Nikki's taking off the gloves.

a third party vote by someone who favors gun rights is a vote for Biden. a third party vote for a gun banner is a vote for Trump

 

Not so much fairy tales as inconvenient truths, for some.

A SHORT HISTORY OF EVERYONE WHO CONFIRMED REAGAN’S OCTOBER SURPRISE BEFORE THE NEW YORK TIMES
https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/october-surprise-ben-barnes/

Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/...ons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html

 

Y'all don't agree. Perhaps its because the rules you make up are non-sensical?

 

Seems you are looking for an angle, a strawman of sort but won't look into who's actually funds No Labels. That holds your answers instead of fruitless reaches.
Why avoid researching who funds them? That holds all the answers you seek.

 

Someone funding a campaign I never heard of seems irrelevant to how votes are tallied.

Neither of you has shown votes tallied for a 3rd party are counted for another party.

 

Well if you don't believe that following the money trail is important as to what it's intended influence is, then we are in two different realities (no pun intended). Third party votes are more determinant in a swing state and historically have swing elections to the right vs left in close election without the third party ever having a chance at winning a national election. In the current system, they are spoilers.

 

But that view is predicated on an out of the mainstream belief you hold of Afghanistan's strategic importance. The handwriting on the wall for the withdrawal being written in Doha by former president Bone Spurs.

 

I am of the firm belief Nikki is hoping she becomes the default nominee if and when Don is convicted of what is tantamount to treason. Other than that why is she still in a game she will inevitably lose to the Orange Fraud.

 

Something would need to happen for her to win, yes. SCOTUS could legally justify declaring Trump ineligible, and those arguments start next month, but they seem more likely to find an excuse to not do that. Maybe a 20% chance they go 5:4 to declare him ineligible or that states can decide if he's ineligible themselves. I do think he would be ultimately convicted of some of his crimes he's been indicted for, but I doubt all or even most would be resolved before the election. But even one before the election may change the math for Haley. I suspect she'll suspend her campaign either after losing her home state or super Tuesday. But a suspended campaign could be resumed if Trump is declared ineligible, is convicted, or dies.

 

For starters, yes.

 

Sorry, but that's not what the reporting says. Please see the link in #267.

 

Actually, I'm with the evidence; you're with the partisan spin.

 

Both already debunked. I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

Biden chose to join Trump's dishonor. He had no problem reversing other trump policies, but this one he chose to carry through. They share the dishonor, and it disqualifies both.

 

All big corporate donors of whom the majority are Rs...
No Labels Exposed: Here’s a List of Donors Funding Its Effort To Disrupt the 2024 Race

No Labels
"The organization was founded by long-time Democratic operative Nancy Jacobson, but it has received substantial funding from Republican donors."

No Labels-> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/no-labels/summary?id=D000068653

Donors sue No Labels for ‘bait and switch’ 3rd party threat

No Labels Took More Than $100,000 From Clarence Thomas Buddy Harlan Crow

No Labels depends on six-figure donors to fund ‘grassroots’ 2024 third party ticket

What Is No Labels Trying to Do? <- you should read this one

"The group maintains that a third-ticket nominee may be what the country needs in 2024—but it may just be what Donald Trump needs."

Lots more...

 

Trump and Biden are good arguments for ranked voting

 

"Big corporate donors" don't bother me. And of course they receive "substantial funding" from Republicans, just like they receive substantial funding from Democrats. Your claim is the equivalent of "water is wet."

 

But yet you dodge the New Yorker article and the facts that most of the donors are Rs. You can't face the reality that a third party vote is a vote for a Russian puppet under the current two party system. I realize this is from a top heavy position but deep down you know I am right based on voting and election history.

 

And you have yet to acknowledge the Mother Jones article. I really don't care about the politics of the donors. And no, I don't know that your claimed "reality" is anything more than your earnest belief. Bottom line: I'll vote as I think best and let the chips fall as they may.

 

The Jones article is one that clearly states that both parties donate but more are STILL Rs...is this where you hang your hat but run from the historical facts that a third party has always helped Rs but has never stood a chance at winning in the nation? Why do you think No Labels are mainly in swing states? It's not rocket science but you are in denial of history.

 

The last significant third party cost the Republicans (George H.W. Bush) the Presidency. So stop your unfounded caterwauling.

 

Yes and she's likely angry because her inability to win a primary will cause her financial support to dry up. I wonder if she has enough cash to get to super tuesday. I like her but she is not going to be on the ballot in November unless Trump has her run for VP.

 

Her donors are with her, win or lose.

 

You have lost the debate and nothing can save face to the high moral ground that escapse those unable to face reality. Run Forest run...

 

She has a dirt simple path forward even though on Joe it would be just more bs R smears other than that he probably is too old to be running again. DFT on the other hand, she has the same leverage with respect to his age, but she doesn't have to smear him..., she can simply state the many facts against him.