this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
165 points (93.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4735 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

part of the problem here is that the constitution doesn’t actually recommend removing people from ballots.

Why would anyone keep an ineligible candidate's name on the ballot?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dunno.

Because they’re idiotic sycophants?

The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations and really no way to keep people from voting for the orange turnip anyhow.

We all “know” he incited an insurrection. We all know he’s ineligible. But this is an inconceivable and utterly novel legal territory here, people are going to have wonky takes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because they’re idiotic sycophants?

Is Gavin Newsom an idiotic sycophant? The article is about how he wants to keep Trump on the ballot.

The point is there’s mk qualification of what is “insurrection”, etc, no process for fact finding or determining the legitimacy of the accusations

Colorado begs to differ.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Colorado came to a ruling after investigation; the courts heard the case and had a finding of fact.

that's the process at work. I haven't a clue what game Newsom is playing at. but honestly, I couldn't be arsed after what he wants. It doesn't really concern him all that much, really.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because there's not a consensus that they're ineligible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

There's not a consensus among judges.

Had the Dems done an actual impeachment of Trump, called witnesses and the like, and got a conviction this question would already be answered around the nation. But the half assed it and now we're here.