Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[yidnar]

No, it was his abysmal presidency followed by his attempted insurrection. He only got 51% of the Republican votes in Iowa. There are a large number of Iowa Republicans who won't vote for him. If Obama or Clinton had been in the same position they;d have gotten 90+% of the vote.

Trumps not the incumbent Einstein ... but he is polling higher than he was even before the brief riot on jan 6th and he's beating Briben badly in battle ground states !

 

[jbander]

That is for the voters to decide. The Constitution says that Trump is still eligible.

But polls say even you hate party member , all you MAGA Maggots won't vote for him if he is found guilty and there is no way he won't be found guilty. Love it . You can't get enough people in this country to vote for a traitor to this country. It just won't happen. Trump is the lowest form of humanity , he is a total bottom feeder ,a totally mentally ill shitpants , who stinks so bad that it is like being next to a open sewer, That is what his son says anyway.

 

[jbander]

Specifically, where?

Dumb fuck head "
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:


"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.""

 

[jbander]

LIAR. The USSC will clarify shortly. Congress would need to enact the insurrection Article. Not happening.

Bullshit "

Does a person have to be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified?​

So far, no. As discussed above, the disqualification clause was originally intended to keep people out of office who were part of the Confederacy. Most disqualified individuals were not convicted of a crime. In 1919, Congress refused to seat U.S. Representative Victor L. Berger after he was convicted of "being disloyal to the United States, giving aid and comfort to a public enemy, [and] publication of expressions hostile to the government” under the Espionage Act. Although similar, this is different from an insurrection charge. Meanwhile, a civil lawsuit filed by private citizens in New Mexico triggered the 2022 removal of Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin.

 

[jbander]

Why would any real American vote for Trump. There hasn't been a worse human being in my lifetime. He should be in front of a judge being tried for treason and when found guilty should be put to death. As the constitution says.

 

[jbander]

Keep in mind that when Trump gets stopped before or because of the election he will ask his followers to kill for him and they will, every right winger here should be asked if they will kill for him, when he asks them to.

 

[jbander]

He was acquitted, but go ahead and keep up your crying

Keep in mind that when Trump gets stopped before or because of the election he will ask his followers to kill for him and they will, every right winger here should be asked if they will kill for him, when he asks them to. So ace will you kill for him.

 

[jbander]

Specifically, where?

Keep in mind that when Trump gets stopped before or because of the election he will ask his followers to kill for him and they will, every right winger here should be asked if they will kill for him, when he asks them to. So hotrod will you kill for him.

 

[jbander]

LIAR. The USSC will clarify shortly. Congress would need to enact the insurrection Article. Not happening.

Keep in mind that when Trump gets stopped before or because of the election he will ask his followers to kill for him and they will, every right winger here should be asked if they will kill for him, when he asks them to.So big guy will you kill for him when asked?

 

[jbander]

Judge Denies Effort to Remove Trump From the Ballot in Washington State​

Voters had sought to disqualify the former president under the 14th Amendment, following the lead of Colorado and Maine.

Judge Denies Effort to Remove Trump From the Ballot in Washington State

Voters had sought to disqualify the former president under the 14th Amendment, following the lead of Colorado and Maine.

web.archive.org

Judge Denies Effort to Remove Trump From the Ballot in Washington State

Voters had sought to disqualify the former president under the 14th Amendment, following the lead of Colorado and Maine.

www.nytimes.com

". . . Formal challenges to Mr. Trump’s candidacy have been filed in at least 35 states, according to a New York Times review of court records and other documents. So far, he has been disqualified in only two states: Colorado, by an appeals court ruling, and Maine, by the secretary of state.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Mr. Trump’s appeal of the Colorado decision on Feb. 8. The case could determine his eligibility for the ballot nationally.. . "

<snip>

". . .But Mr. Hobbs has said that court rulings could change his decision. A lawyer representing his office asked Judge Wilson on Thursday for a prompt ruling on the challenge to Mr. Trump’s eligibility, because ballots would be going out later this month to voters in the military and overseas.

A lawyer representing the state Republican Party argued that the case brought by voters was flawed for technical reasons, and also because federal courts had not convicted Mr. Trump of any criminal conduct that would disqualify him. . . . "



How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run
The legal issues are novel and tangled, experts said, and the justices may be wary of knocking a leading presidential candidate off the ballot.

How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run

The legal issues are novel and tangled, experts said, and the justices may be wary of knocking a leading presidential candidate off the ballot.

web.archive.org

How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run

The legal issues are novel and tangled, experts said, and the justices may be wary of knocking a leading presidential candidate off the ballot.

www.nytimes.com

". . . They will be reluctant to wrest from voters the power to assess Mr. Trump’s conduct, particularly given the certain backlash that would bring. Yet they will also be wary of giving Mr. Trump the electoral boost of an unqualified victory in the nation’s highest court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will doubtless seek consensus or, at least, try to avoid a partisan split of the six Republican appointees against the three Democratic ones.

He may want to explore the many paths the court could take to keep Mr. Trump on state ballots without addressing whether he had engaged in insurrection or even assuming that he had.

Among them: The justices could rule that congressional action is needed before courts can intervene, that the constitutional provision at issue does not apply to the presidency or that Mr. Trump’s statements were protected by the First Amendment.

“I expect the court to take advantage of one of the many available routes to avoid holding that Trump is an insurrectionist who therefore can’t be president again,” said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard.

Such an outcome would certainly be a stinging loss for Mr. Trump’s opponents, who say the case against him is airtight. But the Supreme Court would be attracted to what it would present as a modest ruling that allows Mr. Trump to remain on the ballot.

“This is a fraught political issue,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “I think there will be an effort for the court to coalesce around a consensus position for a narrow, unanimous opinion. That probably means coalescing around a position where Trump stays on the ballot.”

Media Warn If Trump’s Re-Elected Every Bad Thing They Can Possibly Imagine Will Happen​

If the supreme court comes to any conclusion saying Trump didn't administer a insurrection , then they will have to go , Either over ridden with more justices to stop them having control my majority or thrown out of office . Either way is fine but they will have to go , Them being part of an overthrow of this democracy and government to force in a piece of shit for a dictator is cause to get rid of them any way possible.

 

[MagicMike]

That is for the voters to decide. The Constitution says that Trump is still eligible.

Not at all.
The U.S. Constitution is ALL ABOUT written checks and balances and protections designed explicitly to prevent an unqualified, ill-tempered, incompetent, despot like inmate number P01135809 from taking office.

 

[tahuyaman]

Our choices for the presidency are not universal. There are millions of Americans, billions of people, for whom the US Constitution will not allow anyone to vote. We cannot vote for anyone under 35. We cannot vote for anyone who is not a naturalized citizen. We cannot vote for anyone that hasn't been a US resident for at least 14 years. And we cannot vote for anyone who has ever taken an oath to support the US Constitution and then been involved in an insurrection against the US government. Trump keeps screaming that finding him ineligible for office would disenfranchise all his supporters. But no one would be any more disenfranchised by that restriction than they are by the others. The disenfranchised are those who cast valid votes which don't get counted or those who are not allowed to vote at all. Trump did his damnedest after the 2020 election to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters so the claim that he's concerned about anyone's vote rings like a massive bell of dried horseshit.

That’s one of the dumbest posts I’ve read here.

 

[toobfreak]

Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE​

By that logic, then, only letting perople vote who can prove who they are with government ID and pass a simple 3 question voter-competency test, banning illegals, felons, sex offenders and people who have expressed anti-American socialist views in their past like you from having any say in elections disenfranchises no one neither!

 

[tahuyaman]

No, it was his abysmal presidency followed by his attempted insurrection. He only got 51% of the Republican votes in Iowa. There are a large number of Iowa Republicans who won't vote for him. If Obama or Clinton had been in the same position they;d have gotten 90+% of the vote.

Obama barely won. He didn’t get anywhere close to 50%

 

[jotathought]

The Constitution says that he is not. And the Constitution does NOT say it is for the voters to decide. People under the age of 35, people who are not naturalized citizens, people who have not been resident in the US for 14 years and more and people who have taken an oath to support the Constitution and then committed insurrection cannot run no matter how popular they might be.

What does the constitution say that disqualifies Trump, and what evidence, besides feelings, is there to support the language?

 

[tahuyaman]

The Constitution says that he is not. And the Constitution does NOT say it is for the voters to decide. People under the age of 35, people who are not naturalized citizens, people who have not been resident in the US for 14 years and more and people who have taken an oath to support the Constitution and then committed insurrection cannot run no matter how popular they might be.

The constitution doesn’t disqualify Trump. He’s fully eligible to run.

 

[Phactotum]

Perhaps I missed it but I've yet to see a single person address the central point of the OP. Removing Trump from the ballot disenfranchises no one. Anyone out there disagree?

I addressed the central point of the OP, about what disenfranchises voters who are interested in Trump. I also addressed all points of the OP that had the potential to be invalid or unfair to any voter.

I apologize, if I submitted a reply which made you feel like it is not a good idea to respond to it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our choices for the presidency are not universal. There are millions of Americans, billions of people, for whom the US Constitution will not allow anyone to vote. We cannot vote for anyone under 35. We cannot vote for anyone who is not a naturalized citizen. We cannot vote for anyone that hasn't been a US resident for at least 14 years. And we cannot vote for anyone who has ever taken an oath to support the US Constitution and then been involved in an insurrection against the US government. Trump keeps screaming that finding him ineligible for office would disenfranchise all his supporters. But no one would be any more disenfranchised by that restriction than they are by the others. The disenfranchised are those who cast valid votes which don't get counted or those who are not allowed to vote at all. Trump did his damnedest after the 2020 election to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters so the claim that he's concerned about anyone's vote rings like a massive bell of dried horseshit.

What disenfranchises people is the FPTP system

Take California. 6 million people voted for Trump. None of them got representation in the Electoral College.

The same for most states, people vote and then their vote is discarded because more people voted for someone else.

In Germany one party got 1.1 million votes and got no seat because Germany has a 5% cut off. However a party with 55,000 did get a seat because if you gain more than 5% in any one Land (or region) you get a seat.

In Denmark they have a 2% cut off. The largest party without a seat had 31,000 votes. They got 0.9% of the vote, so you'd need about 70,000 votes to get to represent people.

But in the US SIX MILLION Gets you NOTHING in CA.

 

[Mac1958]

I agree completely with the sentiment of this thing, but I still think it's a bad, bad idea. Making him a martyr only makes things significantly worse.

The enabling of this person has put us in uncharted territory, and normal rules don't (or no longer) apply.

If he wins, and he very well may, we deserve what we get.

 

[justoffal]

Our choices for the presidency are not universal. There are millions of Americans, billions of people, for whom the US Constitution will not allow anyone to vote. We cannot vote for anyone under 35. We cannot vote for anyone who is not a naturalized citizen. We cannot vote for anyone that hasn't been a US resident for at least 14 years. And we cannot vote for anyone who has ever taken an oath to support the US Constitution and then been involved in an insurrection against the US government. Trump keeps screaming that finding him ineligible for office would disenfranchise all his supporters. But no one would be any more disenfranchised by that restriction than they are by the others. The disenfranchised are those who cast valid votes which don't get counted or those who are not allowed to vote at all. Trump did his damnedest after the 2020 election to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters so the claim that he's concerned about anyone's vote rings like a massive bell of dried horseshit.

Complete crock (crick) of shit. Nice try though.