Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[BS Filter]

Trump is much worse than Biden. And Trump is beginning from a place of serious ignorance regarding governing, history, geography, human events and world affairs while Biden, through years of political service, is expert in all those fields.

Biden is in cognitive decline. If you can't admit that then you really shouldn't be here.

 

[Crick]

Your statement, above, and thus your premise, is false..
We have the - absolute right - to vote for whomever we want; the states are charged with ensuing that right is protected.

Could you show us the text where this "absolute right" is spelled out?

The 14:3 divisibility you cite prohibits someone from taking office.

Divisibilty? Did you mean "disability"?

It does not apply to running for office.

Don't be foolish. If you cannot hold an office, you are not allowed to run for it. At the very least, the state isn't going to bother counting your votes.

it does not apply to winning an election for office.

You cannot hold an office (that which is precluded) if you do not first win the office.

Only taking office.

Oi...

As such, the states do not have standing under 14:3 to remove him from their ballots, as the 14th Amendment does not yet apply.

I'm sorry but that's just ignorant trollop

If he is elected and takes office, someone will sue in federal court, and, eventually, the USSC will decide if he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
If so, then he will be removed, and the VP will take over.

Nope. If SCOTUS or the states decide he is not qualified, he will not be allowed to run. Period.

 

[Crick]

Ummmmmmmmmmm, these betting odds have nothing to do with the stock market. But, it does go to show that those who have millions or billions at stake, are betting the odds are that Trump will win in 2024. They make the odds so they can't lose. They are the professionals and betting professionals who make the odds, pick Trump to win.

I bet you the odds change every day till November 3rd, 2024.

 

[MinTrut]

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.

If your post were a boat, and the large number of fallacies within it breaches of its hull, it would be long past sunk.

But this is USMB, so a gaggle of idiots will choose to engage your gaggled idiocy.

So y'all have fun.

 

[BS Filter]

Could you show us the text where this "absolute right" is spelled out?

Divisibilty? Did you mean "disability"?

Don't be foolish. If you cannot hold an office, you are not allowed to run for it. At the very least, the state isn't going to bother counting your votes.

You cannot hold an office (that which is precluded) if you do not first win the office.

Oi...

I'm sorry but that's just ignorant trollop

Nope. If SCOTUS or the states decide he is not qualified, he will not be allowed to run. Period.

If Trump is taken off the ballot the people will write him in. Count on it. Trump voters are pretty much fed up with being told what they can and cannot do by a bunch of corrupt leftist lawyers.

 

[Crick]

No you didn't. You won it by 48,000 votes, spread over three states. You hate Trump, we understand. That's no reason to disenfranchise the 75 million of us that support him.

We will not be disenfranchising you no matter what happens. Disenfranchisement was what Trump and his supporters in Congress were trying to do. We're just trying to make certain that a known traitor doesn't get put back into the Oval Office. You can vote for anyone on your ballot, just like every other election in which you've ever voted.

 

[BS Filter]

I bet you the odds change every day till November 3rd, 2024.

Biden isn't going to make it to the convention.

 

[Crick]

This, of course, is your emotionally driven opinion. It is going to the SCOTUS to sort out.

Please look at the URL from which this snippet comes.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically,one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oustofficials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat​

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20does%20not%20expressly%20require,to%20refuse%20to%20seat%20Members.

The NYT, the Wall Street Journal, and WaPo, are generally considered teh "papers of record," among the ruling elite, scholarly academics, and business professionals. You already addressed the quoted Harvard Law professor from the NYT post, and implied that your opinion was to be thought more compelling than his learned opinion. There isn't much more to discuss.

I have never heard that term for those papers so if you want to refer to them to me, you may still have to use their actual titles. Links would help as well. As for your Harvard professor, I did not address one word towards his article except to say that it lacked the meat and potatoes for a debate. I did not mean to imply I knew better than him, simply that I knew better than you what I wanted to talk about in my own thread.

 

[Crick]

/——/ 7 million votes and yet Dementia Joes approvals are swirling down the toilet. Not even you are dumb enough to believe that he got 81 million legit votes.

I believe precisely that, as does every objective election expert that has examined the proceedings. The problem here is that YOU are dumb enough to believe the biggest lies from the biggest liar in modern history.

 

[Crick]

/——-/ Tell Toes Up that:

Scared as heck’​

Trump’s pursuit of a strongman presidency has some Democrats worried. Vice President Kamala Harris confessed this week she was “scared as heck” that Trump could win in November.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/politics/trump-power-2024-global-leaders/index.html

MSN

www.msn.com

I don't want Trump to win. I want him to go to jail. But if he should manage to win, I will sit back and see what the lot of YOU think of the consequences. Let's see just how great Trump will make America once again.

 

[BS Filter]

I believe precisely that, as does every objective election expert that has examined the proceedings. The problem here is that YOU are dumb enough to believe the biggest lies from the biggest liar in modern history.

Joe isn't going to get 81 million votes this time. I guarantee that.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't want Trump to win. I want him to go to jail. But if he should manage to win, I will sit back and see what the lot of YOU think of the consequences. Let's see just how great Trump will make America once again.

Lower taxes, end of wars, lower inflation, booming economy, affordable housing.

 

[yidnar]

Actually, YOU sound a little nervous. And he may well be on all ballots. I have very, very little faith in the integrity of the current SCOTUS. I am only making the argument here that the Constitution's restriction on insurrectionists who violated an oath to the US Constitution (like Trump) is no more disenfranchising than the Constitution's other restrictions on who can hold the office of the presidency. No one has yet to address that point. Instead I have had to respond to lies, misstatements and personal attacks. What a surprise.

what Crick [aka Prick] fails to realize is that Trump hasnt even been charged with insurrection much less convicted ..

 

[MisterBeale]

Please look at the URL from which this snippet comes.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically,one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oustofficials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat​

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20does%20not%20expressly%20require,to%20refuse%20to%20seat%20Members.

I have never heard that term for those papers so if you want to refer to them to me, you may still have to use their actual titles. Links would help as well. As for your Harvard professor, I did not address one word towards his article except to say that it lacked the meat and potatoes for a debate. I did not mean to imply I knew better than him, simply that I knew better than you what I wanted to talk about in my own thread.

. . . as I already wrote, you will have to wait for Congress or the SCOTUS to weigh in, deal with it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This is the system that your people created. Embrace it.

Eh? “My people” didn’t create this shit show. That was the left through and through. They are the ones who say you don’t need a charge to punish someone, that a judge, or a Secretary of State can remove someone from the ballot. That was the left, not the right.

This is all on you, as is the potential for future “in kind” actions by the right. If it happens, you all wanted it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree. And, of course, Both Trump and Bush Jr took office with a minority of the popular vote, which I find a more serious problem. I personally think we should have gone to direct elections years ago. I believe the Electoral College was established in order to maintain the control of the elite.

You realize that even direct elections will not eliminate that problem. If you get 51% for Candidate A and 49% for Candidate B, those 49% get their votes trashcanned. But that's how democracy works. I like Ranked Choice voting. It could make a lot of people happier with any given outcome.

The US has four times the population of Germany and more than 56 times that of Denmark. We're all aware of the problem. What's needed is some solutions. Got any?

Proportional Representation works differently.

Say you have 6 parties and party A get 35% of the vote, they'll get about 36% of the seats. Doesn't work on candidates at all. Parties stand for policies, not candidates.

The US presidential election will be different if there's PR in the House, with more parties. Really the presidency should be scrapped or changed to something like the Swiss system. Either have a Prime Minister who's in the House and running the country, or have people chosen from the House to make up a multi-person executive.

The population of the US doesn't matter. It doesn't change how Proportional Representation works. The solution I have is Proportional Representation.

 

[tahuyaman]

I don't have to be smart to stand out in this ******* crowd.

You do stand out. Not in a good way, but you do stand out.

 

[tahuyaman]

Nine federal judges have now concluded that Trump did commit insurrection. BLM conducted peaceful social protest.

There has not been one charge that Trump or anyone participated in an insurrection. I know that you’re an idiot and can’t comprehend that, but it’s a fact.

Federal judges don’t have the authority to prosecute anyone. Their job is to hear cases and judge on the facts presented, you freaking idiot.

 

[dblack]

Biden is in cognitive decline. If you can't admit that then you really shouldn't be here.

If we're sitting around debating who's worse, can't we agree that neither should be in the ballot? Why are we seriously considering either?

 

[tahuyaman]

I agree. And, of course, Both Trump and Bush Jr took office with a minority of the popular vote, which I find a more serious problem….

Bill Clinton never received a majority of the vote either, you dumb-ass.