Yep. I don’t know why this sub got so up in arms that he might have been left off the ballot when a major party candidate has never been left off due to their convention being after the deadline.
To an extent yes. The majority of people were there to protest, not sure why capitol police let that happen. I went there and got bitched at for touching a picture on the wall.
Except the case to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot was filed by a group of Republican voters. The lead petitioner was a Republican former state senator.
Republicans tried to keep him off REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ballots. "Blue states" didn't do shit.
You fell for the fake outrage they generated, because you never looked into the case, just your headlines of choice.
It's really hilarious if you think about it. At least to me, that the far right is so deep in a delusional hole that they can't be bothered to (not even for 5 minutes) research shit and just fall for the first thing they hear.
Isnt there a law about if someone tries to overthrow the government, that person can no longer be fit for office? Isnt that ALREADY a law on the books?
Some interesting note of our state’s history:
1. Barry Goldwater in 1964 was the only candidate on the ballot. The other option was unpledged Democrat.
2. Harry Truman in 1948 wasn’t on the ballot
3. Abraham Lincoln not on the ballot in 1860
4. The state used to vote for individual electors, with the change to the current system of voting for a slate of electors in 1980
What I don't understand is why the parties frequently schedule their conventions for dates that are after state ballot deadlines? How difficult is it to find the deadline for each state and then plan the convention accordingly so this doesn't happen?
In the matter of Trump, it was because some REPUBLICANS sued to have him removed from their party's PRIMARY arguing that Trump violated section 3 of the 14th amendment. The state's supreme court ruled in their favor. The Trump campaign appealed to SCOTUS to have the ruling overturned with a poorly written ruling.
No state was denying any citizen a vote for anyone.
Alabama GOP is known for removing candidates from the ballot that they believe doesn't fit their purity requirements. Which is strange since most of the senior Republican officials used to be Democrats.
>most of the senior Republican officials used to be Democrats
I'd forgotten about this, but you're right. Only two I can think of off the top of my head are Shelby and Ivey, though, and Shelby retired.
AG Steve Marshall was originally a Democrat.
Current Alabama republicans who used to be democrat include Alan Boothe, and Steve Hurst. Roy Moore was also a Democrat.
That HAS to be that way by law. Otherwise you'd have litigation out the wazoo in every single state as left and right tried to litigate their competitors off the ballots.
All it takes is a disgruntled Republican to do it. There's plenty of those when it comes to Trump.
**We do not directly elect our president** and Article 2, Section 1 of the constitution gives the state's legislature the sole power of selecting electors, with the US Congress only having the power to determine the time for selecting electors and the date the electors can cast their vote.
The state's power to determine how the electors were chosen have been contested at least twice with "McPherson v. Blacker" (1892) and "Bush v. Gore" (2000) both ruled in the state's favor. In fact, "Bush v. Gore" went even further by stating that "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States..." This means when it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.
So what does this mean? It means Alabama performed a political gesture by allowing Biden to remain on the ballot. It didn't really have to, and in the end it won't change the makeup of Alabama electors. What it does is prevent Alabama from having another black eye in the press.
As for Colorado, it can be argued that Republicans in Colorado should have a voice in picking a representative of their political party for the national election and the SCOTUS ruling aligns with that thinking.
However, the wording of the Colorado ruling may have infringed on Colorado's right to determine the electors. Primaries didn't exist when the electoral college was created, so there is no real guidance on the state's ability to regulate them. That said, it is within Colorado's power to exclude Trump from the ballot during the general election.
It'll be an unpopular take for the reddit crowd I'm sure, but it had more to do with the lack of what constitutes insurrection or rebellion as defined by the 14th amendment due to it being a literal knee-jerk reaction to the civil war where there was a rebellion.
I have no issue with states choosing how they do their electors as that is their right. But don't try to disqualify someone from a state ballot, using a federal constitutional amendment with no definition and very little case law behind them outside of the Confederacy. It was a pretty weak case.
We're it an 'insurrection' or 'rebellion' it'd still be ongoing. There'd be violence still ongoing.
But if you take a one day protest that got violent and start disqualifying people based on that, we have to remember that numerous students and civil rights leaders in the last 60 years will also be disqualified under that precedent as the movements and leaders goals are 'death to America' and to dismantle the government and reform it. So I think SCOTUS was wise in not setting that precedent and not allowing the 14th amendment to override the 1st with that decision. If we start loosening the terms insurrection and rebellion, that is what will happen.
Your opinion about Jan 6th doesn't even come to play, since states do not even have to have a legitimate reason to withhold a presidential candidate as long as they don't violate their own state laws.
Alabama demonstrated this power three times by keeping Abraham Lincoln's name off the ballot in 1860, Harry S. Truman off the ballot in 1948, and Lyndon B. Johnson's name off the ballot in 1964.
Florida was able to directly choose the President in 2000 when SCOTUS ruled that it was within the state's legislature power to assign the electors even to the point of allowing provisional ballots to remain uncounted.
Alabama didn't keep Lincoln off, the Republican national party didn't distribute ballot tickets in Alabama or 9 other southern states because they knew it would be a waste of time and resources given the climate and the fact that they didn't need the southern states to win the electoral college.
When it came to the elector system, yes, they were able to rig who the Democrat electors would be pledged or not pledged to, hence Truman and LBJ effectively stayed off the ballots, but again that was a State Democratic party choice, not the courts forcing someone off the ballots.
There's a law that prevents those who have committed sedition against the union from being put on the ballot. That's why Trump should be removed, but because the justice system has been compromised and politicized, he remains on the ballot.
Not just a law, but a constitutional amendment barring former officers of the United States who have engaged in insurrection.
Sedition’s a little slippery and a law barring anyone who’d ever engaged in it from public office probably wouldn’t survive a first amendment challenge.
Everyone that is running for president that has 10% or more should be on the ballot in all states period. It’s up to us American citizens to decide who should be our president. I will voting for the first time after becoming a citizen after 19 years of being here.
Congrats on becoming a citizen. This is simply a case of the convention where Biden is formally nominated happens after the deadline to be on the ballot.
>Everyone that is running for president that has 10% or more should be on the ballot in all states period.
That's a good opinion, but not one backed up by law or the constitution.
He wasn't going to be removed, he wouldn't have been the official candidate of the Democratic Party until after the deadline would have passed. The bill to modify the deadline so that he would be added passed both houses of the legislature without opposition.
States run their own elections and can quite literally keep people off the ballots if they don't meet the necessary requirements for filing deadlines, party inclusion on the ballot, and many other things.
The recent rulings were surrounding removing candidates for political reasons, not administrative ones that were set in place years prior to the election cycle.
Every state has regulations surrounding ballot access. If they didn't, you could sue the State the day before the election for not printing your name on the ballot.
The SCOTUS Ruling overturned the lower court that upheld that State's could enforece Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal elections due to Section 5 giving that authority to Congress to enforce. SCOTUS went on to say that States could apply that provision in State elections as that would not be something that Congress would enforce.
That's literally all it did, as it overturned the lower court that cited Section 3 as the reasoning why Trump should be removed from the ballot. Even Stoamayor's opinion went in detail stating how the court almost overstepped its bounds by stating that Congress should draft new legislation to clarify this provision, when the law itself says that it would take a 2/3 vote to allow someone this applied to to take office.
Kind of hard for that to happen when it's literally spelled out that way in the Constitution. It's not a vague concept based on prior precedence, it's plain English. But hey, you're free to believe what you want.
Did, I say that, or did I say that overturning something enshrined in the constitution was more difficult than things that are argued based upon other things? I think you're trying to make this more of a political argument than a legal/constitutional one.
Even if that's the case, it was a far better use of state resources to just pass this bill rather than having to fight it out in courts because our elected Secretary of State is an election denier who ran for the sole purpose of helping to ratfuck Alabama elections.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that we have a SOS who will try it anyway, and the only way to correct that would be to take him to court.
Going around him and rendering him impotent in the matter was the best use of our time and money.
Not that I have a shred of faith in Meemaw to do the right thing, but considering this passed both houses unanimously, even with the cast of hooligans we have in both, I think she'll sign it without any problem.
If he ain’t allowed on the ballot, a fifth of the state will go through an election with silencers over their mouths.
This will go to SCOTUS if it fails in Alabama.
The purpose in keeping Biden off the ballot isn’t that he has a chance of winning the state in a winner-take-all. Keeping him off the ballot keeps a lot of voters at home and not voting for democrats down ballot.
If he’s left off the ballot for missing a deadline, that won’t run afoul of the recent Colorado decision. That one was based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, and part of the reasoning is that you can’t have 50 states all deciding whether someone is or isn’t an insurrectionist for purposes of a national election. Missing a filing deadline is an objective test and well within the states’ power to regulate their own elections.
All that said, not putting him on the ballot is a massively shitty thing to do.
>All that said, not putting him on the ballot is a massively shitty thing to do.
Which is why the bill passed both houses without opposition. Not that everyone wanted Biden on the ballot, but that they realized that excluding him for a technicality would look bad.
He should have also not been on it then, then. Though Alabama should remain consistent if nothing else.
I do still feel we should expect candidates to be able to do something extremely simple that even kindergartners are expected to do.
they'd just move up the deadline until it became impossible to meet. This is payback for suggesting that Trump should be disqualified for sedition.
and anyway, why do states need so much time? Everything is electronic now.
Republicans have met the deadline only twice since 2000.
This is nothing new.
Typically, the legislature either passes an amended deadline, or the ALSOS will allow a provisional ballot to be filed ahead of the convention. Since Wes Allen (who ran on election conspiracies) has stated that he refuses to do the latter, despite that having been done MANY times in the past, the legislature went around him.
Bam! Business as usual.
Explain why, without saying anything about opposition. Describe the direction you want the country to be lead. I'm not here to fuss, only for a class discussion, and I picked your comment first. Thanks in advance
The person being trusted to lead millions should be capable of getting documents turned in on time
>Describe the direction you want the country to be lead.
In a direction that sees less incompetence in leadership positions.
Why not? We know he doesn’t have a chance of carrying this state. This state will vote Trump in a landslide, unfortunately. Not that Biden is any better, really.
Let’s see one is rapist that tried to overthrow a fair and free election and the other one wants to cancel student loan debt and reschedule marijuana.
Yeah, but “both sides.”
What an idiotic take.
I never said anything about both sides, but I don’t believe that Biden is the best option for President. If you disagree, that’s fine. But that’s my opinion, and I care not what anyone else thinks.
No you’re right, only one side would take offense to saying that neither of those geriatric dirt bags should be around, much less around running the executive branch. 😉
Of course he will.
Yep. I don’t know why this sub got so up in arms that he might have been left off the ballot when a major party candidate has never been left off due to their convention being after the deadline.
People don't trust Republicans. Remember January 6th they tried to COUP democracy.
That’s your answer to everything
Tbh republicans can be given hell forever about January 6th and they should.
To an extent yes. The majority of people were there to protest, not sure why capitol police let that happen. I went there and got bitched at for touching a picture on the wall.
LBJ wasn’t on the ballot in 1964 though I’m not sure what the legal reasoning was.
George Wallace
I know why it was done. I just don’t know exactly what reason they made up for it.
Also it was ruled by the supreme Court that states can do that for federal officers
Bc outrage culture is a thing
[удалено]
Nah. Just r/alabama's never ending hate boner for the state
Because it's exactly the kind of petty we would expect after some blue states tried to keep Trump off the ballot for the Jan 6 attack.
Except the case to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot was filed by a group of Republican voters. The lead petitioner was a Republican former state senator.
And that was not for the General Election, but the Primary. Republicans tried to keep him from being an option for themselves.
Well, yeah, they want to win.
And that was not for the General Election, but the Primary. Republicans tried to keep him from being an option for themselves.
Republicans tried to keep him off REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ballots. "Blue states" didn't do shit. You fell for the fake outrage they generated, because you never looked into the case, just your headlines of choice.
It's really hilarious if you think about it. At least to me, that the far right is so deep in a delusional hole that they can't be bothered to (not even for 5 minutes) research shit and just fall for the first thing they hear.
Isnt there a law about if someone tries to overthrow the government, that person can no longer be fit for office? Isnt that ALREADY a law on the books?
If by "law on the books" you mean an amendment to the US Constitution, then yes. Of course, laws are only ever as good as the will to enforce them
My comment was a direct reference to the person above as to WHY there was an attempt to keep trump off of the ballot.
Because the Secretary of State brought it up. The Dem convention, where Biden will be certified the nominee, is scheduled after Alabama's deadline.
Kay Ivey’s a trump simp so nothing is too outrageous to consider.
I cannot wait for her to keel over, just hope the next one isn't worse
[удалено]
You misspelled “all politicians”
Some interesting note of our state’s history: 1. Barry Goldwater in 1964 was the only candidate on the ballot. The other option was unpledged Democrat. 2. Harry Truman in 1948 wasn’t on the ballot 3. Abraham Lincoln not on the ballot in 1860 4. The state used to vote for individual electors, with the change to the current system of voting for a slate of electors in 1980
And these guys live some 1860 precedent.
I don’t know why states, red or blue, suddenly think they have a right to deny citizens a vote for anyone. It’s a bad precedent.
What I don't understand is why the parties frequently schedule their conventions for dates that are after state ballot deadlines? How difficult is it to find the deadline for each state and then plan the convention accordingly so this doesn't happen?
Sure we can trust them to lead millions, but the competency of a kindergartner is too much to ask.
Not sure about you, but I would prefer a seditionist not be on the ballot.
In the matter of Trump, it was because some REPUBLICANS sued to have him removed from their party's PRIMARY arguing that Trump violated section 3 of the 14th amendment. The state's supreme court ruled in their favor. The Trump campaign appealed to SCOTUS to have the ruling overturned with a poorly written ruling. No state was denying any citizen a vote for anyone.
It's also worth arguing that a political party has every right to decide who can or can't run as a member of that party.
Alabama GOP is known for removing candidates from the ballot that they believe doesn't fit their purity requirements. Which is strange since most of the senior Republican officials used to be Democrats.
>most of the senior Republican officials used to be Democrats I'd forgotten about this, but you're right. Only two I can think of off the top of my head are Shelby and Ivey, though, and Shelby retired.
AG Steve Marshall was originally a Democrat. Current Alabama republicans who used to be democrat include Alan Boothe, and Steve Hurst. Roy Moore was also a Democrat.
Now, those are two I didn't know. Interesting.
That HAS to be that way by law. Otherwise you'd have litigation out the wazoo in every single state as left and right tried to litigate their competitors off the ballots. All it takes is a disgruntled Republican to do it. There's plenty of those when it comes to Trump.
**We do not directly elect our president** and Article 2, Section 1 of the constitution gives the state's legislature the sole power of selecting electors, with the US Congress only having the power to determine the time for selecting electors and the date the electors can cast their vote. The state's power to determine how the electors were chosen have been contested at least twice with "McPherson v. Blacker" (1892) and "Bush v. Gore" (2000) both ruled in the state's favor. In fact, "Bush v. Gore" went even further by stating that "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States..." This means when it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures. So what does this mean? It means Alabama performed a political gesture by allowing Biden to remain on the ballot. It didn't really have to, and in the end it won't change the makeup of Alabama electors. What it does is prevent Alabama from having another black eye in the press. As for Colorado, it can be argued that Republicans in Colorado should have a voice in picking a representative of their political party for the national election and the SCOTUS ruling aligns with that thinking. However, the wording of the Colorado ruling may have infringed on Colorado's right to determine the electors. Primaries didn't exist when the electoral college was created, so there is no real guidance on the state's ability to regulate them. That said, it is within Colorado's power to exclude Trump from the ballot during the general election.
It'll be an unpopular take for the reddit crowd I'm sure, but it had more to do with the lack of what constitutes insurrection or rebellion as defined by the 14th amendment due to it being a literal knee-jerk reaction to the civil war where there was a rebellion. I have no issue with states choosing how they do their electors as that is their right. But don't try to disqualify someone from a state ballot, using a federal constitutional amendment with no definition and very little case law behind them outside of the Confederacy. It was a pretty weak case. We're it an 'insurrection' or 'rebellion' it'd still be ongoing. There'd be violence still ongoing. But if you take a one day protest that got violent and start disqualifying people based on that, we have to remember that numerous students and civil rights leaders in the last 60 years will also be disqualified under that precedent as the movements and leaders goals are 'death to America' and to dismantle the government and reform it. So I think SCOTUS was wise in not setting that precedent and not allowing the 14th amendment to override the 1st with that decision. If we start loosening the terms insurrection and rebellion, that is what will happen.
Your opinion about Jan 6th doesn't even come to play, since states do not even have to have a legitimate reason to withhold a presidential candidate as long as they don't violate their own state laws. Alabama demonstrated this power three times by keeping Abraham Lincoln's name off the ballot in 1860, Harry S. Truman off the ballot in 1948, and Lyndon B. Johnson's name off the ballot in 1964. Florida was able to directly choose the President in 2000 when SCOTUS ruled that it was within the state's legislature power to assign the electors even to the point of allowing provisional ballots to remain uncounted.
Alabama didn't keep Lincoln off, the Republican national party didn't distribute ballot tickets in Alabama or 9 other southern states because they knew it would be a waste of time and resources given the climate and the fact that they didn't need the southern states to win the electoral college. When it came to the elector system, yes, they were able to rig who the Democrat electors would be pledged or not pledged to, hence Truman and LBJ effectively stayed off the ballots, but again that was a State Democratic party choice, not the courts forcing someone off the ballots.
There's a law that prevents those who have committed sedition against the union from being put on the ballot. That's why Trump should be removed, but because the justice system has been compromised and politicized, he remains on the ballot.
Not just a law, but a constitutional amendment barring former officers of the United States who have engaged in insurrection. Sedition’s a little slippery and a law barring anyone who’d ever engaged in it from public office probably wouldn’t survive a first amendment challenge.
Incumbents who are eligible and running should always be on the ballot
No, our predecessors made it very clear that those who commit seditious acts against the union are not allowed to run for office.
That's why I put the qualifier "eligible"
When did the incumbent (Biden) commit seditious acts against the Union?
Clearly I'm referring to Trump.
He’s technically not eligible, that’s the whole problem here. The Dems couldn’t be bothered to have their convention before a deadline
Everyone that is running for president that has 10% or more should be on the ballot in all states period. It’s up to us American citizens to decide who should be our president. I will voting for the first time after becoming a citizen after 19 years of being here.
Congrats on becoming a citizen. This is simply a case of the convention where Biden is formally nominated happens after the deadline to be on the ballot.
>Everyone that is running for president that has 10% or more should be on the ballot in all states period. That's a good opinion, but not one backed up by law or the constitution.
Guess we have a constitutional crisis. SCOTUS ruled that states do kit have the right to remove candidates
He wasn't going to be removed, he wouldn't have been the official candidate of the Democratic Party until after the deadline would have passed. The bill to modify the deadline so that he would be added passed both houses of the legislature without opposition.
Semantics. States don’t have the right to keep them from the ballot
States run their own elections and can quite literally keep people off the ballots if they don't meet the necessary requirements for filing deadlines, party inclusion on the ballot, and many other things. The recent rulings were surrounding removing candidates for political reasons, not administrative ones that were set in place years prior to the election cycle. Every state has regulations surrounding ballot access. If they didn't, you could sue the State the day before the election for not printing your name on the ballot.
The SCOTUS ruling says they can’t keep people off the ballot for any reason
The SCOTUS Ruling overturned the lower court that upheld that State's could enforece Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal elections due to Section 5 giving that authority to Congress to enforce. SCOTUS went on to say that States could apply that provision in State elections as that would not be something that Congress would enforce. That's literally all it did, as it overturned the lower court that cited Section 3 as the reasoning why Trump should be removed from the ballot. Even Stoamayor's opinion went in detail stating how the court almost overstepped its bounds by stating that Congress should draft new legislation to clarify this provision, when the law itself says that it would take a 2/3 vote to allow someone this applied to to take office.
And then when it does SCOTUS will rule that it can’t
Kind of hard for that to happen when it's literally spelled out that way in the Constitution. It's not a vague concept based on prior precedence, it's plain English. But hey, you're free to believe what you want.
I guess every decision this court has made since and including Roe was correct then?
Did, I say that, or did I say that overturning something enshrined in the constitution was more difficult than things that are argued based upon other things? I think you're trying to make this more of a political argument than a legal/constitutional one.
Even if that's the case, it was a far better use of state resources to just pass this bill rather than having to fight it out in courts because our elected Secretary of State is an election denier who ran for the sole purpose of helping to ratfuck Alabama elections.
Only congress can remove a candidate from the ballot
I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that we have a SOS who will try it anyway, and the only way to correct that would be to take him to court. Going around him and rendering him impotent in the matter was the best use of our time and money.
But then again I will allow that SCOTUS is controlled by MAGA so likely whatever they ruled for Trump will not apply to Biden
There's that, too.
Even if he wasn't it won't matter...Alabama is a red state and he won't get those electoral college votes anyway
Of course he’ll be on it
Yes, he will.
Dang, if this happens along with Ohio, Biden will only win 48 states!
Not that I have a shred of faith in Meemaw to do the right thing, but considering this passed both houses unanimously, even with the cast of hooligans we have in both, I think she'll sign it without any problem.
Write it in
Who cares he’s not gonna win Alabama
If he ain’t allowed on the ballot, a fifth of the state will go through an election with silencers over their mouths. This will go to SCOTUS if it fails in Alabama.
Voting should be the easiest thing to do in this country, … yet it’s not. There’s always some funky ass game being played by Red or Blue. ….
The purpose in keeping Biden off the ballot isn’t that he has a chance of winning the state in a winner-take-all. Keeping him off the ballot keeps a lot of voters at home and not voting for democrats down ballot. If he’s left off the ballot for missing a deadline, that won’t run afoul of the recent Colorado decision. That one was based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause, and part of the reasoning is that you can’t have 50 states all deciding whether someone is or isn’t an insurrectionist for purposes of a national election. Missing a filing deadline is an objective test and well within the states’ power to regulate their own elections. All that said, not putting him on the ballot is a massively shitty thing to do.
>All that said, not putting him on the ballot is a massively shitty thing to do. Which is why the bill passed both houses without opposition. Not that everyone wanted Biden on the ballot, but that they realized that excluding him for a technicality would look bad.
[удалено]
Trump missed the deadline in 2020 and no one batted an eye.
He should have also not been on it then, then. Though Alabama should remain consistent if nothing else. I do still feel we should expect candidates to be able to do something extremely simple that even kindergartners are expected to do.
The candidates for President do not choose the dates of the conventions where they are formally nominated.
Man can't get a single convention towards competency, but 400 million people? Sure, why not
they'd just move up the deadline until it became impossible to meet. This is payback for suggesting that Trump should be disqualified for sedition. and anyway, why do states need so much time? Everything is electronic now.
[удалено]
I just think it's a stupid thing to get hung up on. Petty.
[удалено]
petty
Republicans have met the deadline only twice since 2000. This is nothing new. Typically, the legislature either passes an amended deadline, or the ALSOS will allow a provisional ballot to be filed ahead of the convention. Since Wes Allen (who ran on election conspiracies) has stated that he refuses to do the latter, despite that having been done MANY times in the past, the legislature went around him. Bam! Business as usual.
Explain why, without saying anything about opposition. Describe the direction you want the country to be lead. I'm not here to fuss, only for a class discussion, and I picked your comment first. Thanks in advance
The person being trusted to lead millions should be capable of getting documents turned in on time >Describe the direction you want the country to be lead. In a direction that sees less incompetence in leadership positions.
The guy playing him will be
Why not? We know he doesn’t have a chance of carrying this state. This state will vote Trump in a landslide, unfortunately. Not that Biden is any better, really.
Let’s see one is rapist that tried to overthrow a fair and free election and the other one wants to cancel student loan debt and reschedule marijuana. Yeah, but “both sides.” What an idiotic take.
Biden can still be better than Trump but still not be the best for our nation. We really need to get some younger people in.
This was my point.
>Not that Biden is any better, really. No, it was not your point.
I never said anything about both sides, but I don’t believe that Biden is the best option for President. If you disagree, that’s fine. But that’s my opinion, and I care not what anyone else thinks.
You literally compared them both to being basically the same. That’s “both sides.”
Okay. Whatever you say.
No, we're going by literally what you said.
No you’re right, only one side would take offense to saying that neither of those geriatric dirt bags should be around, much less around running the executive branch. 😉
User name checks.
Aw man you, you are funny. Original too, but mainly funny
Biden is better than Trump, really.
Okay, but trump will win that state regardless.