Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[Crick]

removing trump is doing what he has been accused of.....interfering in an election.....

How does that differ from what happened after 1865?

 

[Doc7505]

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​

~~~~~~
Fear mongering at its epitome.

 

[Crick]

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.

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?

 

[Harry Dresden]

How does that differ from what happened after 1865?

is removing him interfering in an election or not?....

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Trump's victory in Iowa was historic, no Republican ever won by that margin. Trump's presidency was historic, most of America wishes we had Trump's presidency back vs this clown Biden. Hey there's always Canada you could relocate up there.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Yeah, 80% of Americans disagree with you minimum.

 

[Phactotum]

Our choices for the presidency are not universal.

I did not get to see where this was ever Mr. Trump's claim, that the choices are universal. Do you have a link?

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.

I agree with this.
Although I am confused on the insurrection part. Every since that Colorado ruling I have searched everywhere for which parameters of the U.S. Constitution qualified a body of GOVT --that has found Mr. Trump guilty of insurrection.
I cannot find a thing. Do you have any links?

Also, since Mr. Trump's application to run was approved by the Fed Elect Comm, do you think people should not be allowed to see his name on ballots on should be allowed to see it?

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.

I agree with your aspect of who the disenfranchised voters would be. Do you think there are other types of voters who can be added to that group??

Not discounting your reputable source, then for this example perhaps Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries define 'disenfranchised' along the lines of being deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity... not having the right to vote, or a similar right, or having had that right taken away .
Some other types of voters who could be considered eligible for your list... can be those voters who cannot cast a vote because they feel that their candidate who the Fed Elect Comm approved, was not included on the ballot.

In a similar instance, I think it would be unfair if states usurp the U.S. Constitution and remove Biden from the 2024 ballot now ---just because Repubs in the House feel they have found proofs/evidence of Biden corruption as impeachable offenses.

 

[MisterBeale]

~~~~~~
Fear mongering at its epitome.

That's what I thought of when I read this thread.

Fear is a powerful motivator. It stops folks from thinking clearly.

The OP is actually putting forward the notion, that we should not allow a candidate that nearly half the nation wants to vote for, to replace the current president, on some abstract proposition that the riot that occurred on Jan. 6th rose to meet the definition of an, "insurrection," and that it also critically hinges on the actions of the former president. We are to all believe this, complete, without a judicial conviction/trial or a law passed by congress.

Talk about descending into a lawless banana republic.

It is, at this point, sort of obvious what is moving that sort of illogical lack of critical thinking. It has nothing to do with rational arguments anymore. I have even posted some rational arguments from the supposed establishment/left leaning paper of record. . . which normally, a member like this, you would think, would thank and appreciate me for.

But he doesn't want to read them/address them, because they are not like a security blanket, and do not make him feel better about the fear he is now experiencing after that first caucus, nor the prospects of the coming primaries nor the coming election.

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

It not only disenfranchises those who support him, it turns our nation from the great last hope of humanity and the beacon of democracy. . .

. . . . Into one more IMF, UN/World Bank globalist banana republic, whose government has been subverted and its people made into slaves.

 

[Mashmont]

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.

Um, the 2020 election was stolen. There can be no other way of explaining the anomalies.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE​

Of course it does. What a mindless OP thread headline.

 

[Delldude]

Removing Trump from the ballot disenfranchises no one.

What about all the Trump supporters? You are saying screw them, vote for some one else?

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.

Involved in?

No, it was his abysmal presidency followed by his attempted insurrection.

Based upon your above post.......what was it, an insurrection or an attempted insurrection?

How does that differ from what happened after 1865?

Well, in 1865, congress and President Lincoln made a formal declaration of an insurrection.
I haven't heard any declaration of an insurrection having occurred by the president or congress, only a couple stooge biased judges and a whole bunch of democrats................I don't think that meets the basis for an insurrection....by any means.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Exactly

If libs cant stuff enough phony mail-in votes in the next election they deserve to be thrown out of office

With biden being replaced by trump

 

[Crepitus]

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

NOpe, The constitution specifically says he isn't.

 

[BackAgain]

NOpe, The constitution specifically says he isn't.

Nope. The Constitution says absolutely no such thing.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yes, it's clear why you dummy-craps staged that insurrection.

So you could end elections in America forever.

You haven't a legal leg to stand on.

And if you ccksuckers pull this off you will start a civil war.


Anyone who says this kind of crap is right to my face will be spitting up teeth.

 

[Delldude]

NOpe, The constitution specifically says he isn't.

Specifically, where?

 

[yidnar]

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.

he didnt commit insurrection .

 

[GWV5903]

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.

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