tvc184

I have seen that spoken about briefly by some of the talking heads on the Dems side months ago but I don’t think it will be much of a deal. It would almost certainly lose the Dems some votes, which they can’t afford. 
It won’t likely happen, but what would be even funnier (and stupid) would be to pick somebody like Newsom from California and then pick Harris again for VP like as a consolation. 
OHHHH!!!! She good enough to be in line to be the President in an emergency … twice…  but she is not good enough to get the nomination?
Can you imagine the outrage? 🤣🤣🤣
They would be better dropping her all together, and just running with it.
But….. It sure seems like a good bit of grumbling from inside the Democrat’s own camp which is practically unheard of. Maybe they will let Biden keep going but I have a hard time thinking they aren’t going to plug the holes in the ship and try to save it and I don’t think that Harris will be the savior. 
 
 

Certainly they could throw it wide open and not deal with “the issue”, don’t get involve at all and let the best man (or woman) win in a completely open and fair selection. 
However….
Do you believe that the DNC insiders are not going to be heavily involved in picking the candidate?
Ponder this, who gets all of the delegates that Biden has already compiled? Does Biden simply release them? What about the super delegates?
 And all of this to get around Harris so as not to seem prejudiced…. although I have no clue why they can’t simply point out that her approval is as bad as his, she got beaten so badly in 2020 that she was the first declared candidate to drop out of the Democrat primary.
You could be correct but I don’t think that the DNC is going to stand by and simply let history take its course in a completely fair remainder of the primary. Unbind all of the delegates to date and then get out of the way. Maybe you have more faith in the DNC and a sudden change of fairness. 

I spoke about that in the other threads. If they are going to make a change, it has to be pretty quick now.
Like LBJ in ‘68, Biden will have to suspend his campaign since he is already running and gotten most of the primary/caucus votes. Like LBJ, Biden’s approval rating is horrendous.
 Unlike LBJ who I believe shocked the electorate, Biden bowing out will not. 

I think the end is near for Biden. He has been pandered and pampered long enough for those in charge of the Democratic Party and served his usefulness. I think it is getting to the point where the leadership doesn’t want this to continue much longer.
I am not thinking about any resignation by Biden (and putting Word Salad in charge) but rather giving up his delegates to another candidate for the election. It has certainly been mentioned before in these forums but I think the time is growing short. 
I think the longer Biden stays in, the better Trump looks. Naming a replacement soon might change the game but if they wait until too deep of a hole has been dug, it might be too late.
That’s why I think they may be pulling the plug on him soon. I think the grumbling by the Democratic operatives will be too strong in the next few weeks.

That’s always the question. 

That is exactly what I was talking about.
If he brought the revolver and bullets onto the set and then he grabbed the wrong one, he is likely guilty of killing someone with at least criminal negligence which is Criminally Negligent Homicide in Texas as an example. 

OMG!!
Trump
Bill ClInton
JFK
FDR

I agree 100%…. that you used a lot and not alot. 

I don’t think it’s a person but the inside power players of the DNC.
I have said it before, but it’s probably too late for anyone to get in many of the primaries and start campaigning. Super Tuesday is coming up in about six weeks.
I have a hard time believing they are going to stand by and let Biden run again. If he gets a majority of the delegates however, with virtually no one running against him in the primaries, he can then give them away. Biden (not actually him) will send all of his pledged votes to the DNC’s choice.
 When? When Biden has the votes to gain the nomination or nearly so. Biden will come out and say that he’s had a change of heart or that he doesn’t feel up to it or even that he promised 4 years ago that he would only be a one term president and has now decided to stick by his word. That will lock out anyone getting into the race, except who the DNC wants.
Harris? Newson?
I think that it will have to be Gavin Newsom. Behind the scenes there’s going to be a lot of finger pointing and arguing to push Harris to the front of the ticket but eventually it won’t happen. She would have to refuse to debate or risk looking like a cackling hen on stage. Newsom can actually debate. I won’t like about 98.7% of what he says but he can at least string an intelligible sentence together.
 But there could be an outlier like Michelle Obama. Remember that Hilary Clinton became a senator from New York and eventually Secretary of State having no experience except being the wife of a president.

I don’t think that Biden will be the nominee. The fix is likely already set and the wheels are in motion 

I don’t think that Biden will be the nominee. The fix is likely already set and the wheels are in motion 

I'm hearing Hiawatha to Ned

Whatever comes of this is not on the Cowboys. 

I think you are spot on with your statement. I would be beyond mad if I were a lions fan, but I’m not. I’m a COWBOYS fan and have gone through this before when the nfl didn’t know what a catch was. 
Dez caught it!!!
Must beat the redskins to get to 12-5, and lock up the 2seed.
GO COWBOYS!!!

Here is something that I have wondered about.
 Everyone has seen the video but we have no audio. All of the conclusions say, 68 must’ve reported because he was by the ref. So were two others, however, including 70. If we look closely at the video, the referee appears to be looking at 70 jogging toward him almost the entire time.
All we are left with is two people, accusing each other. There appears to be absolutely no proof of either side of the story.
However…..
It has been reported that the referee went to Dallas and reported that 70 was a designated receiver. If that was true, even if that had been a mistake, should the play be allowed to stand?
An example is that I’ve seen this from high school to the pros, if a referee has an inadvertent whistle, the play ends. They don’t speculate and play what if but the referees mistake negates anything in the future. We may have seen plays in the past, and I remember a couple, where a person broke into the open but the referee blew the whistle. They cannot speculate on what might have happened. If the referee makes a mistake, nothing after the mistake can go forward.
So if 68 actually reported to the ref but the ref went to Dallas and mistakenly said it was 70, should the play go forward? Dallas could legitimately say, we did not line up to cover 68 because he should not have been an eligible receiver.
The stuff that Campbell said about drawing up the play before the game on notifying the officials, which apparently is routine, should be meaningless within the rules. I imagine that’s just to give the referees a heads up of what “might” happen because what if Campbell wanted to run the exact play that he showed the referees before the game, but changed his mind and use a different lineman as a receiver? His excuse of, I told him before the game what might be coming… So what? Is his play calling limited to what he told the referees before the game? That would be ludicrous. 

Here is something that I have wondered about.
 Everyone has seen the video but we have no audio. All of the conclusions say, 68 must’ve reported because he was by the ref. So were two others, however, including 70. If we look closely at the video, the referee appears to be looking at 70 jogging toward him almost the entire time.
All we are left with is two people, accusing each other. There appears to be absolutely no proof of either side of the story.
However…..
It has been reported that the referee went to Dallas and reported that 70 was a designated receiver. If that was true, even if that had been a mistake, should the play be allowed to stand?
An example is that I’ve seen this from high school to the pros, if a referee has an inadvertent whistle, the play ends. They don’t speculate and play what if but the referees mistake negates anything in the future. We may have seen plays in the past, and I remember a couple, where a person broke into the open but the referee blew the whistle. They cannot speculate on what might have happened. If the referee makes a mistake, nothing after the mistake can go forward.
So if 68 actually reported to the ref but the ref went to Dallas and mistakenly said it was 70, should the play go forward? Dallas could legitimately say, we did not line up to cover 68 because he should not have been an eligible receiver.
The stuff that Campbell said about drawing up the play before the game on notifying the officials, which apparently is routine, should be meaningless within the rules. I imagine that’s just to give the referees a heads up of what “might” happen because what if Campbell wanted to run the exact play that he showed the referees before the game, but changed his mind and use a different lineman as a receiver? His excuse of, I told him before the game what might be coming… So what? Is his play calling limited to what he told the referees before the game? That would be ludicrous. 

It is Capital Murder. If convicted of that crime, the only punishment options are life in prison without parole or the death sentence.
I would say that either is extremely deserving. 

Good post idiot. Cowboys can now win the East and get a 1st round home game with a win against Washington next week. Huge thanks to the Cardinals for beating Philly

The Fourteenth Amendment which Colorado is referring to is within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court at required in Article III Sec. 1 & 2 of the Constitution. Insurrection is under federal law and the US Constitution and states have no such jurisdiction to enforce or interpret federal law.
To deny any person the same privilege as anyone else (such as being on a ballot within established laws that apply to everyone) would in fact violate the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 1 where it says that everyone will be given due process and additionally “equal protection under the law “.
So it appears that it is Colorado violating the Fourteenth Amendment, not Donald Trump.

I saw much made on some of the sporting and gun forms where the (rightfully imo) complained about Trump pushing for the bump stock ban as part of the definition of a machinegun. The Fifth Circuit I believe has thrown out that ban saying that the ATF did not apply with the actual law on the definition of a machinegun. I agree but that’s not the point.
Many people complained that Trump backed up the ban, expanding the definition of a machinegun, so maybe…. they look to the other party??? Okay, you disagree with Trump on that issue. But let’s look at the score for like minded conservatives.
Border wall and heavy enforcement of the current laws:
Trump - Yes
Biden - No
Cutting taxes by signing tax cut legislation:
Trump - Yes
Biden - No
Opening up oil exploration:
Trump - Yes
Biden - No
Backing Second Amendment and written definition of machinegun:
Trump - No
Biden - No
So where do like thinking people turn because we don’t agree with Trump on one issue however, the other guy would do the same on the same issue?
Trump vs. Biden on strong conservative beliefs:
Trump: Yes-Yes-Yes-No
Biden; No-No-No-No
Any questions on the lesser of evils?
Do you cut off your nose to spite your face?
Let’s replace Trump’s name with Haley. Does it really change your beliefs, assuming you agree with the above? Whether a person likes Trump, Haley, DeSantis, etc., is Biden ever the answer if your conservative leaning candidate didn’t get the nomination? 

I saw much made on some of the sporting and gun forms where the (rightfully imo) complained about Trump pushing for the bump stock ban as part of the definition of a machinegun. The Fifth Circuit I believe has thrown out that ban saying that the ATF did not apply with the actual law on the definition of a machinegun. I agree but that’s not the point.
Many people complained that Trump backed up the ban, expanding the definition of a machinegun, so maybe…. they look to the other party??? Okay, you disagree with Trump on that issue. But let’s look at the score for like minded conservatives.
Border wall and heavy enforcement of the current laws:
Trump - Yes
Biden - No
Cutting taxes by signing tax cut legislation:
Trump - Yes
Biden - No
Opening up oil exploration:
Trump - Yes
Biden - No
Backing Second Amendment and written definition of machinegun:
Trump - No
Biden - No
So where do like thinking people turn because we don’t agree with Trump on one issue however, the other guy would do the same on the same issue?
Trump vs. Biden on strong conservative beliefs:
Trump: Yes-Yes-Yes-No
Biden; No-No-No-No
Any questions on the lesser of evils?
Do you cut off your nose to spite your face?
Let’s replace Trump’s name with Haley. Does it really change your beliefs, assuming you agree with the above? Whether a person likes Trump, Haley, DeSantis, etc., is Biden ever the answer if your conservative leaning candidate didn’t get the nomination? 

We always vote for the lesser of evils.
Haley isn’t my first choice but she is definitely in the lesser of evils category. 

We always vote for the lesser of evils.
Haley isn’t my first choice but she is definitely in the lesser of evils category. 

We always vote for the lesser of evils.
Haley isn’t my first choice but she is definitely in the lesser of evils category. 

I agree with you. Ain't that something