╌>

How the 'No Labels' Gambit Could Wreck the 2024 Election

  
Via:  John Russell  •  last year  •  112 comments

By:   bulwarkonline (The Bulwark)

How the 'No Labels' Gambit Could Wreck the 2024 Election
The group says it doesn't want its (as-yet-unchosen) third-party candidate to be a spoiler—but it also doesn't say who all its funders are.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The group says it doesn't want its (as-yet-unchosen) third-party candidate to be a spoiler—but it also doesn't say who all its funders are. byNorm Ornstein and Dennis Aftergut March 17, 2023 5:30 am Voting booths are seen at Glass Elementary School's polling station in Eagle Pass, Texas, on November 8, 2022. (Photo by Mark Felix / AFP) (Photo by MARK FELIX/AFP via Getty Images) Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via emailPrint

Those politics watchers—including most journalists—who are envisioning the 2024 presidential election as a contest between a Democrat (presumably President Joe Biden) and a Republican (perhaps former President Donald Trump) are missing a big part of the story. Last week brought the warning flash of a significant storm brewing for the upcoming election. The political organization No Labels qualified to place its third-party presidential candidate on the ballot in battleground Arizona twenty months from now.

No Labels is aiming to shake up American politics by running an independent candidate for president. In the process, it may be shaking apart our democracy.

Fox News reports that No Labels is courting politicians like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Susan Collins as it seeks to build a so-called "unity ticket." Soothing as the sound of "unity" may be to ears tired of the divisive screeching of our politics, third-party presidential bids have been, without exception, fools' errands. This one may be worse.

It starts with a faulty premise. The No Labels website says:


We are the voice for the great American majority who increasingly feel politically homeless. We're . . . laying the groundwork to ensure the American people have a real choice in the 2024 presidential election . . . to bring our divided country back together and solve our most pressing problems.

In fact, the great majority of Americans do not act as if they feel politically homeless. While a plurality of voters call themselves independents, as Geoffrey Skelley noted in FiveThirtyEight, "roughly 3 in 4 independents still lean toward one of the two major political parties, and studies show that . . . [i]ndependents who lean toward a party also tend to back that party at almost the same rate as openly partisan voters."

Third-party candidates have never come close to winning a presidential election. Even the immensely popular Teddy Roosevelt, the most successful third-party candidate ever, gained only 27 percent of the popular vote running in 1912 on his "Bull Moose" ticket. But he had a decisive effect on the election nonetheless: He split the Republican vote, and by taking 88 Electoral College votes he handed the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

We could see that party result flip in 2024, with a No Labels candidate taking enough electoral votes to cause the incumbent Democrat to lose to the Republican.

A second scenario: A No Labels candidate could collect enough electoral votes so that neither of the two major party candidates wins the 270 needed to capture the presidency outright.

That would throw the election to the House of Representatives, where the president would be selected in a balloting that gives one vote to each state delegation—26 needed to win. Each state's ballot is settled by a vote of the representatives in that state's delegation, so the party that has a majority in each delegation is expected to decide that state's ballot.

In recent years, Republicans have controlled more state delegations than Democrats, even when Democrats held the majority of members. That is likely to be the case on January 6, 2025, meaning that a House vote would give the country a Republican president. Even if a No Labels candidate somehow eked out a plurality of the popular vote, it is difficult to imagine that a House with no partisan adherents to that candidate would spurn their own party's choice.

And there's another dangerous possibility, one where the third-party candidate does not get any electoral votes but wins enough popular votes to skew the outcome away from what most voters want. In 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who didn't even crack 3 percent of the national popular vote, received 97,488 votes in the Florida presidential election that George W. Bush won by 537 votes, almost certainly costing Al Gore the state's Electoral College vote and the presidency.

Some third-party efforts are not worth paying attention to—perennial gadflies, say, or minor parties that don't make it onto ballots. No Labels is not in that category. They are making a serious effort: They've hired hundreds of signature collectors and plan an April 2024 nominating convention in Dallas. In addition to Arizona, they have gained ballot access in bluer Colorado and Oregon. They're targeting twenty other states. As of last summer, No Labels reportedly had pledges of $46 million on the way to a $70 million goal.

Any moderate No Labels candidate will almost certainly drain more votes from the Democratic side than the Republican. According to Pew Research, "third-party 2016 voters who turned out in 2020 voted 53%-36% for Biden over Trump."

Recall how slender Biden's 2020 margin of victory was: In three battleground states that turned the Electoral College his way—Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin—he won by a total of 44,000 votes. That's .028 percent of the national vote.

The leaders of No Labels may not be intending to elect Donald Trump or his Republican successor. But that could be the goal of some of their funders. While No Labels operates "dark money" PACs whose contributors are hidden, one of its backers has been billionaire Republican megadonor Nelson Peltz, a contributor to Georgia Republican Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both defeated in 2020; election denier Sean Parnell, who was Trump's original endorsed Senate candidate in Pennsylvania last year; Democrat-turned-Fox News contributor Tulsi Gabbard; and House Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise. And the Daily Beastreported in 2018 that No Labels raised money from "recurring" megadonors including Trump supporter John Catsimatidis and Marc Rowan, a contributor to Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson, and Mehmet Oz in the midterms.

In the interest of transparency, No Labels should reveal the identities of all its donors. And in the meantime, investigative journalists should work to uncover more details so Americans can see as early as possible whose interests are being served. After all, the surest route to understanding an operation of this sort is, as the saying goes, to follow the money.

No Labels has said it would "stand down" if it appears that their only realistic role becomes that of spoiler. The engineers at Norfolk Southern might have something to teach them about the difficulty of braking a locomotive once it builds up real momentum, even when the warning light is strobing. It's not easy to take names off a ballot once they're on.

Before it gets much further down the track, let's find out who's fueling this freight train aiming at our democracy. And let's speak out to convince this effort's well-intentioned leaders that they don't want history handing them the liability for a 2024 crash.

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via emailPrint

Norm Ornstein and Dennis Aftergut


Norm Ornstein is an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (Twitter: @NormOrnstein). Dennis Aftergut, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former Supreme Court advocate, is currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    last year

A third party "moderate" candidate in 2024 would guarantee a MAGA win. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2  George    last year

What is funny about this, partisans will blame the third party candidate for their loss instead of themselves for not nominating a viable candidate that could win. Nothing could be better for our country than a equally powerful third party.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  George @2    last year

It is all about the timing. A "moderate" third party candidate would not draw votes from Trump or DeSantis, they would be drawing them from Biden or another Democrat.  The country cannot afford the luxury of a third party candidate in 2024. When trumpism is in the incinerator of history it will be the right time. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2  TᵢG  replied to  George @2    last year
Nothing could be better for our country than a equally powerful third party.

I agree.

Partisans will blame the third party candidate for their loss instead of themselves for not nominating a viable candidate that could win.

Of course.    Note, however, that a likely third party candidate spoiling the GOP nominee would be Trump.  

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.1  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.2    last year

And the people who vote for trump will get what they deserve, another loss. 
The solution to trump is simple, remove his oxygen(press, attention) and he will whither away and die.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  George @2.2.1    last year

That fucking moron never shuts his big fat pig mouth.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2    last year

If a well known, respected third party candidate runs as a moderate in 2024 , either Trump or DeSantis will be the next president. Do you really want that? 

Eventually a third party candidate could be a contender, but it takes time.In 2024 such a person would be nothing but a spoiler and the country cannot afford that right now. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    last year

LOL,  you continue to assume that a third party candidate would split the Democrat vote.  What happens if Trump is a third party candidate, do you honestly believe that he would split the Democrat vote?  

IMO a more likely outcome would be that a moderate popular third party candidate would win enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 threshold and send the presidential election over to the House.  If that's what  you mean by your first sentence then I can see we are in agreement but we don't yet know who the candidates in the general will be.  Still a lot of time before we get there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.4    last year

What MAGA is going to vote for a moderate third party candidate?, but a lot of Democrats who think Biden is too old might. 

This would be a boon to the Republican candidate, and it is not worth the risk just on the principle that we need a third party. Now is not the time. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  George @2.2.1    last year
The solution to trump is simple, remove his oxygen(press, attention) and he will whither away and die.

Exactly.   Any ideas on why the GOP has not done this?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.6    last year

Why?  It's because they're scared of alienating the pile of shit and I have to wonder why.  What does that steaming pile have on THEM?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    last year
If a well known, respected third party candidate runs as a moderate in 2024 , either Trump or DeSantis will be the next president. Do you really want that? 

My comment was that an equally powerful third party would be great to have.

In 2024 such a person would be nothing but a spoiler and the country cannot afford that right now. 

Certainly, a spoiler for the Ds would be bad news given the likely nominee for the GOP.   But a Biden/Harris ticket is not desirable either.


We will not immediately (if ever) have an equally powerful third party so this notion has no bearing on 2024.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.9  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.6    last year

The GOP doesn’t control the media do they? Newstalkers? You talk about trump incessantly, I see democrats and liberals talking about trump constantly and yet you blame the GOP? Maybe some self reflection before you point fingers at others.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  George @2.2.9    last year
The GOP doesn’t control the media do they?

The media (and the Ds) would not be talking about Trump if the GOP no longer cared about him.   It is the GOP support for Trump that enables Trump, not the media.   If the GOP had done the right thing and rejected Trump after his Big Lie campaign, there would be no Trump talk today.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  George @2.2.9    last year

The gop/gqp are to blame for the former 'president'.  Why are they so afraid of alienating the big fat turd?

What does he have on them?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.12  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    last year
What MAGA is going to vote for a moderate third party candidate?, but a lot of Democrats who think Biden is too old might.  This would be a boon to the Republican candidate, and it is not worth the risk just on the principle that we need a third party. Now is not the time. 

You continue to push the assumption that all Republican voters are MAGA, that's just not true.  The MAGA followers may be enough to give Trump the Republican nomination but by no means are they the entirety of the Republican party.  I know of several registered Republicans who will not vote for Trump, but yes they also agree that Biden is too old.  I guess we will just need to wait and see what happens.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.12    last year

They're MAGA and support him obviously until they grow a spine and say otherwise.  I don't see that happening because they are by nature spineless turds.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.14  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.13    last year

MAGA Turds are invertebrate life forms...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.12    last year
The MAGA followers may be enough to give Trump the Republican nomination but by no means are they the entirety of the Republican party.

Of course not all Rs are MAGA;  those who are not are what I refer to as the sane faction of the GOP.

But, as you note, there likely are enough MAGA people out there for Trump to win the R nomination.   That is threat number one.    Threat number two is that there might be enough MAGA people to spoil the GOP nominee if Trump runs third party after failing to secure the nomination.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.8    last year
Certainly, a spoiler for the Ds would be bad news given the likely nominee for the GOP.   But a Biden/Harris ticket is not desirable either.

Your comment is an implication that Biden/Harris is just as undesirable as a Trump/whoever. 

NO.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.16    last year

You imply too much.   Just go with what I wrote.   My point is that Biden/Harris is an undesirable ticket and that we could easily be yet again stuck with the lesser of two bads.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.18  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.15    last year
But, as you note, there likely are enough MAGA people out there for Trump to win the R nomination.   That is threat number one.    Threat number two is that there might be enough MAGA people to spoil the GOP nominee if Trump runs third party after failing to secure the nomination.

agreed, that's why I said it's just as likely that the third party splits the Republican vote and hands the election to the Democrats as what JR is saying.  I do think however that it's more likely that a third party takes enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from reaching the 270 threshold and then sends the presidential election to the House.  And with the current numbers that would be bad for Democrats.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.19  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.17    last year

That's how I read it also.  Not that a Biden/Harris ticket was just as undesirable, but undesirable all by itself.  Recent polling has only 37% of Democrats saying Biden should run again and a majority of Democrats saying someone else needs to be the candidate.  And Harris is getting no support from her own party as a lot of them feel she's unelectable.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.20  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.19    last year

And yet another recent poll shows Biden is ahead of Both Trump and DeSantis...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.2.20    last year

I can easily believe Biden being more popular than Trump or DeSantis.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2.22  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @2.2.20    last year

Yeah, but not by much.  Only a couple of points.  It's still very early in the election cycle, DeSantis hasn't declared yet and wasn't it shown in 2016 that we really cannot trust polling for the presidential race?  

All I have to say is that I do not want Biden to run again and I do not want Trump to run at all.  And that's the only poll at this point in time I care about.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.23  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.21    last year

Neither is likely to flip states Biden won...

As long as either runs Biden is in it to win!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.24  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.22    last year

And, you get one vote, same as everyone!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.2.23    last year

I think you are correct.   DeSantis has a chance in the general but he is growing weaker rather than stronger.   And even if Trump does not run third party as a spoiler, I would not be surprised if a large contingent of MAGA voted for him anyway (or simply refused to vote).

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.26  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.21    last year

Odd how trump supporters just cannot accept the idea that the majority of people do not, and have never liked him. He won in 2016 purely because of the EC, by 70,000 votes spread over 3 states (skin of his fucking teeth), but handily lost the overall popular vote. He has never enjoyed a majority of support at any point,  and yet they insist that the only way someone could beat him in an election is because of fraud. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.27  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.25    last year

I am amused watching Trump ruin Desantis aspirations. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.27    last year

I am sickened that Trump is free to do so rather than being held accountable for his actions (by the GOP membership in general and by our system of justice).

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.29  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.10    last year

So the GOP forces you to talk about trump incessantly? Interesting.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  George @2.2.29    last year

My comments on Trump are a consequence of those supporting him.   Should be easy to understand that.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.31  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.30    last year

So you can’t simply ignore them? Got it, 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.32  Thrawn 31  replied to  George @2.2.29    last year

Ummmmm, he is a political figure running for president and this is a discussion about the 2024 election..... Why wouldn't his name come up? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  George @2.2.31    last year

I choose to comment; just as you choose to comment on my commenting.   If my commenting on issues is a problem for you then you might need to rethink your suitability for a news forum.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.34  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.33    last year

Of course, it’s someone’s else’s problem that you are fixated on trump, so rather than accept it, you suggest a person leave the site. Not sure that’s a sustainable business model seeing this site isn’t exactly overrun with activity or new users.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.35  Thrawn 31  replied to  George @2.2.34    last year

Look, I drunk post too, but that is just stupid. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.36  bugsy  replied to  George @2.2.34    last year
you suggest a person leave the site

By doing so, it shows how much they want this place to be an echo chamber, as.....

"this site isn’t exactly overrun with activity or new users.".....shows

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.37  JBB  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.35    last year

original

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.38  JBB  replied to  bugsy @2.2.36    last year

Rightwing sites oft fail, ala Truth Social...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.39  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.2.37    last year

kumxmjnugp391.jpg?auto=webp&s=93b76ff8769749ff531af1180364bffcbde0ca29

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.40  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.2.38    last year
Rightwing sites oft fail, ala Truth Social..

Show us where Truth Social is no longer online.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  George @2.2.34    last year

Maybe you should focus on forum topics instead of trolling me.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.42  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @2.2.40    last year

It has merged with grinder apparently, you should be thrilled.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.43  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.41    last year

That seems to be all certain members have to offer.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.44  JBB  replied to  bugsy @2.2.39    last year

original

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.46  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.42    last year
It has merged with grinder apparently, you should be thrilled.

Why should I be thrilled?

You are the continuously bringing up your gay tendencies.

What is your pizza guy's name?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.47  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.2.44    last year

becoming-liberal-bite.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.48  JBB  replied to  bugsy @2.2.47    last year

original

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.49  JBB  replied to  bugsy @2.2.46    last year

original

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.2.50  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.43    last year

What do you have to offer?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.51  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.41    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.52  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.2.48    last year

Cmon JBB.

You are well known for posting stupid memes, but this one probably leads the pack of dumbassery.

You can do better than that.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.53  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @2.2.39    last year

help5682.jpg

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.54  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @2.2.53    last year

and-here-it-comes.jpg

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.55  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @2.2.54    last year

they-know.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.56  Tessylo  replied to  George @2.2.51    last year

TiG was correct in his assessment of you yet you persist.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  George @2    last year
Nothing could be better for our country than a equally powerful third party.

I think the ones pushing this whole "democracy is at stake" theme are simply afraid their chosen candidate will lose.

Why else is having more choices a threat to DEMOCRACY?

Seems it is the exact opposite.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    last year

There jut never is a good time for Democrats to have to worry about losing moderates, because every election is the most important in American history

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.1  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    last year

It’s amazing, last time there was a strong perceived moderate the incumbent Republican lost and the democrat won. But the victim or race card may be all they have left.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  George @3.1    last year
It’s amazing, last time there was a strong perceived moderate t

we are talking about the effect of a third party candidate, not whatever it was that you said. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    last year

LOL!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.1.3  George  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    last year

Moronic comment on your part John.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  George @3.1.3    last year

No, those are the only kinds of comments you have Gorge.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4  Texan1211    last year
No Labels is aiming to shake up American politics by running an independent candidate for president. In the process, it may be shaking apart our democracy.

Sounds pretty melodramatic to me.

Does anyone in their right mind believe a third party will somehow threaten democracy by giving voters another choice?

WTF??

What kind of absolute morons believe this crap?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.1  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @4    last year

Isn't that the nature of our partisan politics anyway?  Politicians have used fear for years to gin up the base and this is just another example of it.  The 'threaten democracy' line does seem to be a favorite as it strokes the fear of tyranny and a dictatorship.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @4.1    last year
The 'threaten democracy' line does seem to be a favorite as it strokes the fear of tyranny and a dictatorship.

I guess hearing all about how well Democrats did in the midterm elections while constantly bitching about alleged threats to democracy kind of proves that democracy is under no threat here.

Just like the voter suppression myths pushed by Democrats which somehow resulted in higher turnout was proven to be false.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1    last year

The threat to Democracy is real thanks to the former 'president' and today's gqp/republikkkans and his enablers/supporters and those who defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @4.1    last year
The 'threaten democracy' line does seem to be a favorite as it strokes the fear of tyranny and a dictatorship.

Its funny that liberals seem to be pushing the lie that democracy is at stake. We have a democratically-elected President, Senate, and House. I have not seen any cases where people have been prosecuted for election fraud in large enough numbers to turn an election, so who is threatening democracy?

The idiots who keep this myth going are simply out of touch with reality, unable to see election results, and have swallowed the swill without doing a modicum of personal research--just parroting lines about democracy, dictators, and fascists.

Thank God most of the country doesn't feed into this type of bullshit.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    last year
I have not seen any cases where people have been prosecuted for election fraud in large enough numbers to turn an election, so who is threatening democracy?

So you are finally admitting that Trump is a total fucking liar. Took awhile but there it is. 

The idiots who keep this myth going are simply out of touch with reality, unable to see election results, and have swallowed the swill without doing a modicum of personal research--just parroting lines about democracy, dictators, and fascists.

.....dude, the mirror. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.4    last year

Since I have never claimed Trump doesn't lie, your comment should be directed elsewhere.

The mirror I look at reflects a person not hysterical enough to misuse words like fascist, dictator, and traitor.

I'll leave that to the grossly under informed folks.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.5    last year

Yawn, uh huh. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.6    last year

The truth is rather boring compared to being hysterical over imaginary things.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.7    last year

I know right? Explains your delusions, but at least you are aware of them. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.8    last year

Hey look if you want to believe democracy is at stake in every election, have at it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
4.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    last year

I don't. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.10    last year

Ok, I will ignore your posts proving otherwise.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5  Thrawn 31    last year

Normally I would applaud this, I think it ( under normal circumstances) is a great thing for our democracy. But not now. Not while that shithead Trump is trying to get back into office or his wannabee replacement Desantis. A third party right now only helps those two assholes. If the GOP weren't just a cult of personality that would be one thing, but they are. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5    last year

So you only want a viable third party if it doesn't affect Democrats' chances.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    last year

You obviously failed reading comprehension. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.1    last year

I understood every word of your silly post.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    last year

But clearly comprehended almost none of it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.3    last year

Please stop proving you don't know what "understood" means.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.5  George  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.1    last year

That is exactly what you implied, maybe instead of constantly accusing others on the inability to comprehend what you are writing, you might want to post something coherent? Or less obtuse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  George @5.1.5    last year
That is exactly what you implied,

Thank you!

I felt it was fairly obvious.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  George @5.1.5    last year

Seriously? You are seriously siding with texan when he says that he understood the words but not the meaning? [Deleted]

I was OBVIOUSLY saying that I want multiple viable parties and candidates, I think that is good for democracy, but not at this exact moment. I think we are at a very fragile moment in our history and the election of someone like Trump would be devastating. If we can get healthy again, if the GOP can stop being a doomsday cult,  a third party is ideal, it will moderate the other two, but now is not the time.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.1.8  George  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.7    last year
You are both fucking retarded

You couldn’t have admitted failure any clearer.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.9  bugsy  replied to  George @5.1.8    last year
ou couldn’t have admitted failure any clearer.

Ain't that the truth

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  George @5.1.8    last year

A step by step PB&J would confuse you. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.9    last year

Don't you have a pizza delivery guy to attend to or something? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.11    last year

If this was meant to make sense...

It failed miserably.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.13  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.12    last year

Lol to others maybe, but YOU know what I am talking about. It's okay man, no one cares. Really, in 2023, no one cares, except conservatives. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.14  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.13    last year

If you are talking about your previous discussed gay tendencies, I already told you....I don't care.

Why bring it up again?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.14    last year

bugsy, its okay... no one here will judge you. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.15    last year

Um, I'm not the one talking about getting with pizza delivery guys and filacio.

That would be you, but like I said several time...

You just be you. No one cares.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.17  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.16    last year

I never mentioned filacio, you went there. 

Lol okay bugsy, okay.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.18  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.17    last year

Really?

Who posted this?

Twas not me.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.19  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.18    last year

But you can't stop thinking about it lol.

Bugsy, naw man, it ain't gonna happen. That was a joke, one that you apparently treated as true and took way too far. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.20  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.19    last year

Funny thing is I put a smiley face at the end of my original post to you as a joke, but you were so triggered, you went against it and started telling us your true secrets.

No one asked for them.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.21  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.20    last year

LOL ,again bugsy, its okay. You are getting waaay too worked up about your reveal.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.22  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.20    last year

Meh, you are boring.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.23  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.22    last year
Meh, you are boring. 

Not indicated in your PN where you told me what you like to do on cold winter nights in front of a fireplace.

Don't believe I had asked.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.24  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.23    last year

Wow bugsy, lol. Flat out making up and airing fantasies? Publicly? I would say I am flattered, but I am not. 

What the fuck is a PN?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.25  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.24    last year
I would say I am flattered, but I am not. 

Good thing....because I said I never asked what you like.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.26  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.23    last year

Cmon [Deleted elborate. Deleted]

Jesus Christ if you are gonna make shit up at least make it sound plausible. Who fucking here would believe a story about me serenading another man in front of a fire on a cold winter night? What kinda retarded micky mouse shit is that? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.1.27  Thrawn 31  replied to  bugsy @5.1.25    last year

And I didn't tell you.... so? 

And when in the hell did i ever say anything about cold winter nights or fucking fire places? Dude, you suck at lying.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.28  bugsy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.1.27    last year

[Deleted]

Not so sure I'm the retarded mickey mouse you speak of.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
6  Hallux    last year

What's in a name? 'No Labels' is already being buried under labels.

Meh, Anonymous/Anonymity 2024 or Burst.

On a serious note, our southern cousins might want to give some thought to finally abandoning the 'Model-T' Electoral College.

On a side note in case y'all have refused to recognize it, There is a reason Biden has been moving to the center ... he's not nearly as 'dumb' as many project him to be.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Hallux @6    last year

But the leeches of the progressive radical left are still embedded in him , and there is nothing he can do or say to get rid of them.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
6.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1    last year

And the leeches on the 'woke' radical right?  What pray tell is DeSantis going to do or to say to get rid of them? Those few on the right who have had the gonads to name them are cast aside as traitorous RINOs ...

 
 

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH
devangelical
goose is back
MrFrost
Sparty On


29 visitors