this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
589 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3658 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
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 79 points 10 months ago

"I'm mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I'm also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection."

I like how Trumpers always seem to forget about that 2nd sentence.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 10 months ago

O'l smelly they used ta call him. He had tiny hands and giant tits, which was the style at the time.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Honestly do you think that will matter? What's to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Nothing, I think they will do it.

But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn't think it applied, but I'm an idiot on my couch with no legal training.

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

I'm not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?

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

No.

The people.

Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn't announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren't anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When some states allow him and some block him, that's the argument for the Court to step in.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

When you're such a bitchass corrupt sore loser that legal experts need to clear the dusty cobwebs off ancient scrolls and navigate new legal waters because you decided to be the first brainlet to violate laws that no one before you was stupid and unpatriotic enough to even consider attempting.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

Amendment, not law. And it was written in the aftermath of the Civil War, this is exactly what it was for.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The real issue at the heart of all this is that the popular vote doesn't win the presidency.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Seriously. Didn't Biden only win by like 43,000 votes in the electoral college?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's only 538 votes total in the electoral college. It was 306/232. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to, then, apologies.

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

In competitive states, he won by only 43k votes as opposed to the many more votes he won by in the popular vote. In other words, had those votes been cast differently, the electoral college would be very different

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

This. And it was too close for those competitive electoral votes.

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

Republicans have not won the popular vote for a president since HW Bush.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Doesn't matter. The electoral college is the only thing that counts.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago

Keep it going!

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Any real impact from blue states barring Trump, or are we just hoping to set enough of a precedent for a red state to actually grow a pair and kick him too?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He is blocked from the primary. Blue states still vote in the Republican primary, this means Maine and Colorado will be won by someone else. There is a chance if enough states do it, won't have enough votes to be the nominee

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

If that happens the pay will just change the rules and select him at the convention.

They're all-in with this doomsday cult.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Isn't Maine not all of nothing for electoral college votes? So while minor if trump did run he would lose some amount?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Yep, he won a single electoral vote in 2020.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

That's fine, right now it's the momentum that counts. Hopefully other states will follow. I don't know how this process works but I'm hoping he's spread thin enough while fighting them all at once. Maybe that'll do something to his pockets and stress him tf out, idk,

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

No impact because the Supreme Court is going to overturn their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

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

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Maine's top election official has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said Mr Trump was not eligible because of his actions leading up to the US Capitol riot in 2021.

Maine now joins Colorado as the two states to ban Mr Trump from the ballot.

The 34-page ruling says that Mr Trump must be removed from the ballot because he "engaged in insurrection or rebellion".

In her order, Mrs Bellows says that Mr Trump "over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol".

She added that his "occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions".


The original article contains 148 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 6%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

saved 6% wow well done bot

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Wake me up when a state that matters (as in, a state that will have an impact on the likelihood of Trump getting to and winning the general election) does it.

I'm not convinced a red state would dare put their metaphorical balls on the chopping block like that.