2018 US Elections

Pelosi seriously needs to step down and go and retire somewhere, dear me.

Beto won't win.

It's nice to dream but it's nothing more than a dream. Sadly Cruz will stay despite being a skinsuit full of sentient beings.

get the jinx in now
 
Raoul said:
Term limits are needed.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh hearing was a glaring example of why the idea of unlimited terms needs to go. There were a number of times where Harris(I think)had to ask for papers and notes that should of been given to her hours ago and the reason didn't seem to be republican playing their usual tricks but simply incompetence due to old age.
 
matherto said:
Pelosi seriously needs to step down and go and retire somewhere, dear me.

Beto won't win.

It's nice to dream but it's nothing more than a dream. Sadly Cruz will stay despite being a skinsuit full of sentient beings.

get the jinx in now
Click to expand...

Sweet Square said:
Regardless of politics a huge problem it seems in American is that politicians are so very old. Pelosi isn't putting on some act for the public, she genuinely seems to have mush for brains.
Click to expand...

Pelosi should have stepped down or been outsted a long time ago, unfortunately that will not happen.

For the record, beto has a real chance at winning.
 
His crowds barely cross single digits. A real contrast to his reception in Europe.

j9rd3bfycqv11.jpg
 
"Can I swap my free Steve Bannon for an extra sausage?"
 
Adisa said:
She's fecking 78. Get rid of this woman.
Click to expand...

The one thing that they keep saying about her ,is that she is great at raising money. But Beto as shown if you have a message to tell and get on the ground knocking on doors you can raise money through small donors.
 
That shirt/belly looks impossibly long. What's he hiding under there, secret evidence about the JFK assassination.
 
Federal Judge Allows North Dakota Republicans to Block Native Americans From Voting


A federal judge rejected on Thursday a lawsuit brought by Native American voters disenfranchised by North Dakota’s draconian voter ID law. The decision likely means that hundreds, perhaps thousands of citizens will not be able to cast a ballot in November because they live on reservations.

Following Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s narrow victory in 2012, North Dakota’s Republican lawmakers passed a new law requiring voters to present an ID that lists their current residential street address. The measure plainly targeted Native Americans, many of whom live on rural reservations with no street names or residential addresses. Previously, residents could vote with a valid mailing address, allowing rural tribal voters to list their P.O. Box. Now they must provide an ID with their exact residency—something that many Native Americans don’t have and can’t get.

For that reason, U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland halted this requirement in April, citing its “discriminatory and burdensome impact on Native Americans.” But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in September, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate Hovland’s ruling. (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.) On Tuesday, a group of Native Americans returned to court with a new lawsuit demonstrating that the residential address rule did not merely burden their right to vote; it denied them access to the ballot altogether. Their suit explained how tribal voters simply could not obtain a residential address: The state’s mapping systems conflict with each other, as do the state’s different residency databases, meaning many voters cannot secure an official address in time for the election.

Despite these roadblocks, Hovland refused to block the law’s application to these unlucky voters and their tribe, Spirit Lake. Hovland conceded that their claims gave him “great cause for concern.” But he cited the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle, which warns lower courts not to alter voting laws shortly before an election due to the risk of voter confusion. In a jab at the 8th Circuit, Hovland noted that the problems highlighted in this lawsuit “were clearly predictable and certain to occur.” Yet because early voting has already begun—and the election is five days away—Hovland concluded that a new injunction “will create as much confusion as it will alleviate.”
Click to expand...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...nN9DHYDo8w8bTWtO7kjR20k-j4x9sgzM0mZPo_JMImc8c
 
Seen somewhere that early voting numbers arent looking good for Dems.
 
Friends don't let friends get too involved with early voting numbers.
 
Assuming the voters take care of business on Tuesday, I'm going to relish watching him become Schiff's little bitch for (at least) the next couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.