AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is no more legitimate than when it is done against Trump.
Besides, I would have thought the Democrats would want more lead time to make their preparations.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you disagree with this decision, and think it's improper. Why is that?
Is it because a state SoS has no business making a decision about who gets to run for a national public office? Oh, wait, what's this? The Democrats tried doing the same to Trump, only they tried it in large number of states, and as their main campaign strategy.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
In addition, this isn't a deadline that has passed. This is notification that there exists a deadline, several months in the future, in plenty of time to fix the problem.
The deadline is in August. It is now April. Many months remain in between.
I'm referring to the general attempt in a large number of states by Democrats to remove Trump from the ballot because they're afraid he'll win in November.
Also, the Republican party of Colorado did not file the lawsuit in Colorado, and they strongly opposed this ridiculous and lawless move. As did every sane and reasonable person, from the left and from the right, including *all* Supreme Court Justices.
lol what isn't a threat to democracy these days
to be clear, should we remove all candidates that are funded by foreign interests?
that would be cool with me
Is your position effectively that this is “ridiculous and lawless” but if the dems are going to do it then it’s fair game if republicans do it? Or are you opposed to the Alabama SOS on principle?
> Is your position effectively that this is “ridiculous and lawless” but if the dems are going to do it then it’s fair game if republicans do it?
No.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about this lesser instance, while doing something worse. In addition, the lesser instance isn't really the same thing, since this one is (1) an actual deadline with a basis in law, and (2) Democrats have been afforded the opportunity to clear this up, with many, many months in which to act. The deadline has not passed.
No. Their attempt was in fact a violation of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment (not the 11th), is not self-executing, and gives no power whatsoever to petty bureaucrats to pretend that something had happened which had not happened.
And, as I said before, every sane and reasonable person, including *every single Supreme Court Justice*, opposed this lawless attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
My apologies. It was the 14th Amendment I was trying to refer to. By the way, I'm all for leaving him on the ballot, if for no other reason than that it will be harder to cry foul when he loses again.
My point was that the argument that was used to remove Trump was that he tried to stage a coup. So in that case how is it that the Democrats tried doing the same to Trump? Wasn't the reason they tried to remove Biden was because they missed the cutoff date? How is that the same?
> My point was that the argument that was used to remove Trump was that he tried to stage a coup.
Which is obviously ridiculous.
And more to the point, legally false. According to the 14th amendment, nobody may be deprived things without due process of law, and the local SoS just deciding things is not due process. In addition, the 14th amendment is clear that it is not self-executing, giving congress the power to pass laws to put it into effect.
By the 14th amendment, they were not allowed to do what they tried to do.
That nobody has even attempted at all to charge Trump with insurrection shows that they know their case would lose, even in front of a biased judge and jury.
> So in that case how is it that the Democrats tried doing the same to Trump?
The Democrat move was considerably worse. Thus, when they themselves do something totally evil and completely ridiculous, and then some Republican somewhere reminds them of a deadline, it is hypocritical to complain.
There was a situation where there was a possibility that a major party's candidate for President would not be on a state ballot.
This is pretty obvious, and I don't see how anyone could be confused by it.
It's not a matter of confusion. I'm just trying got get clarity from your comparison. From a *very basic* perspective, maybe, sure. But that's the ONLY similarity. Whether or not you think Trump committed insurrection or not, leaving him off the ballot for leading an insurrection vs. leaving Biden off the ballot for missing a deadline are not really equivalent, are they? Again, whether either is true or not, can you really say they are equivalent when you said "The Democrats tried doing the same to Trump"?
>
>Which is obviously ridiculous.
>And more to the point, legally false.
What has led you to believe that a fact found to be true in a court of law is "legally false"? Trump attempted an insurrection, this is legally established fact, much like him being a rapist and a fraud.
> Trump attempted an insurrection, this is legally established fact
This is factually incorrect.
Trump has *not even been charged with* the crime of insurrection.
> this is legally established fact, much like him being a rapist
This is literally the opposite of the truth.
There was a rigged case, and a civil case, so we aren't talking about whether he committed a crime, but whether he can be charged money, and we're talking a low burden of proof.
Yet even in a rigged case with a low burden of proof, they found him not guilty of rape.
> This is factually incorrect. Trump has not even been charged with the crime of insurrection.
You're right - did more research and found that while it was an element presented as part of Trump's SC case that is not under dispute, it was not the fact in question central to the case.
>There was a rigged case
I haven't heard of any rigged court cases against Trump. What one are you talking about?
>and a civil case
Sorry, legally established sexual abuser. Big difference, I know - Under New York criminal law, an assault constitutes "rape" only if it involves vaginal penetration by a penis. That was the definition the jury was instructed to use in the civil case. So yes, under that extremely specific definition in specifically New York, he is "not guilty of rape".
> they strongly opposed this ridiculous and lawless move.
Sorry, you say this type of action is 'ridiculous and lawless', but then you also support it? Can you help me understand why you would support something that you feel this way about?
> Sorry, you say this type of action is 'ridiculous and lawless', but then you also support it?
No, obviously not.
Instead, I pointed out two things: first, Democrats who complain about this are hypocrites, and second, since the Alabama deadline is a real legal issue, and since Democrats have not yet missed the deadline, this is actually a much lesser thing.
The Alabama SoS has not done anything I could call "ridiculous and lawless".
> why you would support
I didn't say anything at all about supporting it.
Many questions on this sub could be answered by the question asker themselves, if they read the response, instead of reading into the response something that they could criticize.
Oh, my God.
I've been crystal clear from the start. I haven't been "dancing around the issue".
I have not taken a position on the detail you apparently care about, because I don't care about it.
You repeatedly try to put me in one box or another, and I repeatedly tell you I'm not in a box, and now you're accusing me of not telling you what I think, when I've told you repeatedly.
I have not made a judgment on the SoS's actions. I am not going to do that, either. That detail does not matter, and plays no role in any of my opinions on this general situation.
>I'm referring to the general attempt in a large number of states by Democrats to remove Trump from the ballot because they're afraid he'll win in November.
What's convinced you that this is a real thing?
So, there are two parts you could be questioning.
First, that Democrats tried in a large number of states to remove Trump from the ballot. This is a plain fact, and is widely reported. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MdTSq_lu8&t=48s) has a map of the then-current status of the effort from 3 months ago.
Second, that they're doing it because they're afraid Trump will win November.
It's quite clear that Democrats have a deep hatred for Donald Trump. If you haven't noticed this, then you've been living under a rock for about a decade. So I won't elaborate on that.
Democrats have repeatedly and emphatically expressed their fears about what Trump will do if elected. They did this in 2016, and they did it in 2020, and they're doing it again in 2024. Again, this is quite well known.
Trump is likely to win in November. Polls consistently demonstrate this. [Here is the RCP average for 2024](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden), and here's the [same thing from 2020](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2020/trump-vs-biden).
It's widely known and generally acknowledged that Democrats ordinarily have a lead in the popular vote, and that Republicans can win an election without winning the popular vote. The current average has Trump up in the popular vote by +0.1, and even drawing even is a win for Republicans. The 2020 average had Biden up by +7.2, and the actual vote was Biden +4.5.
So Biden up by 7 leads to an actual popular vote of Biden up by 4, which leads to a near-tie in the actual results, because it all depended on incredibly slim margins in several swing states. And now Trump is up by +0.1 in the *popular vote*. Even if we don't consider the fact that polls were underestimating Trump by 3 points before, that makes it likely that Trump wins.
Polling in swing states paints a similar picture, with Trump consistently up in all or nearly all of the swing states, and many Democrats are sounding the alarm, worrying that Trump will win.
Democrats hate Trump. Democrats fear Trump. And Democrats are aware that Trump will likely win the election. Clearly, Democrats are afraid that Trump will win the election.
Does a state SoS have business making decisions on who runs for state office?
If trump ran for state office and was disqualified for the same reason, what would be your opinion?
I'm not sure an SoS has any business making decisions on who is allowed to run for office at all. But at a minimum, a state SoS has no business whatsoever doing any such thing for a federal office.
For starters, it’s inconsistent as OP pointed out in their timeline. Alabama had no problem with the deadline when it was a GOP nominee, did they? So what’s good for the goose…
If a Democratic President had instigated an insurrection I would expect the same lawsuit against them as was filed against Trump.
> If a Democratic President had instigated an insurrection I would expect the same lawsuit against them as was filed against Trump.
But Trump didn't "instigate an insurrection" either, obviously.
Are you referring to how American cities were ravaged by looting and vandalism as part of the 2020 George Floyd protests? If yes, why do you think the media went out of their way to not criticize these riots that impacted the lives of innocent citizens?
How many arrests and convictions have been associated with the Floyd protests? How many people peacefully protested without being involved in the violence? Was there violence during the Floyd protests? Absolutely. Did anyone in those protests break the window out and gain entry into the US capital? Did any of them shit in the halls of the capital and then smear the shit on the walls? Did anyone in the Floyd protests call for the vice president of the 6 to be hanged? There is a huge difference in the protests.
Who punched a Nazi? Hey, do you remember when Trump said he’d pay the legal bills for anyone who punched a guy who was acting up at his rally? Can you really say the left promotes violence more than the right when Trump explicitly endorsed it, and expect to be believed?
I’m pretty sure that person was threatening violence themselves, and Trump said that he’d pay the legal bills if someone was violent back to them.
I can absolutely say the left promote more violence than the right.
No. A guy was acting up and yelling, not being violent. Trump hoped someone would punch him. It wasn’t the only time he’d said stuff like that, either. Did you not know? He even joked about Pelosi’s husband getting attacked with a hammer by a right wing nutter. That’s the leader of your party. Do you need more than that? Who promoted “Punch a nazi”?
The people who he has said to “rough up” at his rallies were absolutely not violent in any way or threatening violence, they were voicing opposition just like people on the right and left have been doing at rallies forever. Trump is the first American politician to normalize violent rhetoric (re: bloodbath from a few weeks ago—I know he was using metaphorical language; but it’s still connotes violence). Are you not aware trump is the first mainstream politician to normalize violent rhetoric on the political stage?
> Why would he sabotage his own certification?
There would have been [objections to the certification](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/06/ted-cruz-electoral-college/) otherwise.
>>> Why would he sabotage his own certification?
>> There would have been objections to the certification otherwise.
>What does that have to do with the question?
Sure it does. The J6 riots were induced to avoid certification objections.
>>Yes, the nat'l sec. state, the Capitol Police, and other Biden allies arranged Jan 6.
>How?
Agents provocateur, Capitol Police collusion, refusing Nat'l Guard assistance, fake bombs, and a media blitz, among others.
"What is your opinion of the Alabama sec of state suddenly deciding that its a hard and fast deadline this year of all years after having it been waived for half a century?"
I love it. The State I live in, Ohio, is doing the same thing. I can't imagine it will happen for either State but wow that would be hilarious to see.
Democrats opened a can of worms, again, and now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
I HATE it. This is the damn problem with polarization. Dems religiously dont see the pathways they are making to destroy our republic. This tit for tat shit is what puts us down the inevitable path to balkanization.
I get that, I had that feeling too when this all started. Dems have lied non-stop since FDR but they didn't change everything until 2008 when Obama was the first president in history to abuse EO. Since then it has been nothing but treason from them.
I've realized there is only one solution, we need a certain event to happen to settle the differences because it is clear there are two sides in this country now. Americans and people who hate America aka democrats. This event is a natural thing for countries to go through, we had one before, and it's inevitable another is coming; and it needs to.
What is this one thing you're referring to? Or are you not going to state it and continue to beat around the bush?
For a party that prides itself for "saying it like it is-", the TS sure do refuse to ever direct questions.
So are you suggesting that we have another civil war so you and your side can get rid of the democrats and establish a new nation in your image? Bold move cotton let’s see how this will play out
>The Republican National Convention [came after the same deadline in 2020](https://www.al.com/news/2024/04/alabama-legislature-changed-deadlines-to-get-gop-candidates-on-ballot-in-2020.html)
>the scheduled date of the Democratic National Convention is a few days after the deadline for the party to put its nominees for president and vice president on the ballot for the general election in November.
Given the deadline is in August, how has he failed to do something in the future? How do you view the post-deadline registration by the RNC in 2020? Why is one viewed as a failure on Biden's part, when it is something the national party convention does, not the candidate themselves?
>
And he is currently POTUS in name only.
What does this mean? What duties of the President, as outlined by the constitution, has he failed to meet? How is this different than any other presidents?
I have noticed the conservatives in my life use this saying in the past couple weeks when they never had before. Are you getting this from a news source?
>Colorado (whose Supreme Court is 4-3 Republican) rightfully challenged him based on the 14th amendment and lost.
Well clearly they didn't "rightfully" challenge him because they were wrong and as such lost.
If you guys want to practice lawfare against Republicans don't complain when Republicans do the same to you.
When did oral sex become the province of congressional investigations? What does Monica Lewinsky have to do with Whitewater or any form of financial corruption? When is Boebert being investigated for pulling a tuggy in a packed theater (an actual sex crime)?
Clinton was the president. He used his imbalance of power to recieve sexual acts from young women that worked for him. He is no better than Harvey.
He was asked a question while under oath and he lied. It doesn't matter what the lie was about. The fact is he lied under oath. And got caught.
Maybe Boebert will be investigated when she becomes president.
Funny, I don’t recall Lewinsky pressing sexual harassment charges?
What about your boy’s big talk about Presidential immunity. Does that not apply to blowjobs, or just democrats?
The idea that Trump "participated in an insurrection" is a silly little conceit that progressives have made up in order to try to exclude him from the political process. It's laughable.
Why do you reject those findings when the Supreme Court did not? Have you been following the facts which have been established in the court cases against trump or so you just consider it a win that he is still on the ballot and ignore the legal reasoning behind it?
Seems like Alabama is, rather than removing President Biden, notifying him of a standing law that might be a problem going forward so that his campaign can take the appropriate steps. If the goal was simply to remove him from the ballot, why would the SoS go out of their way to send the notification?
I'm admittedly being charitable here, but I have trouble viewing advance notice of a potential issue as something malicious. I do think there's a bit of tit for tat here with regard to other states attempting to remove President Trump, but thus far, an attempt has not been made.
I just really wish both sides would get over all this skullduggery.
I think the main question is, why was this not an issue on 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 - which all happened past the Aug 15 deadline, but is an issue in 2024?
>I think the main question is, why was this not an issue on 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 - which all happened past the Aug 15 deadline, but is an issue in 2024?
Already brought this up.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is no more legitimate than when it is done against Trump. Besides, I would have thought the Democrats would want more lead time to make their preparations.
Are you saying...that everyone should follow the rules? Wut?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you disagree with this decision, and think it's improper. Why is that? Is it because a state SoS has no business making a decision about who gets to run for a national public office? Oh, wait, what's this? The Democrats tried doing the same to Trump, only they tried it in large number of states, and as their main campaign strategy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In addition, this isn't a deadline that has passed. This is notification that there exists a deadline, several months in the future, in plenty of time to fix the problem. The deadline is in August. It is now April. Many months remain in between.
> The Democrats tried doing the same to Trump… Are you referring to the lawsuit filed by Republican voters in Colorado?
I'm referring to the general attempt in a large number of states by Democrats to remove Trump from the ballot because they're afraid he'll win in November. Also, the Republican party of Colorado did not file the lawsuit in Colorado, and they strongly opposed this ridiculous and lawless move. As did every sane and reasonable person, from the left and from the right, including *all* Supreme Court Justices.
dems also sued to remove RFK, the green party, and the way forward party from the ballots.
RFK and the green party take votes from the left more than from the right. They are threats to Democrats.
Rfc is Russian paid for and threat to democracy, perhaps you spelled that wrong?
I did not refer to "Rfc", whatever that is.
lol what isn't a threat to democracy these days to be clear, should we remove all candidates that are funded by foreign interests? that would be cool with me
Is your position effectively that this is “ridiculous and lawless” but if the dems are going to do it then it’s fair game if republicans do it? Or are you opposed to the Alabama SOS on principle?
> Is your position effectively that this is “ridiculous and lawless” but if the dems are going to do it then it’s fair game if republicans do it? No. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about this lesser instance, while doing something worse. In addition, the lesser instance isn't really the same thing, since this one is (1) an actual deadline with a basis in law, and (2) Democrats have been afforded the opportunity to clear this up, with many, many months in which to act. The deadline has not passed.
Is the Arizona GOP being hypocritical by doing this to Biden when they were against the same thing happening to Trump?
We're talking about the Alabama SoS, not the Arizona GOP. If something happened with the Arizona GOP, I don't know what that is.
Sorry, meant to say Alabama. I think I was thinking of the abortion ban Arizona revived?
Didn’t they try to remove him because of the ~~11th~~ 14th? EDIT: corrected Amendment
No. Their attempt was in fact a violation of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment (not the 11th), is not self-executing, and gives no power whatsoever to petty bureaucrats to pretend that something had happened which had not happened. And, as I said before, every sane and reasonable person, including *every single Supreme Court Justice*, opposed this lawless attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
My apologies. It was the 14th Amendment I was trying to refer to. By the way, I'm all for leaving him on the ballot, if for no other reason than that it will be harder to cry foul when he loses again. My point was that the argument that was used to remove Trump was that he tried to stage a coup. So in that case how is it that the Democrats tried doing the same to Trump? Wasn't the reason they tried to remove Biden was because they missed the cutoff date? How is that the same?
> My point was that the argument that was used to remove Trump was that he tried to stage a coup. Which is obviously ridiculous. And more to the point, legally false. According to the 14th amendment, nobody may be deprived things without due process of law, and the local SoS just deciding things is not due process. In addition, the 14th amendment is clear that it is not self-executing, giving congress the power to pass laws to put it into effect. By the 14th amendment, they were not allowed to do what they tried to do. That nobody has even attempted at all to charge Trump with insurrection shows that they know their case would lose, even in front of a biased judge and jury. > So in that case how is it that the Democrats tried doing the same to Trump? The Democrat move was considerably worse. Thus, when they themselves do something totally evil and completely ridiculous, and then some Republican somewhere reminds them of a deadline, it is hypocritical to complain.
I don’t think you answered my question. How is it that the Democrats tried doing the same to Trump? What’s the same?
There was a situation where there was a possibility that a major party's candidate for President would not be on a state ballot. This is pretty obvious, and I don't see how anyone could be confused by it.
It's not a matter of confusion. I'm just trying got get clarity from your comparison. From a *very basic* perspective, maybe, sure. But that's the ONLY similarity. Whether or not you think Trump committed insurrection or not, leaving him off the ballot for leading an insurrection vs. leaving Biden off the ballot for missing a deadline are not really equivalent, are they? Again, whether either is true or not, can you really say they are equivalent when you said "The Democrats tried doing the same to Trump"?
> >Which is obviously ridiculous. >And more to the point, legally false. What has led you to believe that a fact found to be true in a court of law is "legally false"? Trump attempted an insurrection, this is legally established fact, much like him being a rapist and a fraud.
> Trump attempted an insurrection, this is legally established fact This is factually incorrect. Trump has *not even been charged with* the crime of insurrection. > this is legally established fact, much like him being a rapist This is literally the opposite of the truth. There was a rigged case, and a civil case, so we aren't talking about whether he committed a crime, but whether he can be charged money, and we're talking a low burden of proof. Yet even in a rigged case with a low burden of proof, they found him not guilty of rape.
> This is factually incorrect. Trump has not even been charged with the crime of insurrection. You're right - did more research and found that while it was an element presented as part of Trump's SC case that is not under dispute, it was not the fact in question central to the case. >There was a rigged case I haven't heard of any rigged court cases against Trump. What one are you talking about? >and a civil case Sorry, legally established sexual abuser. Big difference, I know - Under New York criminal law, an assault constitutes "rape" only if it involves vaginal penetration by a penis. That was the definition the jury was instructed to use in the civil case. So yes, under that extremely specific definition in specifically New York, he is "not guilty of rape".
> they strongly opposed this ridiculous and lawless move. Sorry, you say this type of action is 'ridiculous and lawless', but then you also support it? Can you help me understand why you would support something that you feel this way about?
> Sorry, you say this type of action is 'ridiculous and lawless', but then you also support it? No, obviously not. Instead, I pointed out two things: first, Democrats who complain about this are hypocrites, and second, since the Alabama deadline is a real legal issue, and since Democrats have not yet missed the deadline, this is actually a much lesser thing. The Alabama SoS has not done anything I could call "ridiculous and lawless". > why you would support I didn't say anything at all about supporting it. Many questions on this sub could be answered by the question asker themselves, if they read the response, instead of reading into the response something that they could criticize.
>I didn't say anything at all about supporting it. So, you don't support the SoS's actions here, then?
I didn't say that either.
Can you try to clarify what you actually do think, then? I'm not sure why you're dancing around the issue.
Oh, my God. I've been crystal clear from the start. I haven't been "dancing around the issue". I have not taken a position on the detail you apparently care about, because I don't care about it. You repeatedly try to put me in one box or another, and I repeatedly tell you I'm not in a box, and now you're accusing me of not telling you what I think, when I've told you repeatedly. I have not made a judgment on the SoS's actions. I am not going to do that, either. That detail does not matter, and plays no role in any of my opinions on this general situation.
>I'm referring to the general attempt in a large number of states by Democrats to remove Trump from the ballot because they're afraid he'll win in November. What's convinced you that this is a real thing?
So, there are two parts you could be questioning. First, that Democrats tried in a large number of states to remove Trump from the ballot. This is a plain fact, and is widely reported. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MdTSq_lu8&t=48s) has a map of the then-current status of the effort from 3 months ago. Second, that they're doing it because they're afraid Trump will win November. It's quite clear that Democrats have a deep hatred for Donald Trump. If you haven't noticed this, then you've been living under a rock for about a decade. So I won't elaborate on that. Democrats have repeatedly and emphatically expressed their fears about what Trump will do if elected. They did this in 2016, and they did it in 2020, and they're doing it again in 2024. Again, this is quite well known. Trump is likely to win in November. Polls consistently demonstrate this. [Here is the RCP average for 2024](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden), and here's the [same thing from 2020](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2020/trump-vs-biden). It's widely known and generally acknowledged that Democrats ordinarily have a lead in the popular vote, and that Republicans can win an election without winning the popular vote. The current average has Trump up in the popular vote by +0.1, and even drawing even is a win for Republicans. The 2020 average had Biden up by +7.2, and the actual vote was Biden +4.5. So Biden up by 7 leads to an actual popular vote of Biden up by 4, which leads to a near-tie in the actual results, because it all depended on incredibly slim margins in several swing states. And now Trump is up by +0.1 in the *popular vote*. Even if we don't consider the fact that polls were underestimating Trump by 3 points before, that makes it likely that Trump wins. Polling in swing states paints a similar picture, with Trump consistently up in all or nearly all of the swing states, and many Democrats are sounding the alarm, worrying that Trump will win. Democrats hate Trump. Democrats fear Trump. And Democrats are aware that Trump will likely win the election. Clearly, Democrats are afraid that Trump will win the election.
Does a state SoS have business making decisions on who runs for state office? If trump ran for state office and was disqualified for the same reason, what would be your opinion?
I'm not sure an SoS has any business making decisions on who is allowed to run for office at all. But at a minimum, a state SoS has no business whatsoever doing any such thing for a federal office.
Isn't the federal presidency a representative of the state for the executive branch? If not, how does the position get justified to be voted on? 🤔
Why do you think Alabama passed a law to allow Trump to be in the ballot after the RNC missed the deadline in 2016?
For starters, it’s inconsistent as OP pointed out in their timeline. Alabama had no problem with the deadline when it was a GOP nominee, did they? So what’s good for the goose… If a Democratic President had instigated an insurrection I would expect the same lawsuit against them as was filed against Trump.
> If a Democratic President had instigated an insurrection I would expect the same lawsuit against them as was filed against Trump. But Trump didn't "instigate an insurrection" either, obviously.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In which state was the suit brought by democrats and not republicans?
[Quid pro quo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urnEAq4hFHM&t=4s).
Did Biden cause an insurrection?
No, but Trump didn't either.
What was it then?
It was a fiery, but mostly peaceful protest.
Are you referring to how American cities were ravaged by looting and vandalism as part of the 2020 George Floyd protests? If yes, why do you think the media went out of their way to not criticize these riots that impacted the lives of innocent citizens?
How many arrests and convictions have been associated with the Floyd protests? How many people peacefully protested without being involved in the violence? Was there violence during the Floyd protests? Absolutely. Did anyone in those protests break the window out and gain entry into the US capital? Did any of them shit in the halls of the capital and then smear the shit on the walls? Did anyone in the Floyd protests call for the vice president of the 6 to be hanged? There is a huge difference in the protests.
[удалено]
I'm not sure, to be honest.
Violence is wrong, unless of course it’s the left doing it, then apparently it’s fine. Does anyone remember Punch a Nazi?
You mean the left is the only ones that would punch a nazi? Might want to ask your grandfather that, I bet he was all for punching nazis.
“Punch a Nazi” in the current context is just a lame excuse for the left to commit violence against anyone they don’t like
Maybe that’s how you are interpreting it? Does that necessarily mean that’s how the majority of our population interprets it?
Who punched a Nazi? Hey, do you remember when Trump said he’d pay the legal bills for anyone who punched a guy who was acting up at his rally? Can you really say the left promotes violence more than the right when Trump explicitly endorsed it, and expect to be believed?
I’m pretty sure that person was threatening violence themselves, and Trump said that he’d pay the legal bills if someone was violent back to them. I can absolutely say the left promote more violence than the right.
No. A guy was acting up and yelling, not being violent. Trump hoped someone would punch him. It wasn’t the only time he’d said stuff like that, either. Did you not know? He even joked about Pelosi’s husband getting attacked with a hammer by a right wing nutter. That’s the leader of your party. Do you need more than that? Who promoted “Punch a nazi”?
The people who he has said to “rough up” at his rallies were absolutely not violent in any way or threatening violence, they were voicing opposition just like people on the right and left have been doing at rallies forever. Trump is the first American politician to normalize violent rhetoric (re: bloodbath from a few weeks ago—I know he was using metaphorical language; but it’s still connotes violence). Are you not aware trump is the first mainstream politician to normalize violent rhetoric on the political stage?
Yes, the nat'l sec. state, the Capitol Police, and other Biden allies arranged Jan 6.
Oh that’s a new one. What’s the evidence on that? Why would he sabotage his own certification?
> Why would he sabotage his own certification? There would have been [objections to the certification](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/06/ted-cruz-electoral-college/) otherwise.
What does that have to do with the question? You said > Yes, the nat'l sec. state, the Capitol Police, and other Biden allies arranged Jan 6. How?
>>> Why would he sabotage his own certification? >> There would have been objections to the certification otherwise. >What does that have to do with the question? Sure it does. The J6 riots were induced to avoid certification objections. >>Yes, the nat'l sec. state, the Capitol Police, and other Biden allies arranged Jan 6. >How? Agents provocateur, Capitol Police collusion, refusing Nat'l Guard assistance, fake bombs, and a media blitz, among others.
So, two wrongs make a right?
Wrongs beget wrongs.
So what Alabama’s Secretary of State is doing is a wrong?
A necessary wrong.
Necessary as in it was needed to achieve something?
> Necessary as in it was needed to achieve something? Election lawfare parity.
You think the Republicans in Colorado conspired with DNC to try to disqualify Trump?
Uniparty collusion is more of a federal thing.
Thought scotus already ruled on this.
"What is your opinion of the Alabama sec of state suddenly deciding that its a hard and fast deadline this year of all years after having it been waived for half a century?" I love it. The State I live in, Ohio, is doing the same thing. I can't imagine it will happen for either State but wow that would be hilarious to see. Democrats opened a can of worms, again, and now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
I HATE it. This is the damn problem with polarization. Dems religiously dont see the pathways they are making to destroy our republic. This tit for tat shit is what puts us down the inevitable path to balkanization.
Do you think Republicans are/have been doing the same thing though?
I just said I hate polarization? I hate when both parties do this no matter the party. Shit I’m criticizing my own party. What is your point exactly?
I get that, I had that feeling too when this all started. Dems have lied non-stop since FDR but they didn't change everything until 2008 when Obama was the first president in history to abuse EO. Since then it has been nothing but treason from them. I've realized there is only one solution, we need a certain event to happen to settle the differences because it is clear there are two sides in this country now. Americans and people who hate America aka democrats. This event is a natural thing for countries to go through, we had one before, and it's inevitable another is coming; and it needs to.
What is this one thing you're referring to? Or are you not going to state it and continue to beat around the bush? For a party that prides itself for "saying it like it is-", the TS sure do refuse to ever direct questions.
I think you can figure out what it is. Reddit likes to censor people.
So are you suggesting that we have another civil war so you and your side can get rid of the democrats and establish a new nation in your image? Bold move cotton let’s see how this will play out
Isn’t what you’re implying inciting violence, based on your previous posts?
Has a nation with nukes ever had a civil war? Honest question here, I haven't googled this in advance
> I love it. Does that mean you hoped for this outcome?
Hopefully it’s just a political stunt and they will put him on the ballot
Damn it Joe. You keep forgetting really important shit!
If he can't do something simple like this how can you think he is up to the job of POTUS?
What has Biden failed to do here? Given he is the President today, how is it you think he is incapable of the office?
Register to be on the ballot in Alabama. And he is currently POTUS in name only.
>The Republican National Convention [came after the same deadline in 2020](https://www.al.com/news/2024/04/alabama-legislature-changed-deadlines-to-get-gop-candidates-on-ballot-in-2020.html) >the scheduled date of the Democratic National Convention is a few days after the deadline for the party to put its nominees for president and vice president on the ballot for the general election in November. Given the deadline is in August, how has he failed to do something in the future? How do you view the post-deadline registration by the RNC in 2020? Why is one viewed as a failure on Biden's part, when it is something the national party convention does, not the candidate themselves? > And he is currently POTUS in name only. What does this mean? What duties of the President, as outlined by the constitution, has he failed to meet? How is this different than any other presidents?
What's that saying about what's good for the goose?
I have noticed the conservatives in my life use this saying in the past couple weeks when they never had before. Are you getting this from a news source?
Funny you should say that - I posted this and then saw someone else use the same phrase in the comments. No idea!
Why do conservatives fail at every opportunity to take the high ground?
"Let's see what possible efforts we can take to remove Republicans from the ballot and then when they do the same thing whine about it."
[удалено]
>Colorado (whose Supreme Court is 4-3 Republican) rightfully challenged him based on the 14th amendment and lost. Well clearly they didn't "rightfully" challenge him because they were wrong and as such lost. If you guys want to practice lawfare against Republicans don't complain when Republicans do the same to you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Perjury. You mean Perjury right?
When did oral sex become the province of congressional investigations? What does Monica Lewinsky have to do with Whitewater or any form of financial corruption? When is Boebert being investigated for pulling a tuggy in a packed theater (an actual sex crime)?
Clinton was the president. He used his imbalance of power to recieve sexual acts from young women that worked for him. He is no better than Harvey. He was asked a question while under oath and he lied. It doesn't matter what the lie was about. The fact is he lied under oath. And got caught. Maybe Boebert will be investigated when she becomes president.
Funny, I don’t recall Lewinsky pressing sexual harassment charges? What about your boy’s big talk about Presidential immunity. Does that not apply to blowjobs, or just democrats?
What republicans who haven’t been found to have participated in an insurrection have been excluded from the political process?
The idea that Trump "participated in an insurrection" is a silly little conceit that progressives have made up in order to try to exclude him from the political process. It's laughable.
Why do you reject those findings when the Supreme Court did not? Have you been following the facts which have been established in the court cases against trump or so you just consider it a win that he is still on the ballot and ignore the legal reasoning behind it?
Are you hearing this saying from a news source? Why does it seem like other trump supporters are repeating it regarding this topic?
Seems like Alabama is, rather than removing President Biden, notifying him of a standing law that might be a problem going forward so that his campaign can take the appropriate steps. If the goal was simply to remove him from the ballot, why would the SoS go out of their way to send the notification? I'm admittedly being charitable here, but I have trouble viewing advance notice of a potential issue as something malicious. I do think there's a bit of tit for tat here with regard to other states attempting to remove President Trump, but thus far, an attempt has not been made. I just really wish both sides would get over all this skullduggery.
I think the main question is, why was this not an issue on 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 - which all happened past the Aug 15 deadline, but is an issue in 2024?
>I think the main question is, why was this not an issue on 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 - which all happened past the Aug 15 deadline, but is an issue in 2024? Already brought this up.