|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:How'd that work out last time Yes it would be legally correct to remove him but this whole process has 6-3 “non-justiciable political question” opinion written all over it if a lower court ever removed his name from a swing states ballot.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Yes it would be legally correct to remove him but this whole process has 6-3 “non-justiciable political question” opinion written all over it if a lower court ever removed his name from a swing states ballot. So the lower court ruling stands, Trump is ineligible to ever serve in federal office again? Sounds good to me  Or, I guess if it's literally ruled nonjusticiable instead of SCOTUS refusing to take up the case, that means every state can determine on its own whether any candidate is disqualified under the 14th amendment and the candidates then have no recourse? Call me naive but somehow I don't think even this SCOTUS is willing to destroy the entire nationwide electoral system, as state by state everyone chooses to block different candidates from their ballots and no one can challenge that in court, just to protect one single president they don't even like. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Sep 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
I’d be pretty happy if he got taken off here in safely blue New York Decent odds it’ll depress Republicans down-ballot and help locally with stuff, and it’s a nice gently caress you from his home state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I don't think that happens. I think there's a huge set of Republicans who only vote because they can vote for Trump. If he's not on the ticket, they stay home, watch Newsmax/Fox/whatever, and bitch on 4chan. We saw this in the early 2000s in California, where a Republican candidate won the governorship in a special recall election, and then won re-election a few years later - and that was the last time any Republican won statewide office in Cali, because the people who turned out were Schwarzenegger voters and not Republican voters. God willing, the same thing will happen to Republicans up and down ticket once Trump is no longer running. That's the risk of celebrity candidates - whatever new voters they pull into your coalition will wander off once the celebrity is no longer on the ballot, or even if the novelty of voting for a particular celebrity wears off (people in Cali were overwhelmingly sick and tired of Arnold by the time he was term limited out of office). FMguru fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Sep 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Yes it would be legally correct to remove him but this whole process has 6-3 “non-justiciable political question” opinion written all over it if a lower court ever removed his name from a swing states ballot. It's just amazing how people keep making up new reasons to not fight Trump Fight him over everything, take absolutely every legal avenue to cause him every bit of stress we can arrest him for his unpaid parking tickets Seize his property to settle civil claims Don't cut him any break for any reason I want to see people filing liens on his grave site for unpaid debts
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
as someone who posted a lot about this topic, let me be the first to say: lol https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1700263230747320593
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Even if taking Trump off the ballots would hurt Democrats other places it’s still worth doing because he tried to overthrow democracy and any risk, however slight, of him returning to power must be snuffed out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:So the lower court ruling stands, Trump is ineligible to ever serve in federal office again? Sounds good to me Sounds naive to me considering they’d be protecting not just Trump but the Republican Party in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's just amazing how people keep making up new reasons to not fight Trump I agree it’s worth fighting him on this but am just managing my expectations personally on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
eke out posted:as someone who posted a lot about this topic, let me be the first to say: lol Lmao. Suck a bag of dicks, Mark. And he had one of the better reasons, even if it might have meant admitting to a Hatch Act violation. Does not bode well for Georgia State Dipshit #7. Lol, nay indeed, rofl.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
for the non-legal folks in the thread, is this a decision that can be immediately appealed, or is it one of those process things that only acts as grounds for appeal later?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Legality aside, removing Trump from the ballot by fiat would be an incredibly dumb political move. It would absolutely blow up in Democrats’ faces similar to Reid going nuclear on judges. Just beat him - he’s done nothing to go after independents, no one who voted for Biden last time is going to switch their votes. He’ll have four massive trial albatrosses chained to his neck, he’s a dream candidate for the left. Just beat him.  You're right, of course. Like Reid going nuclear on some nominations (or Dems impeaching Trump), the Republicans will do the thing they were obviously going to do anyway and the media (and "former" republicans  ) will obediently bleat out that it's Democrat's fault when Republican groups try to use the 14th amendment to disqualify Kamala for insurrectionist levels of melanin. Doesn't mean anyone should suspend inconvenient parts of the constitution just because not doing it would upset the partisans and the bad faith punditry brigade.The Reid line is instructive. Anyone who thinks that the Republicans only removed the filibuster from Supreme Court nominees because Democrats did it from other federal courts has an all-consuming deficit of either sense or honesty. Similarly, it's challenging to say that there's a parade of horribles to fear from his supporters if he's disqualified when we've already seen the lengths they'll go to when he loses an election (and with UTR and the west coast fash assaults, when he wins). eke out posted:as someone who posted a lot about this topic, let me be the first to say: lol  nicely doneI'm not wild about the ruling and really dislike where it sets the bar, but I'm certainly not going to complain about the outcome (or what that bar means for others' removal efforts).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:for the non-legal folks in the thread, is this a decision that can be immediately appealed, or is it one of those process things that only acts as grounds for appeal later? An appeal is expected. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/mark-meadows-georgia-federal-court-denial.html It’s just a federal district court decision saying “no jurisdiction” and not a federal trial, so it’s appealable right away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
eke out posted:as someone who posted a lot about this topic, let me be the first to say: lol So much for trumps, “I may file for federal removal myself” motion. That’s about as dead as a door nail now. Even if Meadows appeals it the trial has a good chance of being completed before it’s heard and ruled on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:30
|
|
|
So, uh, it’s been 5 weeks since DoJ asked Cannon to hold a Garcia hearing and it’s not even scheduled yet. Seems like she’s confused or conflicted about how to proceed since she made such an rear end out of herself for striking the sealed motion and parroting bad advice from Trusty to enquire about the legality of grand juries in other jurisdictions investigating crimes that happened in other jurisdictions. I heard elsewhere that the 11th circuit actually has precedent of ‘shall hold a Garcia hearing’ and mandamusing a district judge to do it after having denied the request. Can she just sit on it forever? Never rejecting it or accepting it until it’s mooted by the trial? If it’s never rejected is there a mechanism to ask the appellate court to take notice after some period of time? There is potentially real harm to the defendants by having their lawyers be unable to fully defend them. Comedy option is that Cannon rules the IT guy can’t testify and then grants the Garcia motion ex-parte with a “whelp we discussed it, no conflicts here.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:How'd that work out last time Dems won in 2018, 2020, and outperformed in 2022. Trump has been and continues to be a generational disaster for the Republican Party. All the posts bemoaning the coming decades of absolute Republican rule were dead wrong. Effectively disenfranchising a huge number of voters is going to pour gasoline on whatever fire still remains, and virtually guarantees the same treatment for any future Democratic candidate who even thought about going to a BLM protest. It’s not worth it, just keep winning until the Republicans get tired of losing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Dems won in 2018, 2020, and outperformed in 2022. Trump has been and continues to be a generational disaster for the Republican Party. All the posts bemoaning the coming decades of absolute Republican rule were dead wrong. Eh, the democracy is dead anyway. Nothing of value is at risk. Kick the orange fascist out of the BS election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Dems won in 2018, 2020, and outperformed in 2022. Trump has been and continues to be a generational disaster for the Republican Party. All the posts bemoaning the coming decades of absolute Republican rule were dead wrong. They still packed the courts and get away with everything while the Democrats do absolutely nothing worth a drat with their free wins. Sure, if the republicans were less of a disaster, the dems wouldn't be winning as easily, but that doesn't mean the republicans not winning means good things for any of us when the democrats just let them move goalposts and "meet in the middle," considering the middle in this country is still really loving right So you may have a point but as a left-leaning citizen I'm not encouraged. The only candidates that appeal to me recently are railroaded by the party for being too left  So what's there to look forward to until all these current politicians finally die? We can make meaningful change finally while the planet starts to boil us alive, yay?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:They still packed the courts and get away with everything while the Democrats do absolutely nothing worth a drat with their free wins The main difference is silence. The Biden administration has already seated more Federal judges in two years than McConnell did in four. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/trump-installed-historic-number-judges-biden-outpacing-far-rcna48142
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:The main difference is silence. The Biden administration has already seated more Federal judges in two years than McConnell did in four. That's nice to know, thanks for the link  Too bad the highest court of the land is the way it is, I don't particularly like wishing death on folks, but when so much hangs on that balance it's pretty grim. I guess I just have to remind myself that their decisions come with a real toll of human lives. Overturning roe definitely will come with a body count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
My dude I don’t smoke weed but if you’re nihilisticallly doomposting on a Friday night in reaction to a Republican being handed a loss I think you really need a bowl
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
Or get a hammer and sickle plat icon in friday forum to show off your marxist bonnafides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:My dude I don’t smoke weed but if you’re nihilisticallly doomposting on a Friday night in reaction to a Republican being handed a loss I think you really need a bowl I wouldn't consider this doom posting. And I'm currently off the weed after a decade straight of abuse so I'll pass, sorry. I'm not really reacting to that guy's L so much as another person's posts btw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Effectively disenfranchising a huge number of voters is going to pour gasoline on whatever fire still remain I'm taking it from your "legality aside" comment that your opinion is unchanged even if the courts find the constitution doesn't include an "unless you're Trump!" exception. If I've misread, I apologize. If I've read you correctly, would you also consider those who'd like to vote for Olivia Rodrigo as president effectively disenfranchised? Or the weird rear end royalists who'd love to vote for Prince Harry? Or does "effectively disenfranchised" only apply to those stymied by the one requirement a candidate can control? I suppose there's also the 14 years requirement, but honestly I didn't have anyone top of mind there. TheDisreputableDog posted:and virtually guarantees the same treatment for any future Democratic candidate who even thought about going to a BLM protest. If birthers are too old for you, talk show hosts were all about it before Trump won, as was the former Attorney General before even he had to admit it was horseshit and walk it back Hell, Trump was also on board before he lost. quote:President Donald Trump is refusing to reject false claims circulating on social media that Kamala Harris may not be legally eligible for the vice presidency because of questions surrounding the immigration status of her parents at the time she was born. quote:Trump was referring to John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University who floated the theory in an opinion piece published in Newsweek. A tweet containing the op-ed was retweeted earlier Thursday by Jenna Ellis, a Trump campaign adviser I sure hope the Dems don't virtually guarantee the GOP... keeps doing what it's been doing for the last 4 elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:They still packed the courts and get away with everything while the Democrats do absolutely nothing worth a drat with their free wins. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/140-judges-later-senate-democrats-work-to-diversify-the-federal-judiciary/ "To better contextualize this number, former President Barack Obama confirmed 62 federal judges in his first two years in office, while former President Donald Trump, with the help of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), confirmed 85 judges in the second half of Trump’s term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Is there a theory as to why most polls now show a Trump lead or toss-up? This seems incredibly unlikely to me given how badly Republicans have been doing, their underperformance in 2022, and them losing elections since Trump's election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there a theory as to why most polls now show a Trump lead or toss-up? This seems incredibly unlikely to me given how badly Republicans have been doing, their underperformance in 2022, and them losing elections since Trump's election. Either things have improved for Trump or the Pollsters are having a hard time reaching anti-Trump demographics in their polls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there a theory as to why most polls now show a Trump lead or toss-up? This seems incredibly unlikely to me given how badly Republicans have been doing, their underperformance in 2022, and them losing elections since Trump's election. It's summer 2023.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
A friendly reminder that The GOP primary thread and USCE are both threads where polling and election chat are much more relevant to the thread's topics. Someone might even consider rebooting 2020's (lightly cursed) Polliwanks thread While I'd love Trump's poll numbers and electoral chances to be tied to his legal issues, we don't seem to be that lucky so the topic is probably better suited for discussion elsewhere. GhostofJohnMuir posted:for the non-legal folks in the thread, is this a decision that can be immediately appealed, or is it one of those process things that only acts as grounds for appeal later?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 05:10
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there a theory as to why most polls now show a Trump lead or toss-up? This seems incredibly unlikely to me given how badly Republicans have been doing, their underperformance in 2022, and them losing elections since Trump's election. In addition to the above notes I think it came to light that some of the recent polls (the ones he quotes anyway) have been paid for by Trump and was conducted by his former campaign pollster with ties to Manafort. https://newrepublic.com/post/175387/wsj-poll-showing-trump-biden-evenly-matched-trump-helped-pay They aren’t neutral polls, they are designed with the intent to show trump as a viable candidate while the real polls haven’t started so as to refute that narrative. Trump’s actual capabilities are about marketing himself, he’s pretty good at it and you should be skeptical when you see something remarkably favorable about him that could be manipulated. Murgos fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
Yes, can we please keep Trump election talk to a minimum in here, except insofar as it's directly related to the ongoing criminal and civil cases against him? God knows I get enough of that elsewhere, but it's really disheartening to have to keep checking this thread over and over when new posts pop up only for it to be more and more loving polls or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
small butter posted:I know that Republican administrations absolutely eclipse Democratic ones in charges, indictments, and prison time, but Trump's charges and those of all of his associates (not to mention everything that happened during his administration) are just so laughably lopsided that I need charts and counters for it. Does anyone have a good comparison between Ds vs Rs up to this point (most are from like 2018 or whatever)? What about charges and indictments for the Trump administration from 2017 until now? Doesn't matter. Any lopsided chart that maps out the GOP's commanding lead in indictments and crimes committed is only further proof of the tons of selective and biased prosecutions in this country. Idiots are like "see? Look how much more often our side gets charged with crimes!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
I am reminded of polling in the 2016 election where many low rationality voters thought the media was biased against Trump because Clinton had more ads on television.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Effectively disenfranchising a huge number of voters This is the new talking point btw. Apparently we are all fascists because the Jan 6 “protestors” are being punished, and Trump and crew are being prosecuted / 14th amendment removal from ballets discussion. It’s no accident it’s popping up in DD’s posting and elsewhere in left online spaces at the same time. Expect to see more of this crap. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Effectively disenfranchising a huge number of voters is going to pour gasoline on whatever fire still remains, and virtually guarantees the same treatment for any future Democratic candidate who even thought about going to a BLM protest. It’s not worth it, just keep winning until the Republicans get tired of losing. Are people disenfranchised by the fact that I can’t run for president due to being not a citizen or resident of the United States?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
I've never possessed the franchise. They have closed off every legal route to my preferred candidate, Mickey Mouse, becoming president
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Are people disenfranchised by the fact that I can’t run for president due to being not a citizen or resident of the United States? I'M being disenfranchised because I AM American, and I want to vote for you but I CAN'T.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
I get the argument that Trump's base will go nuts if he doesn't get on the ballot, but lol if you think they weren't going to do voter intimidation and stochastic terrorism next cycle anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
drat all these things that they should've thought about before trying to overthrow an election and then spending years standing by the guy who tried to overthrow the election
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Are people disenfranchised by the fact that I can’t run for president due to being not a citizen or resident of the United States? Nope, because you (presumably) being foreign-born is an objective matter of record. Similarly, Trump can be convicted of, or successfully impeached for insurrection, and the 14th applies. What’s being floated here is that any state election official or civil judge can declare “Trump did an insurrection”, which results in him being removed from the ballot. That does actually smell like disenfranchisement and feels generally anti-democratic. It would be like some faceless Arizona election chud declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he’s removed from the ballot. It feels scummy. Just beat him. Based on some of these instructive posts, I need to point out that I voted for Biden, and I’d like him to win again. I’d much rather see him standing on a debate stage next to Trump than any of the alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 15:30
|
|