Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[Edgetho]

What a idiot, I think that this has been used to keep a half dozen people out of office and I don't think any of them were found guilty in a court of law for being a insurrectionist. so we know for a fact that what you are saying is 100% bullshit. YUK YUK!!!!!!! By the way A insurrectionist from Jan 6th was thrown out of office in New Mexico for being a insurrectionist. Two courts other then that have proclaimed Jan 6th as being a insurrection.

Your usual uninformed stupidity.

Since 1919, it's only happened one time. In THE most corrupt dimocrap state in the Union, New Mexico, to keep a COUNTY COMMISSIONER who was ON THE GROUND LEADING PROTESTERS!!!!

 

[SeaMajor7]

Get this straight the right has abandoned democracy when they supported Trump with their signatures to over turn the election . and we all know it was a lie something the court in 60 cases have verified. The voters on the right know they are putting a dictator into office by their willingness to elect Trump. and they choose to do just that to stay in control. This is the only threat in my lifetime on overthrowing our country and it's democracy. Remember if Trump loses or if Trump is backed into a corner he will ask the MAGA;s to kill for him and they will.

I know you demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombies are short on self-awareness, but just so you know, your posts make it seem that you are a PSYCHOPATH.
Get well soon.

 

[meaner gene]

Accrding to YOU:
Actually the constitution doesn't give a minimum age to RUN for president, only a minimum age to exercise the powers of the president

Do I need to explain to you how this applies here, or do you see how you make my argument for me?

As I said, states run elections. And they determine a candidate isn't eligible to appear on their ballots, that person doesn't appear on their ballots. If they by law don't count write-in votes, they don't count write-in votes.

You can't force a state to violate their election laws, unless they are in violation of federal law, or the Constitution.

And limiting candidates to "eligible" candidates doesn't violate federal law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The states write their election laws according to both constitutions. If their law says they don't count write-in votes, they don't count write-in votes.

People have the -absolute right - to write in anyone they want.
If the state does not count and record legal votes, the state has violated the rights of the voters of the state.
Which states violate this right in this way?

If their law says that only "eligible" candidates may appear on their ballots, then only "eligible" candidates appear on the ballot.

With relevance, let's look at one of these states-- Maine:

Title 21-A, §554: Exclusion from nomination, election and service

legislature.maine.gov

How does this apply here?

 

[MisterBeale]

Trump attempted to replace a large number of policy heads at the Pentagon in his last three months. And the planning to have no one but completely loyal peons in every position of Executive Branch power have been underway since the day he lost.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said,...

As you said:
Actually the constitution doesn't give a minimum age to RUN for president, only a minimum age to exercise the powers of the president

How does this not also apply to Amendment 14$3?

 

[Orangecat]

It’ll be nice when the SCOTUS puts an end to all these lawsuits awful idiot troll threads.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The states write their election laws according to both constitutions. If their law says they don't count write-in votes, they don't count write-in votes.

You've reached the point where you are stonewalling as a means to avoid the issue.
I accept your concession.

 

[meaner gene]

With relevance, let's look at one of these states-- Maine:

Title 21-A, §554: Exclusion from nomination, election and service

legislature.maine.gov

How does this apply here?

The Maine law is more than clear.

§554. Exclusion from nomination, election and service

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who is prohibited from service in an office as set forth in section 553 may not be nominated for or elected to that office. A responsible electoral official may not accept or certify such a person's nomination or nomination petition for an office subject to this chapter. A responsible electoral official may not print or cause to be printed such a person's name on a ballot, ballot label, calendar or other similar instrument for election to an office subject to this chapter. This section applies to nominations occurring and ballots printed after January 1, 1996.

 

[MisterBeale]

Everyone keep in mind that these people aren't just the opposition, or the other side of the isle or people with just a different opinion, These people support a mad man who couldn't make it clearer what he will do if he is put back into office. What do you think this pile of shit will do when he loses the next election , step aside honorably ore would he do more of the same and as he put it , he loves the poorly educated people , gee I wonder why. These people by far are this country biggest threat and enemy and when asked will kill for him and he will ask them to if he is backed into a corner. Trump warns of death and destruction if found guilty of a crime. He says he can kill all his proponents while president and nothing will happen unless they can impeach him.
The total humor in this is that this guy mister beale says I'm the propagandist , Do you think This guy thinks we should vote for this criminal rapist.

 

[Edgetho]

I know you demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombies are short on self-awareness, but just so you know, your posts make it seem that you are a PSYCHOPATH.
Get well soon.

No, just retarded. Mentally handicapped.

These people, the brain-damaged, the FAS-Impaired (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) have always been the preferred bomb-throwers of terrorist scum, which the dimocrap FILTH party is.

In Asscrackistan, Iraq, Syria, Viet Nam, Gaza -- You name it, terrorists would find these people and brain wash them. Tell them that their impairments, their situations, aren't their fault. That they're just like everybody else but are being held back because 'They are special' and civilized society is just mean. Or racist. Or transphobic. Or Homophobic. How many times do you hear that. They're 'special' not deviants, not retarded, not morons -- Special.

In Asscrackistan, they'd strap a bomb to them and send them out. Here, they send them to Antifa and BLM. Or if they're literate, to USMB.

Or Washington, DC

 

[Crick]

If you can't legally stop someone from running for president its a "de facto" right, even if not "enumerated" in the Constitution.

The criteria for presidential candidacy are lain out in Section II and the 14th Amendment. Anyone who meets those criteria, can be president. We've heard that from every TV show in history.

We have the right to eat and breathe and go potty even though they are not enumerated..

In our legal system, if it isn't specifically illegal, it is allowed.

 

[Crick]

Naturally. Yaor logic is so much more airtight than a Harvard Law professor.

The point was that it was all well-viewed news. I'd have rather had your opinions.

 

[Crick]

There was no insurrection on Jan 6th. Trump never declared that he was overthrowing the country. However, he did say the it was a peaceful and patriotic protest. You know, like BLM.

I'm sure you've heard the arguments going in the other direction. The Supreme Court of Colorado and Maine's Secretary of State found them convincing.

 

[Crick]

He's eligible to run.
And everyone has a right to vote for him.
The disability claimed here only comes into play if he is actually elected.

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.

I think it is a reasonable holding by state or federal election authorities that if someone cannot hold an office, there is no point in allowing them to run in an election.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 reads

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Also states its restriction as to holding the office, not running for election. Yet no one who failed to meet those criteria would be allowed to run.

 

[Crick]

What disability is that?

It is a term used for the restrictions of 14/3

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think it is a reasonable holding by state or federal election authorities that if someone cannot hold an office, there is no point in allowing them to run in an election.

Your opinion?
Thanks.

Fact remains - your statement....
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.
...is false.
Any premise supported by a false argument is unsound.

We have the -absolute- right to vote for whomever we choose; a disqualification from holding office does not disqualify someone from running in, or even winning, an election.
As such, your opinion holds no water.

 

[MisterBeale]

The point was that it was all well-viewed news.

Indeed. That was my whole point. Propaganda drives the narrative.

The Media Matrix

Thanks go to Natural Citizen for these links. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/15002 https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/15002/14852

www.usmessageboard.com

Propaganda (1928)​

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)

www.historyisaweapon.com

Contents

I. ORGANIZING CHAOS
II. THE NEW PROPAGANDA
III. THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS
IV. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
V. BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC
VI. PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
VII. WOMEN'S ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
VIII. PROPAGANDA FOR EDUCATION
IX. PROPAGANDA IN SOCIAL SERVICE
X. ART AND SCIENCE
XI. THE MECHANICS OF PROPAGANDA

I'd have rather had your opinions.

You have already had it. You don't like it, so you ignore it.

 

[Edgetho]

Indeed. That was my whole point. Propaganda drives the narrative.

The Media Matrix

Thanks go to Natural Citizen for these links. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/15002 https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/15002/14852

www.usmessageboard.com

Propaganda (1928)​

Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)

www.historyisaweapon.com

Contents

I. ORGANIZING CHAOS
II. THE NEW PROPAGANDA
III. THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS
IV. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
V. BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC
VI. PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
VII. WOMEN'S ACTIVITIES AND PROPAGANDA
VIII. PROPAGANDA FOR EDUCATION
IX. PROPAGANDA IN SOCIAL SERVICE
X. ART AND SCIENCE
XI. THE MECHANICS OF PROPAGANDA


You have already had it. You don't like it, so you ignore it.

IOW,

He Who Tells The People What To Think Does Not Need To Be King

 

[Delldude]

WHAT? The qualifications for candidacy are clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

This would have to be decided by the courts prior to a decision:

It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it.

The FBI, investigating for the DOJ, found no evidence of an insurrection.

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

www.reuters.com

FBI finds scant evidence Jan. 6 attack was coordinated: Reuters

The FBI has found little evidence at this point to suggest that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was largely coordinated by supporters of former President Trump or right-wing groups, according…

thehill.com

Sorry, but they did not. You have been taken in by another piece of right-wing misinformation. See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/04/fbi-conspiracy-jan-6-attack-misinformation/

You post crap from a a poll as evidence there was an insurrection? You pop a gasket or something?

What article?

The source for your post. It's becoming apparent you didn't read it in it's entirety.

But a conviction is not required by the text of the Amendment.

The text of the amendment was examined by the author of your sourced article. That is one of the issues I pointed out that she had claimed hasn't been addressed by any court.

I agree. It is not well written.

It is a very well written examination the hows and whys regarding the 14th as being the final answer to this issue.
She points out, as I quoted in several instances, their is no cut and dried resolution to this issue other than a determination by SCOTUS.


And I have a pretty good idea SCOTUS will not provide an interpretation of the 14th and will rule on legal standing only.