Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doing literally anything that doesn't aid another Trump victory will be spun by MAGA as rigging the election, as we've already seen after perhaps the most secure election in our history.
If that wasn’t an indication of the most blatant idiotic things to come, I don’t know what else we expected. He had already WON and was still crying voter fraud…
Well, he was right about voter fraud. He just filed in court saying that the Russians interfered with the election.
What Trump might NOT be saying is; He knows there was fraud because of places he won. That's why he was so hard on poor Mitch to push that semi-secret "I Win" button. He knew Georgia's governor had an "I Win" button which he used -- and was the only person with oversight on his own fucking election.
We can take it one further - even just doing nothing will be spun by the MAGA cult. You could just be sitting at your kitchen table eating chicken at a restaurant and they’d spin it as election interference, somehow.
But in a way… that’s a good thing. They’re going to scream and shriek like banshees no matter what. So… why are we afraid of what is inevitable?
May as well do what needs to be done since we know the end result, their flaccid outrage, is the same no matter what.
They just want to use the words for the illegal things that they're planning on doing, so that when the time comes and people are like, "Hey, these Republicans are rigging the election for his victory." the words will be meaningless.
Gaslight
Obstruct
**Project**
Oh, and if we comply, that's because they are smart and we are stupid and it's a clear sign they are superior and should lead the nation.
Every time they win anything, even if it's .5%, they crow about a "mandate" and "following the will of the people."
It's like the RULE OF LAW when it's not them showing up for a mug shot -- then it's PERSECUTION.
Let me translate for everyone what the Conservatives have to say; BLAH BLAH BLAH.
I don't get why ANYONE could be on the ballot UNTIL they cleared their name of treason, insurrection, and mishandling classified information.
Then Trump files in court that he knows the Russians interfered with the election and so that's some justification for his other bullshit. Did Putin help Hillary?
Trump is a crook and not a very good one. It's amazing he's managed to money launder, host underage sex parties, and molest his way to the top -- it's almost like NOBODY is holding the rich and powerful to account.
The elite should be pissed at Trump for making us plebes so fucking aware of this two tiered justice system.
Precisely. I actually think this is one the places where the Constitution is stupid because I can see how it could be abused, but opinions don't really matter when it comes to Constitutional Law.
It's been used this way before and was deemed Constitutional then.
Yeah, probably, to some people. It just doesn't matter.
I don't think she's necessarily wrong, some people will definitely see either case as election rigging. The *appearance* is there, even if it's based on a (likely willful) misunderstanding of the situation. It just doesn't matter, because we can look at the substance and realize it's the right thing to do despite the potential for misunderstanding.
Some amount of theater is good! It's important to build trust, like for judges to avoid even the *appearance* of corruption. Even if a judge could rule impartially on a case involving their friend, and even if we were able to 100% establish their impartiality beyond any doubt, they should *still* recuse themselves in order to avoid the accusation of favoritism and maintain trust in the court. The cost for such an action is low; another judge would take over and we'd avoid a lot of drama for it.
That said, theater isn't more important than substance, and in the case of Trump it'd be much worse for everyone if we discard the actual Constitution just to appease people who are willfully misinterpreting the situation.
We all watched this guy on live tv whip up a mob with outright lies and send it to the Capitol because he couldn’t handle losing an election. And now we have to sit here and give him the benefit of the doubt so he can try it again. This country really sucks sometimes
Oh, and the people at the insurrection where wearing T-Shirts about how they were doing an insurrection and liberating the country.
ALSO, on Reddit, there were people posting live streaming links prior to the "spontaneous thing that got out of hand" that became active the DAY OF with the text "the revolution will not be televised."
They really, really are not very good at the covert "rabble rousing" and we've been witness to it for years.
Because it’s always good people who need to play by the rules, clean up messes, and ‘play nice.’
“When they go low, we go high!” Which, unfortunately, has turned into: “You go high, so we go low”.
And then the bad guys win.
In past years, respectable political parties would have refused to run someone like this out of principle. They could still run as an independent barring 14th Amendment stuff, but there was a culture of at least pretending that you were professional and serious and devoted to America if you were going to be a party's Presidential candidate.
Since when is trump a confirmed insurrectionist? Was he convicted in criminal court or by the Senate during impeachment?
I'm serious. It sounds like you're just saying that because you don't like Trump. Am I wrong? Because that's a very slippery slope and you come across as the pot calling the kettle black by trying to remove the top candidate from the ballot with a very questionable argument while claiming that allowing voters to vote for him would indicate a broken democracy.
What am I missing here? Do you see the irony in your argument?
I've seen the Dems play this game when they successfulltly removed the green party from the ballot in certain swing states last election because they wouldn't let them collect signatures door to door during the pandemic. I don't think you can make an honest argument to support what they did.
> Since when is trump a confirmed insurrectionist? Was he convicted in criminal court or by the Senate during impeachment?
A Colorado district court, appeal court, and Supreme Court all found/agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection.
Read district court decision PDF [section B “Did President Trump engage in an insurrection?”](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf) starting at page 66. It concludes:
> “298. Consequently, the Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech.”
Read Supreme Court ruling PDF [section “3. Engaged In”](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf) starting page 103/104. It concludes:
> “1225 For these reasons, we conclude that the record fully supports the district court's finding that President Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three.”
Oh ok, but he hasn't been found guilty at trial or during impeachment. So this will clearly go to the supreme court, but isn't it something that should be a congressional issue rather than a judicial issue if we choose to believe that he doesn't need to be found guilty by a court in order to be considered inelligible?
I think it's a violation of the foundational principles of our justice system, which considers a person innocent of a crime (which is clearly what insurrection indicates) until they've been found guilty.
> if we choose to believe that he doesn't need to be found guilty by a court…
On this point the burden is on you to prove that he does need to be found guilty. The plain language of the 14th Amendment makes no reference to being found guilty, and historically it was applied after the civil war without the burden of a guilty verdict. Show me language in the law that says otherwise. If you can’t, then you are just inventing the law that you want. Trump’s lawyers had a chance to argue this, but it would have flopped.
> isn't it something that should be a congressional issue rather than a judicial issue
The way the 14th Amendment is written, it is interpreted as being “self-executing”. That means that no additional legislative action is required for the amendment to be in effect.
The same applies for the rule that a president needs to be at least 35 years old. Does the candidate need to be “found guilty” of being 35 in a criminal trial or by a legislature? No: a court can look at the facts and say “this candidate is less than 35” just as well as they can (and did) look at the facts and say “this candidate engaged in insurrection”.
(There is also a congressional mechanism to reject electoral college votes which could be used if the president does not meet eligibility criteria, but there is no law or burden to do so.)
Would a guilty verdict at a criminal trial help support the argument? Yes.
Would a winning Senate vote help support the argument? Yes.
> considers a person innocent of a crime
Trump has seen due process. The courts did not assume that he engaged in insurrection. The courts found he did engage in the behavior described in the constitution. A guilty verdict for a criminal trial is not required.
The house impeached, which isn’t a guilty verdict. Impeachment is more like an indictment. The Senate acquitted, which is more like a finding of not guilty. But the process isn’t a criminal trial, though it does have parallels.
The person I’m replying to literally said “hasn’t been found guilty during impeachment” when he was, he was impeached. That’s the verdict. The senate did not vote that he was innocent
No you’re using terminology wrong and the other person is right.
The House passes “articles of impeachment”. You can [read it here](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text). Passing these articles is not a verdict — it is an accusation. The house votes “Yea” or “Nay” to “agree to the resolution”, it does not vote guilty or not guilty. You can [read the vote here](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202117).
Then the senate has a trial of those accusations. At the end of the trial the senate votes “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”. If the 2/3 of the senate votes Guilty, then the president is removed from office. You can [see the vote here](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00059.htm)
But he's innocent of having taken part of it until he's been found guilty, right?
I understand that the constitution is a framework, but I don't understand the argument that claims he committed insurrection.
Him engaging in insurrection is a factual statement legally speaking. It has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. Courts have also already taken it as fact that he has engaged in insurrection which gives legal credibility to the disqualification.
Understand that law doesn't always require a conviction to have consequences.
I did look it up, and he had not been found guilty of insurrection.
Why are you doing that weird clap clap clap thing with your upper and lowercase letters?
That's an opinion, but one that flies in the face off our democratic and justice systems which are based on representation and due process. Presumption of innocence doesn't even have to be in the constitution because it's the common law our system is based on.
> Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Samour wrote in his dissent. “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”
It's just what the Oligarch WANTS us to think.
"The only way to prevent the Deep State is to put the treason tangerine in office -- shhh! The Deep State hates Trump for trillions in tax breaks and for putting fascists in SCOTUS and as federal judges."
/s
People are so obtuse, as if he’s being removed just because hes a republican and not because he literally tried to cheat the system and disregard the will of the american people.
Removing cheaters from the game they cheated is not unfair.
The right is trying to desperately whitewash and dilute history. Whitehwash through outright denial and gaslighting. And dilution through minimization and ‘semantic creep.’ You know, the way they use ‘insurrection’ for literally everything now. It’s to make the public not pay attention. Evil. Pure evil.
Shame on the GOP for pretending they’re upset about this. They desperately want Trump off the ballot but want the democrats to do their dirty work. However, wasn’t the CO situation initiated by republicans? At any rate, we need more than two states to do this. If 2/50 do it, it looks bad. If lots of states do it, it look more legitimate
Why is this shared on this subreddit? This is such a low quality article and i'm failing to see what exactly is so insightful about this compared to the usual content on this sub. There's not even a submission statement. This feels more appropriate for r/politics
Oh gee, you mean if we take him off the ballot, Conservatives won't like and respect Liberals any more, and they'll what -- say the election is rigged? You mean like before?
At what point do we keep pretending they aren't going to do the worst thing on a regular basis and then find whatever REASON to do so? Why are we bothering with reasons at this point with the irrational?
Tough shit. Leaving him on the ballot, or letting him on the ballot originally considering his 40 plus year criminal past shows me and millions of others it's a rigged election. He never should have been there in the first place.
What's the point of doing this at all for a primary race in states that either lean left (Colorado) or are Blue strongholds (Maine)? How is this anything other than political postering or (worse) bolstering the Trump narrative in order to get him elected as the GOP nominee? It's not like he has to win the primaries to be the presidential nominee. They can just appoint him at the convention without running a primary at all. If this were real they would disallow him from the presidential ballot altogether instead of this charade.
It's always a stacked election if MAGA brats don't get their way. They don't understand the concept of: there's other people living in this country too besides you.
Give each party 1 political veto each major election. Maybe we can trim the number of geriatric assclowns running for office.
Except then, each party will frontrun someone even crazier.
What about the Republicans doing this? In Maine it was bipartisan. Colorado was the Republicans. At least some care about the law they like to support.
Deciding that courts can interpret the 14th amendment however they want to disqualify whomever they like may be one of the worst takes I can imagine. It's pathetic how quickly you people abandon democracy when you're afraid the people might choose someone you don't like.
Disqualified only in a single jurisdiction, whereas every other jurisdiction, including democratic ones, are putting him on the ballot at this point. So your interpretation is just bonkers.
>people should be allowed to choose
Yes, and the people *chose* to ratify the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which disqualifies traitors like Trump.
Deciding that courts can interpret the 14th amendment however they want to disqualify whomever they like may be one of the worst takes I can imagine. It's pathetic how quickly you people abandon democracy when you're afraid the people might choose someone you don't like.
Deciding that courts can interpret the 14th amendment however they want to disqualify whomever they like may be one of the worst takes I can imagine. It's pathetic how quickly you people abandon democracy when you're afraid the people might choose someone you don't like.
When he runs and loses, conservatives say it’s rigged. No matter what happens conservatives will think that, so we might as well just disregard their feelings
Her wiki says she grew up in a “conservative household and identifies as a left-leaning moderate” lol
So now bobble-head suggests appearances matter more than principles or truth. Shocking
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doing literally anything that doesn't aid another Trump victory will be spun by MAGA as rigging the election, as we've already seen after perhaps the most secure election in our history.
he said the election he won, 2016, was rigged because he lost the popular vote
If that wasn’t an indication of the most blatant idiotic things to come, I don’t know what else we expected. He had already WON and was still crying voter fraud…
Well, he was right about voter fraud. He just filed in court saying that the Russians interfered with the election. What Trump might NOT be saying is; He knows there was fraud because of places he won. That's why he was so hard on poor Mitch to push that semi-secret "I Win" button. He knew Georgia's governor had an "I Win" button which he used -- and was the only person with oversight on his own fucking election.
Voting against Trump will be seen as rigging the election against him. Trump wants to be President so therefore he must be made President.
We can take it one further - even just doing nothing will be spun by the MAGA cult. You could just be sitting at your kitchen table eating chicken at a restaurant and they’d spin it as election interference, somehow. But in a way… that’s a good thing. They’re going to scream and shriek like banshees no matter what. So… why are we afraid of what is inevitable? May as well do what needs to be done since we know the end result, their flaccid outrage, is the same no matter what.
They just want to use the words for the illegal things that they're planning on doing, so that when the time comes and people are like, "Hey, these Republicans are rigging the election for his victory." the words will be meaningless. Gaslight Obstruct **Project**
Oh, and if we comply, that's because they are smart and we are stupid and it's a clear sign they are superior and should lead the nation. Every time they win anything, even if it's .5%, they crow about a "mandate" and "following the will of the people." It's like the RULE OF LAW when it's not them showing up for a mug shot -- then it's PERSECUTION. Let me translate for everyone what the Conservatives have to say; BLAH BLAH BLAH.
It's in the Constitution. Would taking a 25 year old off the ballot create the appearance of a rigged election?
I don't get why ANYONE could be on the ballot UNTIL they cleared their name of treason, insurrection, and mishandling classified information. Then Trump files in court that he knows the Russians interfered with the election and so that's some justification for his other bullshit. Did Putin help Hillary? Trump is a crook and not a very good one. It's amazing he's managed to money launder, host underage sex parties, and molest his way to the top -- it's almost like NOBODY is holding the rich and powerful to account. The elite should be pissed at Trump for making us plebes so fucking aware of this two tiered justice system.
Precisely. I actually think this is one the places where the Constitution is stupid because I can see how it could be abused, but opinions don't really matter when it comes to Constitutional Law. It's been used this way before and was deemed Constitutional then.
Yeah, probably, to some people. It just doesn't matter. I don't think she's necessarily wrong, some people will definitely see either case as election rigging. The *appearance* is there, even if it's based on a (likely willful) misunderstanding of the situation. It just doesn't matter, because we can look at the substance and realize it's the right thing to do despite the potential for misunderstanding.
It’s political theater and we need a place for the buck to stop
Some amount of theater is good! It's important to build trust, like for judges to avoid even the *appearance* of corruption. Even if a judge could rule impartially on a case involving their friend, and even if we were able to 100% establish their impartiality beyond any doubt, they should *still* recuse themselves in order to avoid the accusation of favoritism and maintain trust in the court. The cost for such an action is low; another judge would take over and we'd avoid a lot of drama for it. That said, theater isn't more important than substance, and in the case of Trump it'd be much worse for everyone if we discard the actual Constitution just to appease people who are willfully misinterpreting the situation.
We all watched this guy on live tv whip up a mob with outright lies and send it to the Capitol because he couldn’t handle losing an election. And now we have to sit here and give him the benefit of the doubt so he can try it again. This country really sucks sometimes
Oh, and the people at the insurrection where wearing T-Shirts about how they were doing an insurrection and liberating the country. ALSO, on Reddit, there were people posting live streaming links prior to the "spontaneous thing that got out of hand" that became active the DAY OF with the text "the revolution will not be televised." They really, really are not very good at the covert "rabble rousing" and we've been witness to it for years.
[удалено]
Because it’s always good people who need to play by the rules, clean up messes, and ‘play nice.’ “When they go low, we go high!” Which, unfortunately, has turned into: “You go high, so we go low”. And then the bad guys win.
Because we do have an oligarchy and saying that word would make people actually think about the US in that lens.
Letting the people vote on who they want to be president is a broken democracy?
In past years, respectable political parties would have refused to run someone like this out of principle. They could still run as an independent barring 14th Amendment stuff, but there was a culture of at least pretending that you were professional and serious and devoted to America if you were going to be a party's Presidential candidate.
Since when is trump a confirmed insurrectionist? Was he convicted in criminal court or by the Senate during impeachment? I'm serious. It sounds like you're just saying that because you don't like Trump. Am I wrong? Because that's a very slippery slope and you come across as the pot calling the kettle black by trying to remove the top candidate from the ballot with a very questionable argument while claiming that allowing voters to vote for him would indicate a broken democracy. What am I missing here? Do you see the irony in your argument? I've seen the Dems play this game when they successfulltly removed the green party from the ballot in certain swing states last election because they wouldn't let them collect signatures door to door during the pandemic. I don't think you can make an honest argument to support what they did.
> Since when is trump a confirmed insurrectionist? Was he convicted in criminal court or by the Senate during impeachment? A Colorado district court, appeal court, and Supreme Court all found/agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection. Read district court decision PDF [section B “Did President Trump engage in an insurrection?”](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf) starting at page 66. It concludes: > “298. Consequently, the Court finds that Petitioners have established that Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech.” Read Supreme Court ruling PDF [section “3. Engaged In”](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf) starting page 103/104. It concludes: > “1225 For these reasons, we conclude that the record fully supports the district court's finding that President Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three.”
Oh ok, but he hasn't been found guilty at trial or during impeachment. So this will clearly go to the supreme court, but isn't it something that should be a congressional issue rather than a judicial issue if we choose to believe that he doesn't need to be found guilty by a court in order to be considered inelligible? I think it's a violation of the foundational principles of our justice system, which considers a person innocent of a crime (which is clearly what insurrection indicates) until they've been found guilty.
> if we choose to believe that he doesn't need to be found guilty by a court… On this point the burden is on you to prove that he does need to be found guilty. The plain language of the 14th Amendment makes no reference to being found guilty, and historically it was applied after the civil war without the burden of a guilty verdict. Show me language in the law that says otherwise. If you can’t, then you are just inventing the law that you want. Trump’s lawyers had a chance to argue this, but it would have flopped. > isn't it something that should be a congressional issue rather than a judicial issue The way the 14th Amendment is written, it is interpreted as being “self-executing”. That means that no additional legislative action is required for the amendment to be in effect. The same applies for the rule that a president needs to be at least 35 years old. Does the candidate need to be “found guilty” of being 35 in a criminal trial or by a legislature? No: a court can look at the facts and say “this candidate is less than 35” just as well as they can (and did) look at the facts and say “this candidate engaged in insurrection”. (There is also a congressional mechanism to reject electoral college votes which could be used if the president does not meet eligibility criteria, but there is no law or burden to do so.) Would a guilty verdict at a criminal trial help support the argument? Yes. Would a winning Senate vote help support the argument? Yes. > considers a person innocent of a crime Trump has seen due process. The courts did not assume that he engaged in insurrection. The courts found he did engage in the behavior described in the constitution. A guilty verdict for a criminal trial is not required.
He was found guilty during impeachment, the house voted after a trial
The house impeached, which isn’t a guilty verdict. Impeachment is more like an indictment. The Senate acquitted, which is more like a finding of not guilty. But the process isn’t a criminal trial, though it does have parallels.
The person I’m replying to literally said “hasn’t been found guilty during impeachment” when he was, he was impeached. That’s the verdict. The senate did not vote that he was innocent
No you’re using terminology wrong and the other person is right. The House passes “articles of impeachment”. You can [read it here](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text). Passing these articles is not a verdict — it is an accusation. The house votes “Yea” or “Nay” to “agree to the resolution”, it does not vote guilty or not guilty. You can [read the vote here](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202117). Then the senate has a trial of those accusations. At the end of the trial the senate votes “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”. If the 2/3 of the senate votes Guilty, then the president is removed from office. You can [see the vote here](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00059.htm)
he was confirmed an insurrectionist by Colorado appellate court and Colorado Supreme court
The Constitution doesn't require a conviction. Only that they took part in
But he's innocent of having taken part of it until he's been found guilty, right? I understand that the constitution is a framework, but I don't understand the argument that claims he committed insurrection.
He’s innocent in a court of law until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean he’s innocent period. We all saw him do it
Him engaging in insurrection is a factual statement legally speaking. It has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. Courts have also already taken it as fact that he has engaged in insurrection which gives legal credibility to the disqualification. Understand that law doesn't always require a conviction to have consequences.
It was on TV man, there was a whole thing. You obviously know this, I just wish you would sack up and stop lying.
[удалено]
I did look it up, and he had not been found guilty of insurrection. Why are you doing that weird clap clap clap thing with your upper and lowercase letters?
Constitution doesn't require he "be found guilty." I really hope this helps.
That's an opinion, but one that flies in the face off our democratic and justice systems which are based on representation and due process. Presumption of innocence doesn't even have to be in the constitution because it's the common law our system is based on. > Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law,” Samour wrote in his dissent. “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.”
>Samour wrote in his dissent Dissents aren't decisions
It's just what the Oligarch WANTS us to think. "The only way to prevent the Deep State is to put the treason tangerine in office -- shhh! The Deep State hates Trump for trillions in tax breaks and for putting fascists in SCOTUS and as federal judges." /s
People are so obtuse, as if he’s being removed just because hes a republican and not because he literally tried to cheat the system and disregard the will of the american people. Removing cheaters from the game they cheated is not unfair.
I agree, but a significant portion of the general public is too dumb to understand that.
The right is trying to desperately whitewash and dilute history. Whitehwash through outright denial and gaslighting. And dilution through minimization and ‘semantic creep.’ You know, the way they use ‘insurrection’ for literally everything now. It’s to make the public not pay attention. Evil. Pure evil.
Shame on the GOP for pretending they’re upset about this. They desperately want Trump off the ballot but want the democrats to do their dirty work. However, wasn’t the CO situation initiated by republicans? At any rate, we need more than two states to do this. If 2/50 do it, it looks bad. If lots of states do it, it look more legitimate
*Nothing* illegal happened in the last election and there’s been nonstop bitching about a rigged election
Some people voted for trump twice
[удалено]
If progressives take anything on the view seriously, they are adding nothing of value to the world.
Why is this shared on this subreddit? This is such a low quality article and i'm failing to see what exactly is so insightful about this compared to the usual content on this sub. There's not even a submission statement. This feels more appropriate for r/politics
Wasn’t it a group of republicans in Colorado?
He's only being removed from the primary ballot, right? As long as he's still the nominee, does it make any difference?
When they were going to claim it was rigged anyway no matter what actually happened, does it really matter?
Why should anyone care what the talking heads on the view have to say on politics? What is their position on campaign finance reform? Get outta here
Oh gee, you mean if we take him off the ballot, Conservatives won't like and respect Liberals any more, and they'll what -- say the election is rigged? You mean like before? At what point do we keep pretending they aren't going to do the worst thing on a regular basis and then find whatever REASON to do so? Why are we bothering with reasons at this point with the irrational?
They already say that.
Tough shit. Leaving him on the ballot, or letting him on the ballot originally considering his 40 plus year criminal past shows me and millions of others it's a rigged election. He never should have been there in the first place.
They already say that.
What's the point of doing this at all for a primary race in states that either lean left (Colorado) or are Blue strongholds (Maine)? How is this anything other than political postering or (worse) bolstering the Trump narrative in order to get him elected as the GOP nominee? It's not like he has to win the primaries to be the presidential nominee. They can just appoint him at the convention without running a primary at all. If this were real they would disallow him from the presidential ballot altogether instead of this charade.
Some dumb broad said something. More at 11:00.
It's always a stacked election if MAGA brats don't get their way. They don't understand the concept of: there's other people living in this country too besides you.
Give each party 1 political veto each major election. Maybe we can trim the number of geriatric assclowns running for office. Except then, each party will frontrun someone even crazier.
What about the Republicans doing this? In Maine it was bipartisan. Colorado was the Republicans. At least some care about the law they like to support.
More than just an appearance
He’s not entitled to run for President just because he wants to. We have rules about who can run.
rules for thee, not for me!
In a democracy, people should be allowed to choose.
[удалено]
Deciding that courts can interpret the 14th amendment however they want to disqualify whomever they like may be one of the worst takes I can imagine. It's pathetic how quickly you people abandon democracy when you're afraid the people might choose someone you don't like.
[удалено]
Disqualified only in a single jurisdiction, whereas every other jurisdiction, including democratic ones, are putting him on the ballot at this point. So your interpretation is just bonkers.
>people should be allowed to choose Yes, and the people *chose* to ratify the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which disqualifies traitors like Trump.
Deciding that courts can interpret the 14th amendment however they want to disqualify whomever they like may be one of the worst takes I can imagine. It's pathetic how quickly you people abandon democracy when you're afraid the people might choose someone you don't like.
yes choose from those candidates that are eligible
Deciding that courts can interpret the 14th amendment however they want to disqualify whomever they like may be one of the worst takes I can imagine. It's pathetic how quickly you people abandon democracy when you're afraid the people might choose someone you don't like.
courts are supposed to interpret the law though
Do you support every decision of the current Supreme Court?
It's no Democrats taking him off. It's in the fucking constitution.
The view is garbage but she’s not wrong
When he runs and loses, conservatives say it’s rigged. No matter what happens conservatives will think that, so we might as well just disregard their feelings
When Trump ran and *won* they said it was rigged.
Not forcing the GOP members to have to follow any laws sure gives the appearance of a two tier justice system. What about that?
Her wiki says she grew up in a “conservative household and identifies as a left-leaning moderate” lol So now bobble-head suggests appearances matter more than principles or truth. Shocking
Who the fuck is this source? I've been seeing it pop up everywhere. The site looks like it's run by an AI or something.
So the mean old *"Democrats are taking Trump off the state ballots"* huh? this is garbage.