- 5
- 28
- 4
- 23
S1mps get the r0pe
- 16
- 26
- 32
- 41
I'm guessing it must have went well so will be memory holed quickly by chuds.
- Brasillguana : I'd c*m all over her face do that she could moisturize for women's day
- 8
- 39
I am DYING over the intense delivery of every single syllable here. pic.twitter.com/4LIA8XGt4v
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) March 8, 2024
George Santos announces he's running for Congress again 
- 9
- 61
Other posts
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1b9d7p6/george_santos_is_running_for_congress/
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1b9ef4s/george_santos_announces_another_run_for_a_new/
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1b9dem3/indicted_serial_liar_george_santos_announces_new/
https://old.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1b9drkm/george_santos_is_running_for_congress_again/
https://old.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1b9f0bi/george_santos_announces_hes_running_for_congress/
George Santos announces he's running for Congress again
Former GOP Rep. George Santos, who was expelled from the House last year and is facing federal charges, announced Thursday night that he's running for Congress again — this time to challenge a Republican congressman in New York.
“Tonight, I want to announce that I will be returning to the arena of politics and challenging Nick for the battle over #NY1,” Santos wrote on X, referring to GOP Rep. Nick LaLota. “I look forward to debating him on the issues and on his weak record as a Republican. The fight for our majority is imperative for the survival of the country.”
The former congressman, who had represented New York's 3rd District, made his announcement during President Joe Biden's State of the Union address Thursday — during which he was spotted at the US Capitol.
Santos enters a battleground contest in New York that's among several races in the state that could decide the House majority – though he'll face steep odds for his comeback bid, even setting aside his personal baggage, in challenging an incumbent in a June primary.
LaLota quickly hit back at Santos' new bid Thursday night. “To raise the standard in Congress, and to hold a pathological liar who stole an election accountable, I led the charge to expel George Santos. If finishing the job requires beating him in a primary, count me in,” LaLota said.
LaLota had introduced a resolution to expel his fellow New York Republican last fall, saying that he deserved “to be in prison.”
In his announcement for his new campaign, Santos called his former colleague a RINO, or Republican in Name Only. “New York hasn't had a real conservative represent them since I left office arbitrarily, thanks to RINO, empty suits like @nicklalota,” he wrote on X.
A crowded field of Democrats has assembled to try to flip New York's 1st District, which is rated Lean Republican by Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales.
John Avlon, a former CNN commentator, and Nancy Goroff, a professor emeritus at Stony Brook University who lost a bid for the House in 2020, are among the lead contenders on the Democratic side.
“Bring it on,” Avlon said in a statement Thursday night responding to Santos' new campaign.
The Santos for Congress campaign also filed organization paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night, stating his intention to run in the 1st District. The campaign's new filing identified the return of a treasurer who previously worked for Santos.
Santos is the sixth lawmaker ever to be expelled from the chamber. He has separately pleaded not guilty to 23 federal charges, including allegations of fraud related to Covid-19 unemployment benefits, misusing campaign funds and lying about his personal finances on House disclosure reports.
- 7
- 27
- 2
- 16
neolibs must make another sacrifice to Moloch for their failures. 
Whomst will it be this time? 
CNN says the Times has come. 
- 43
- 51
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1b7x2g4/nikki_haley_ends_2024_bid_setting_up_trumpbiden/
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is ending her campaign, ceding the nomination to Donald Trump and setting up a rematch of the 2020 election against President Joe Biden, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
The suspension of her campaign comes after a string of losses on Super Tuesday and other early voting states, where Trump won by large margins, including South Carolina, her home state where she served two terms as governor.
- 2
- 7
Portland admits they suck
- 19
- 27
- 30
- 16
I don't personally like trump, his approval rate is also like 5% in the UK (as in would you vote for trump/American republicans to kill our free health care etc).
However Biden basically hates us because he thinks he is Irish.
Brexit was a shit idea but it was a Trump aligned idea, we also actually pay above our NATO contributions unlike the euros.
So as much as a loss it might be to soyjacks everywhere, from an economic perspective I suspect the likely Trump win is good for us.
Now let me move to America more easily, why do you have open borders for Mexicans but like 4 skilled British visas available a year.
!britbongs discuss
- 2
- 10
Extra r-sluration
- 357
- 183
Opinion document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
I'll keep adding 
as I find it.
https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1b6d3ve/supreme_court_rules_trump_cannot_be_kicked_off/
https://old.reddit.com/r/usanews/comments/1b6d1eo/trump_wins_in_supreme_court_today_states_cannot/
https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1b6d2d7/supreme_court_rules_trump_can_appear_on/
https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1b6d0ul/opinion_trump_v_anderson/
https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b6d3ba/supreme_court_hands_trump_victory_in_colorado/
https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b6czvd/trump_v_anderson_opinion/
https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1b6d0sm/supreme_court_rules_trump_cannot_be_kicked_off/
https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1b6d3e3/the_supreme_court_in_a_per_curiam_decision/
https://old.reddit.com/r/Republican/comments/1b6do7h/unanimous_supreme_court_states_cant_kick_trump/
https://old.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1b6d28b/opinion_of_the_supreme_court_in_trump_v_anderson/
https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b6d7jf/per_curium_trump_v_anderson/ thanks @MatsurisAhoge
https://old.reddit.com/r/Colorado/comments/1b6d2av/supreme_court_rules_trump_cannot_be_kicked_off/
https://old.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/1b6d16w/us_supreme_court_rules_colorado_cant_disqualify/
https://old.reddit.com/r/illinois/comments/1b6d698/supreme_court_rules_in_favor_of_trump/
https://old.reddit.com/r/walkaway/comments/1b6d77b/america_wins_supreme_court_rules_trump_can_run/
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, "Big win for America!!!"
[cont.]
In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado, the decision will end similar cases that have arisen. So far, only two other states, Maine and Illinois, have followed Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions were put on hold.
In a statement, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold acknowledged that the court ruled “that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. In accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado's 2024 Presidential Primary.”
The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize Joe Biden's win.
Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on his broad claim of presidential immunity.
The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions around the country that could send elections into chaos if state officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the ballot for president.
"The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct," the ruling said.
Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how Section 3 could be enforced by Congress.
They said the decision could "insulate" Trump from "future controversy," adding that the ruling "shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement" of section 3.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court went further than required, although she did not join the liberal justices' opinion.
Barrett said although she had some disagreements with the rationale, the liberals should not “amplify disagreement” in such a politically charged case.
“All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she added.
The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on Section 3, which was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to power in the U.S. government.
The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.
The state high court's decision reversed a lower court's ruling in which a judge said that Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”
Trump and his allies raised that point, as well as other arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.
Republicans, including Trump's primary opponents, broadly supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a partisan weapon.
The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.
They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”
Colorado is one of more than a dozen states that has its primary election Tuesday.
- 6
- 19
- 75
- 56
This might be the most overtly racist thing I’ve seen people say on TV… pic.twitter.com/ucPnlupa0e
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) February 29, 2024
My Joe Biden 
Fantasy 
- 5
- 13
I slipped away from this nightmarish election campaign into a delicious dream the other evening. I dreamed that, when Joe Biden gets up to reset his beleaguered presidency at the State of the Union address, he gives this astonishing speech:
Mr. Speaker. Man, Mike Johnson was a nobody just weeks ago — now he's Neville Chamberlain. Madam Vice President. Oy.
Our first lady — you hottie! And our second gentleman. Members of Congress, leaders of our military, justices of the Supreme Court. And you, my fellow Americans.
My report is this: The state of my mental competency is strong. And the union's OK, too.
You think I'm forgetful? Take a look at the other guy — he can't even remember who Nancy Pelosi is, and that gal is the best speaker in United States history! You know what I remember? I remember how to lift people up, not tear them down and pit them against one another. I remember how to tell the truth when my lips move.
I may be 81, but it's not about your chronological age. It's about how old your ideas are. Donald Trump wants to yank us back on women's rights, the environment, mail-in voting — actually, all voting. He's undermining NATO, the strongest alliance ever. I'm trying to build a high-speed train from Vegas to L.A., baby!
It goes on and on, I Cant even remember by s*x dream i had 1 min after I wake up coming to the conclusion that this lady has been day dream fricking Joey
!nonchuds do ya'll have the same fantasy everyday?
War mommy gets 36 in Michigan primary
Top Poster of the Day:
FourthAlt
Current Registered Users: 27,784
| C-SPAN: | Standby for additional updates... |
/h/pol SETTINGS /h/pol LOG /h/pol MODS /h/pol EXILEES /h/pol FOLLOWERS /h/pol BLOCKERS