Taking Trump Off the Ballot Isn't Going to Work

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok. Why didn’t they put an end date on the 14th? An expiration date?

Because they weren't stupid and didn't think the world was about to end...?

It clearly was meant to carry forward.

 

[SavannahMann]

Because they weren't stupid and didn't think the world was about to end...?

It clearly was meant to carry forward.

Excellent. So the 14th still applies today. Great.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Excellent. So the 14th still applies today. Great.

Obviously yes

 

[yidnar]

What is an insurrection like some type of C-section ?

according to the left its walking around inside the capital and taking selfies .

 

[the other mike]

according to the left its walking around inside the capital and taking selfies .

Funny how they don't even know who Ashley Babbitt was .

 

[yidnar]

Funny how they don't even know who Ashley Babbitt was .

a 5ft 110 lb unarmed woman that was shot for trespassing .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

a 5ft 110 lb unarmed woman that was shot for trespassing .

Liar. Normal people understand she wasn't shot for trespassing.

 

[candycorn]

People can write in Trump's name and will.

Also, it's against the notion of free and fair elections to take a candidate off the ballot. Do Democrats realize that?

Would you Democrats think it a good idea to take Biden off the ballot?

It is a dumb idea...I’m not sure most Trump voters can spell “Trump” though.

 

[SavannahMann]

It is a dumb idea...I’m not sure most Trump voters can spell “Trump” though.

There would be a flurry of court cases where Trump claimed everyone who wrote NOTA meant Trump. MickeyMouse meant Trump. God definitely meant Trump.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No it's people from both parties that have called out Trump for his ethics violations.

No doubt, there are those on the right also that want to see trump fail, and they’ll sacrifice their own party to do it, but in this regard, I really see most of it eminating from the left n

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No doubt, there are those on the right also that want to see trump fail, and they’ll sacrifice their own party to do it, but in this regard, I really see most of it eminating from the left n

Because more on the left are honest about his participation in insurrection.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because more on the left are honest about his participation in insurrection.

If they are so honest, then why not just charge him with insurrection? I fail to see how this is an issue, if this is such an open and shut case, it should be very very easy for you all to get a charge and conviction. As far as I’m aware, trump, nor any of the J6 rioters have been charged with insurrection, they have been charged with seditious conspiracy, which is not a part of the 14th amendment. They keep saying “it was LIKE an insurrection, or linked to it”, but they stop short of actually labeling it insurrection.

There is a criminal law for insurrection, but nobody wants to use it. Why, after all of this time, are they avoiding it? Is it because they don’t think it will stick? If that’s the case, then it should give you an insight as to if they think it was actually an insurrection or not. With the left so giddy about the thought of trump in a prison cell, why not go with the criminal statute that could put him there?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If they are so honest, then why not just charge him with insurrection?

Because that's a mess they can avoid.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because that's a mess they can avoid.

But it’s a necessary mess if they want to disqualify him. Just saying he committed insurrection isn’t enough. He needs to be charged under the 14th amendment with insurrection, otherwise, you are leaving it all up to interpretation, and you are also saying that state courts can determine elections.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it’s a necessary mess if they want to disqualify him.

No it isn't. As you can see in Colorado and Maine.

And you are making silly errors. In your strange fatasyworld we are talking about, "the democrats" are a monolith that includes special prosecutors. That isn't how the real world works.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No it isn't. As you can see in Colorado and Maine.

And you are making silly errors. In your strange fatasyworld we are talking about, "the democrats" are a monolith that includes special prosecutors. That isn't how the real world works.

I know, I know, conviction isn’t required, dems can just say “it’s an insurrection” and that’s all that is required.

Ok, I’m on board, let’s get this party started. Texas is already seeking to remove Biden…once that happens, who else will follow suit? After all states disqualify their opposition candidates, who will be left with enough electoral votes to win.
?

Hell, I say, in light of the national popular vote compact that 18 blue states passed, I think these 26 red states just need to enter their own compact and just say they are going to award their electoral votes to then Republican candidate..

I mean, if were just going to let states determine who can and cannot be on the ballot, then I’m in…let’s do this..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know, I know, conviction isn’t required, dems can just say “it’s an insurrection” and that’s all that is required.

Then you are abjectly ignorant of current events and should not even be commenting. It's up to the courts. Please read up on the topic again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then you are abjectly ignorant of current events and should not even be commenting. It's up to the courts. Please read up on the topic again.

Has any court charged him with insurrection? Has any court charged him under the 14th amendment? Or did they do like Colorado and just “deem” he committed insurrection and remove him from the ballot?

They say he “engaged in insurrection”, but did so without ever charging him for that. So the whole case wasn’t about if he was guilty of insurrection, it was about removal from the ballot due to the “common knowledge” that he engaged in insurrection…but he has yet to be charged with it.

I have yet to understand how any of this is possible without a charge under the insurrection act, or under the 14th amendment. Again, are you suggesting that state courts can determine if a president is guilty of insurrection? Or in the case of Maine, that a Secretary of State can? In Maine, there wasn’t even a court case, right? They just did it…based off of what?
Colorados decision?

I’ve asked before, without a federal charge and conviction, then who’s right? Colorado is going to say he is guilty, but Texas will say he’s not…so who’s right? If you say “to each their own”, then you are literally saying that states can decide who will be allowed on the ballot. Is that a good thing? I think not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Has any court charged him with insurrection?

Irrelevant. Already covered.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Irrelevant. Already covered.

So we’re just going with any body, like a Secretary of State, being able to make their own decision about if someone committed insurrection? You do see how that’s a dangerous precedent right? As I’ve argued in other threads..that open a can of worms that many will not like.