• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    why? he doesnt have a chance in hell of CA anyway, why spin your wheels?

    i guess im curious which of these states might split their electoral votes

    • jplee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      My guess: With the Colorado Supreme Court decision, he wants to build momentum of states disqualifying him. It would also send a message to the Supreme Court that this might be the right decision.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      I mean they should still do it because it’s the right thing to do, but yes it won’t carry much meaning in the upcoming election.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      If enough of a spook is raised about losing any chance of an EC win, or if enough conservatives try running to pick those states up themselves, it will divide the right wing ballot.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    Not trying to be hyperbolic but states selectively choosing who is allowed to be voted on as opposed to having it run as intended can cause a justification for a second civil war. This shouldnt be allowed. I dont care how vile Trump is to you. There is no rule that it can be left to the states to withhold votes in a federal election.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    you don’t need every legal option. the law is clear as day, all we need to do is follow it and wait for the openly corrupt supreme court to decide that it doesn’t count in this case because they’d rather it didn’t.

  • willybe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    I’m surprised this had to be said. 6 days before the balots are ordered.

    “The constitution is clear: you must be (at least) 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist,”

  • aelwero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 years ago

    "In her letter, Kounalakis acknowledged there would be ‘political punditry’ about a potential decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot but said ‘this is not a matter of political gamesmanship.’ "

    Bullshit.

    Not only is this gamesmanship, it’s foolish gamesmanship… Dems are gonna shoot themselves square in the foot with this shit.

    If you do declare trump ineligible, what goes on the ballot? You gonna have one of them third world elections with just one name on it? No, you’re gonna have trumps mini-me clone… Fucking desantis…

    You got Colorado right now. That’s not gonna have a huge impact on it’s own. Those electoral votes were going to be bidens regardless, so it’s something the GOP can, and likely will, completely ignore. In terms of the gamesmanship, all thatx happened is Colorado having made a statement.

    If California joins them, it’s just as irrelevant (California’s electorals also belong to Biden), however, it’s now doubled as a statement. It’s twice as loud, and half as ignorable.

    The real danger is that a state that matters jumps on the bandwagon. Notably Arizona… If a state that has the capability to determine the outcome opts to bar trump, the GOP will drop him and run desantis in 50 states. You’ll have every single red state supporting fucking desantis, and the potential to pull “martyr” votes in the battleground states for fucking desantis.

    If you had to choose trump or desantis, would you go with desantis? That answer should definitely be no, because a lot of the shit cited as being what’s wrong with trump is more attributable to desantis than to trump himself.

    Dems are playing with fire with this bullshit, and saying it ain’t gamesmanship is as valid in my opinion as trump saying he wasn’t responsible for the rioting. Possible, but I got some doubts :)

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      “We shouldn’t uphold the Constitution because it might hurt ME Politically!”

      • aelwero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        So you believe in “shall not be infringed” then?

        Constitution is usually those other guys… Ya know?

        • CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          That guy may not, but I do. So, yes to recognizing the validity of the 14th Amendment’s applicability to Trump thereby rendering him ineligible for office, and to all gun laws being an infringement. If you go left far enough, you get your guns back.

          • aelwero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 years ago

            Not sure if that’s “left”, as it’s kinda hard to define those terms anymore, but i exist in a similar place I think :)

            My objections are actually related to due process. I feel there’s definitely shadow of doubt there, and while I don’t like trump, I’m not willing to ignore that shadow, and the current bullshit going on in Texas with Biden is a pretty solid example of why… Not to say they’re the same thing at all, the Biden thing is not even a shadow, it’s just outright bullshit, but if you don’t need an actual conviction, then that’s going to be the inevitable outcome…

            Do you feel that “left” as you’ve defined it means democrat? I don’t. I certainly don’t think it means Republican either though. Not trying to stir any pots or anything, it’s just kinda rare for me to agree with a sentiment as much as I agree with yours and I’m genuinely curious about your opinion on the matter :)

            • CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 years ago

              Do you feel that “left” as you’ve defined it means democrat?

              In principle? No. In practice? The US’s elections are governed by first past the post voting. Until we reform how politicians are elected by enacting more sensible term limits, make lobbying illegal and remove other moneyed interests from public service, and institute ranked choice voting or something similar, the only responsible party to vote for winds up being the Democratic Party despite them not aligning with my preferences on either end of the spectrum.

              Ultimately, I think I’m something like a Libertarian who supports taxes for the betterment of society. I think centralized government’s responsibility is to provide services for the constituents they represent and to ensure that our laws are centered on maintaining as much individual liberty as possible.

  • Psionicsickness@reddthat.comBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    Meaningless, he’ll never carry California, but liberals are setting a precedent that I guarantee will be used against them later.

    • highenergyphysics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yes, if a Dem president incites an insurrection against the United States of America to illegally stay in power, I would absolutely support removing them from the ballot.

      Liberals are weak fascist enablers but that take is not it lmfao

    • jkmooney@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      Well, should a Liberal incite an insurrection against the United States, that precedent should be used against them.

      • jkmooney@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        As I understand it, so far, the courts aren’t disputing that Trump incited an insurrection, they’re disputing if the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the President.

        • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 years ago

          Does the 2nd ammendment apply to my AK-47 even though it’s not explicitly determined in the wording? Then the 14th should also apply to office of the president.

          They want to eat their cake and have it, and the hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them at all. They use laws, procedure and precident when it helps their case. They blatantly ignore it the rest of the time.

      • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        Tennessee State General Assembly: I saw a Democrat with a Biden T-shirt set fire to a trash can! It’s totally justified to disqualify Biden!

        My State will sadly pull some stupid stunt like this for sure. I get your sentiment but for a lot of us red States our government will absolutely trip over themselves to demonstrate their “hold my beer” skills.

        That’s not to say Trump shouldn’t be disqualified, but boy oh boy is it opening a box that looks like no one should open it. I really hope SCOTUS comes back and says something like “it went through three different courts and because of THAT reason we’re up holding it.” Just simply saying “well States should decide” will pretty much mean I’ll never get to vote.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 years ago

          Red states can, and likely will try something like that, but SCOTUS should reverse the decision if it violates the U.S. constitution. States have tried messing with who can and can’t be on the ballot before, and SCOTUS used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment saying you can’t arbitrarily keep a person off the ballot. SCOTUS might do the same for Colorado and California since Trump has not been found guilty of anything involving an insurrection yet. But yeah, if SCOTUS goes full “state’s rights,” saying states can mess with elections however they want, the U.S. will likely become more like a confederacy of sovereign states. And I think states that currently have red governors or legislatures have more electoral votes and house seats than blue states, so we would have a perpetual Republican federal government.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      what is the precedent? if you get yourself tagged as an insurrectionist, you cant be president?

      or are you implying that conservatives are such outright, terrible human beings they would just lie in the future and call whomever they want an insurrectionist to keep them off the ballot? i think the morons down in texas already have that in progress