Keeping Trump off the ballot disenfranchises NO ONE

[Flash]

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.

My god. You are just as stupid when it comes to politics as you are when it comes to Climate Science. You never get anything right, do you?

 

[berg80]

He wanted to make sure that all legal votes were counted and that statically zero illegal votes were counted.

He was given the opportunity to make his case over 60 times. He failed to do so for a lack of evidence. So he tried to steal the election by illegal means. Why do you find the facts so difficult to accept?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

No, the "insurrection" fantasy is in liberals heads, along with orange man doing the waltz 24/7. The obsession libs have with orange man is simply astounding.

 

[Crick]

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

You claim to be a poster named "Phactotum". Do you have a link?

The statement is a premise to my argument, not a claim of Trump's. It is, however, implicit in his contention that removing him from the ballot would disenfranchise voters.

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

Qualified a body of government for what?

--that has found Mr. Trump guilty of insurrection.
I cannot find a thing. Do you have any links?

The internet is filled with links providing legal definitions of insurrection. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

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.​

​

The text here does not require a conviction and when this restriction was used following the Civil War civil actions were brought to block the candidacies of Confederate insurrectionists who'd previously held office.

"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 oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act."​

​

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

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?

I believe the Federal Election Commission erred when they allowed his name to appear. I believe that Trump's insurrectionist activity disqualify him from ever holding office again with the US government. But that is not the point of the OP of this thread. The POINT of this thread is simply that removing him from the ballot in response to 14/3 disenfranchises no one.

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??

Perhaps, but, again, the point of the OP is that removing Trump from the ballot in response to 14/4 disenfranchises no one. THAT claim has been Trump's primary defense against this action.

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.

No, they cannot. They NEVER HAD A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

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.

Unfair? It would be illegal and unconstitutional. But, once again, that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is that removing Trump from the ballot in response to 14/3 - an extant Constitutional restriction - disenfranchises no one.

 

[Billiejeens]

He was given the opportunity to make his case over 60 times. He failed to do so for a lack of evidence. So he tried to steal the election by illegal means. Why do you find the facts so difficult to accept?

Because it's not accurate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Removing him is simply enforcing the clear requirements and prohibitions of the US Constitution.

you didnt answer my question.....is removing him from the election interfering with that election?...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our choices for the presidency are not universal...

As soon as some state DQs Biden, you will scream bloody murder.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The text here does not require a conviction....

Apparently, it just needs a determination by a secretary of state.
Thus, nothing prevents, say, the PA secretary of state from disqualifying Biden.

 

[Crick]

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

Are you suggesting that the OP is fear mongering? If so, please explain how.

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

Yes it does. Fear of immigrants. Fear of minorities. Fear of leftists and liberals and democrats. Fear of women. Fear of the young. Fear of the old. Fear of anyone different than you.

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.

Your contention is false in every regard. The OP is making the argument that IF Trump were removed from the ballot in response to the Constitutional restriction against insurrectionist oath-breakers holding office, that NO ONE would be franchised. In regards to your other commentary, the number of people that would like to vote for Trump does not change the law. The effort by the former president to overthrow the election by multiple means up to and including the incitement of violence against the Congress and his own vice president and including a long campaign attempting to sow distrust of the electoral process and a scheme to push false electors qualifies easily as an attempted insurrection and it has so been found. As noted a post or two above, the text of 14/3 does not require a conviction and it was used repeatedly during the Reconstruction Era in civil actions. Removal from the ballot does NOT require a conviction.

Talk about descending into a lawless banana republic.

The irony of people supporting Trump's Big Lie claiming that attempts to enforce the Constitution and the law in the face of his treason, are denigrating the US election process is simply stunning.

It is, at this point, sort of obvious what is moving that sort of illogical lack of critical thinking.

HAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa.... and you actually believe that YOU have demonstrated critical thinking here?

It has nothing to do with rational arguments anymore.

It would be hard to tell given than I've yet to run into a single person actually addressing my argument.

I have even posted some rational arguments from the supposed establishment/left leaning paper of record. . .

What the **** might be "the supposed establishment/left leaning paper of record"? And why mention it without a link?

which normally, a member like this, you would think, would thank and appreciate me for.

Jesus, you take the ******* cake. You want me to thank you for something you claim you did some other time, some other place, talking to someone else about some other topic? Well thank the holy **** out of you!!!

But he doesn't want to read them/address them, because

Because I haven't the faintest **** of an idea what you're talking about and you haven't provided a link. Are you talking about your earlier post in this thread with the news in review? If so, big whoop. I already read the news.

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.

They do not address the primary point of the OP. What is the title of this ******* thread mister moderator Beale? It is "KEEPING TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT DISENFRANCHISES NO ONE". Has ANYTHING you've said in any of your posts addressed that contention? No.

 

[Marener]

Apparently, it just needs a determination by a secretary of state.
Thus, nothing prevents, say, the PA secretary of state from disqualifying Biden.

Well, in 2020 you guys thought nothing prevented the SoS in states from throwing out thousands of Biden votes after the election because Trump said they were fraudulent.

 

[Crick]

Because it's not accurate.

How?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Take a breath, get away from the keyboard

 

[Billiejeens]

Are you suggesting that the OP is fear mongering? If so, please explain how.

Yes it does. Fear of immigrants. Fear of minorities. Fear of leftists and liberals and democrats. Fear of women. Fear of the young. Fear of the old. Fear of anyone different than you.

Your contention is false in every regard. The OP is making the argument that IF Trump were removed from the ballot in response to the Constitutional restriction against insurrectionist oath-breakers holding office, that NO ONE would be franchised. In regards to your other commentary, the number of people that would like to vote for Trump does not change the law. The effort by the former president to overthrow the election by multiple means up to and including the incitement of violence against the Congress and his own vice president and including a long campaign attempting to sow distrust of the electoral process and a scheme to push false electors qualifies easily as an attempted insurrection and it has so been found. As noted a post or two above, the text of 14/3 does not require a conviction and it was used repeatedly during the Reconstruction Era in civil actions. Removal from the ballot does NOT require a conviction.

The irony of people supporting Trump's Big Lie claiming that attempts to enforce the Constitution and the law in the face of his treason, are denigrating the US election process is simply stunning.

HAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa.... and you actually believe that YOU have demonstrated critical thinking here?

It would be hard to tell given than I've yet to run into a single person actually addressing my argument.

What the **** might be "the supposed establishment/left leaning paper of record"? And why mention it without a link?

Jesus, you take the ******* cake. You want me to thank you for something you claim you did some other time, some other place, talking to someone else about some other topic? Well thank the holy **** out of you!!!

Because I haven't the faintest **** of an idea what you're talking about and you haven't provided a link. Are you talking about your earlier post in this thread with the news in review? If so, big whoop. I already read the news.

They do not address the primary point of the OP. What is the title of this ******* thread mister moderator Beale? It is "KEEPING TRUMP OFF THE BALLOT DISENFRANCHISES NO ONE". Has ANYTHING you've said in any of your posts addressed that contention? No.

What is the relevance that you see in focusing so Cult-like to the one word "disenfranchises"

Is this just some theoretical exercise with no real-world implications?

 

[Billiejeens]

How?

Because none of the things listed, actually happened.

 

[Crick]

you didnt answer my question.....is removing him from the election interfering with that election?...

No. If SCOTUS find he should be removed, then he was never in the election.

 

[Crick]

WEF/Democrats have a black swan event planned to bring in lockdowns and mail-in voting.

What political campaign doesn't hope to create a black swan event? Do you think the RNC won't be trying just as hard?

 

[Crick]

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

Who is fear mongering and how?

 

[Billiejeens]

No. If SCOTUS find he should be removed, then he was never in the election.

That is obviously not true.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No. If SCOTUS find he should be removed, then he was never in the election.

thats not what you said above.....and yes whether we like it or not or no matter how they rule......he is in this election.... removing the no.1 person is interfering in that election....

 

[Crick]

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

Do the Constitution's requirements that a presidential candidate be 35 years of age or older, a naturalized citizen and a resident of at least 14 years standing disenfranchise voters who might want to elect someone who doesn't meet those qualifications? YES or NO?

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

By following the edicts of the US Constitution?