet you can dig into post WW1 and make strong arguments about steps taken which eventually led to Germany invading Poland. At the root of the Civil War was slavery, if you go in depth though, you can see other issues that played some role as well. For a setting she was in, you can say 'That's a very complex question with many different factors, but slavery was at the heart of it' or go with the more traditional GOP answer of 'That's a very complex question with many different factors, but states rights to have slaves was at the heart of it'.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/27/news/chicago-mayor-sounds-alarm-on-border-country-now-at-stake/ Why are democrats turning on illegals?

I feel like this death should get some recognition in this forum.

While there were differences in them, I feel like Benson eloquently relayed my concerns, that ultimately it would lead to many more questions and possible abuses.

she says it a lot better then me.

I readily admitted I don't know the full backstory of this issue, but it wasn't the QOP members of this board saying SCOTUS should do the 'right' thing and uphold Colorado's decision. I was simply alarmed by where this might go because currently the biggest crazies in this country are MAGA's and while this might seem like a win against Trump short term, it could give MAGA a tool to screw up the country more. From recent years we've seen that if you give Dems a hammer, they start building back better, if you give a GOP a hammer, they attack Pelosi's husband. Same tool, wildly different uses. My understanding is whoever was using the 14th amendment to keep him off of the primary, which still means my 'what if' remains. The 14th amendment says nothing about if a state thinks someone attempts an insurrection, they can be removed from the primary, it simply states they can not be president. Someone is going to argue that if SCOTUS allows this, they are essentially confirming Trump can not be president unless he somehow wins the election and gets 2/3's of congress to approve him taking office.

Democrats - We can't allow Trump to win because he'll destroy democracy under a guise that he's trying to save it. This country was built on fundamentals that made us who we are today and that must be preserved. Also Democrats - This process to deal with Trump is taking too long and he has a chance to be president again, therefore, we need to bypass democracy in order to save democracy.

Agreed that states have a wide leeway to run their elections, but they can not bypass the few requirements for being a president, 35 years of age, natural born citizen, has lived in the US for at least 14 years, and has not committed an insurrection. Trump (legally) has not committed an insurrection, just as OJ and Casey Anthony are not murderers. That said, I'd prefer to keep OJ away from white women and waiters, I'm not going to let Casey Anthony babysit my kids, and I'm going to do what I can to legally keep Trump out of office. As for your last statement, absolutely could be what comes out of this. Not uncommon for the court to do something like that.

They had a process they used to move forward with this, but in no way would it constitute due process in the eyes of the law. Even if they did follow due process in a traditional way and put Trump on trial and found him guilty, I'm not even sure if legally they have the authority to do so. I'm not saying they don't, just wonder if that would be more of a federal role for that, which is what I hope we eventually see with Jack Smith. You keep coming back to this like it matters if he did something illegal or not. I'm not sure if it's from a movie or what, but have you ever heard the phrase that a D.A. could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted too? I know it's slippery slope stuff, but all my argument is is that if SCOTUS says Colorado has the right to determine Trump violated the 14th, especially without even putting him on trial and convicting him, that even if every other state allows him to remain on the ballot and he wins them all, I don't think he could be named president due to the 14th amendment. Additionally, all Alabama would need to say is they followed their own process to determine Biden violated the 14th to do the same thing. They don't need to prove it to you or anyone else if they don't have to follow traditional due process. Several of you seem to think I'm trying to compare Trump and Biden and any possible illegal activity from them, I'm not.

I actually mentioned this already that if SCOTUS upholds Colorado, it could lead to only a handful of states determine who is running for president. You're pointing out exactly what is my concern. You're looking at this based on the evidence you have and what you think would be right, you're not looking at it as a law issue or possible consequences. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of this, but the argument i've heard from the left is that Colorado is correct because Trump attempted an insurrection and therefore can not be president due to Amendment 14, section 3, thus they have every right to remove him from the ballot. Therefore SCOTUS should uphold it. I personally do think Trump attempted an insurrection and therefore should never be eligible to be president again. If I was a member of SCOTUS though, i'd have to rule against my personal opinion because 1) the same amendment talks about Due Process in section 1. Additionally if you want to use an extreme federalist view because it fits what you personally want and argue that section 3 does not specifically state Due Process for this specific scenario I'd argue the progressive view that the outcome would not be what was intended either. And again, maybe i'm wrong, but if you say Colorado, without Due Process can determine Trump led an insurrection, he can't be named president. Each state may need to do some legal changes to remove him from the ballot, but even if they don't or Trump gets a write in campaign, he'd still need 2/3's of congress to allow him to take the seat. My argument all along is if you want to take the position that Colorado, without Due Process, can determine if Trump can not be president, why can't Alabama do the same to Biden as they don't need to prove Biden did it, as they simply need to accuse him of it.

No, SCOTUS is ruling of Colorado can determine if Trump is ineligible because of the 14th. If they can, Alabama has just as much of a right as well.

Alabama doesn’t need evidence that you believe in, just evidence they chose to believe, assuming Colorado can decide on Trump. He can pardon himself, but if Alabama says he can’t be in the ballot and/or be president, he can’t be president again if SCOTUS says states can determine who was is eligible to run in This Colorado ruling.

If you listen to that link I sent, the Dems absolutely overplayed Russian collusion, notice no one says that anymore (it's interference now), but listen to the link and you'll hear from Dems how we shouldn't trust electronic ballot boxes, that voter suppression is what caused Abrams to lose, which politifact and others will say 'not determined', but then point to how there was great turnout and even if every provisional ballot went to her, she still would have lost. In fact they found that Georgia had the highest percentage of registered voters in the last 40 years. Other snippets that if you didn't see them coming out of a democrats mouth, you'd assume it was from MTG.....'Numerous irregularities' , 'independent investigation needed', 'flawed voting process', 'lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting devices', 'The election was stolen from her', etc. And again because a few folks seem to think I'm trying to do a Both Sides thing here. I'm just saying that this is what will be used as an argument by MAGA folks to point at things like Police being targeted and says the left is attempting an insurrection. If what Colorado stands up, It doesn't matter if you agree with it, it only matters if Alabama or another MAGA lead state does it.

We’re talking hypotheticals because if SCOTUS upholds this MAGA members in red states are going to claim this as evidence against Biden and get him removed. In no way and I trying to make an equivalency in the argument, but if Alabama says democrats were responsible for BLM, it’s over for Biden too

So, as a whole, I agree with you. But, if you tell people that an election was rigged against them and stolen from them, quite possible that could lead them to act against the government they feel is not legitimate. Obviously Trump was blatant, which is a huge difference.

I don't think they did, but they did instill in the minds of many that elections may be rigged. I do think Trump did engage in an insurrection. And while this country would be great if we determined our laws based on my own personal decisions, it probably isn't the best idea in a republic.

Watch the video instead.... https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/