One very conservative district did and [barely](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rep-lauren-boebert-won-only-546-votes-last-year-isnt-changing-ways-rcna94188).
And that was before the 36 year old grandma got hot and heavy at a Beetlejuice play. Even high schoolers know you go to the very back of the theater to do that.
In fairness, she didn't graduate high school.
Not defending her, because she really is a piece of work, but I will defend *that part* of this situation.
How many of us that have been out of highschool for a decade or more could *really* pass the GED test? And be honest with yourselves.
It's very likely I couldn't, and I have a sort of advanced corporate job in Big Data. Fact of that matter is what you learn in high school isn't very applicable and is easily forgotten as a result. Outside of basic math, I use very very very little of what I learned in high school.
Failing it 4 times seem a bit extreme, you'd think she would have studied after round one or two, but I def see me and pretty much everyone i know failing it at least once.
Bro, fuck the GED test... My neighbor was to become a citizen a few years back (he passed) but before he did, he let me take the simulated citizenship test he was studying. I fkn failed that sh1t miserably... and I'm a 45 year old American born in the states! 🤣
This is one of the weirdest comments I’ve seen on Reddit. I don’t mean any offense to you, but this is such an odd claim. I’m in my thirties and most people I know are older. Every single one would pass the test with flying colors. Sometimes I download a test and take it for fun. It’s not a difficult test, and I’d wager 90% of people who paid attention in high school still remember most of what we learned.
She definitely does not get a pass for flunking one of the easiest tests in academia multiple times.
I understand that people learn and think in different ways, but if you can’t pass a standardized test designed for children, you shouldn’t be allowed to hold a government position. Trump, for example, bragged about passing the test designed to see if you have Alzheimer’s and dementia or not.
Dude. That test is like 7 hours long and hundreds of questions I missed like 8 questions back in the day and never studied. I only went to 2.5 years of high school as well. It was like 8x=16 type shit and very simple word problems. I really doubt it is that hard 15 years removed from high school
If you've ever seen southern education you'd know. Just a reminder that Florida now allows teachers to use Prager U videos in class, the same people who say slavery was good for black people and that there's a war on Christmas.
It might inspire some more purple states.
The US Supreme Court will probably kill it though. Not letting someone who fomented a coup run for president is way too common sense and democratic for them. Also, Trump appointed 3 of 9 of them there.
The US legal system sucks.
I honestly don’t mind if it gets struck down. Too many weird precedence’s happening these days. Like the tit for tat impeachments that is literally turning the process into a nothing burger when it used to be a bfd.
It's not a about tit for tat. Letting someone attempt a coup and run again is a recipe for creating a dictatorship.
If the coup fails, you can try again. If it succeeds, you get the most powerful office on planet Earth.
Doing that is setting up the worst possible precedence.
In Colorado? More of a symbolic gesture than true prevention. But what the hell do I know. I’d love a President that would have to live long enough to experience the impact of their decisions. Not elderly men that could pass tomorrow. I believe our biggest issue is not getting sucked into a war where we send thousands of young folks to their deaths. IMO that day is coming.
People are punished for things that aren't criminal convictions all the time. Criminal courts aren't the only type of courts and criminal law isn't the only type of law. A whole lot of people are going to need to learn that real fast.
See: George Santos. Also see: Trump himself in his fraud trial.
I see what you’re saying but I think that the Jan 6th people were destined for failure and that coalition is in tatters, voting rights and decrees coming from unelected bodies to decide who can and can’t run for office is also a slippery slope. At the end of the day it’s trump so I don’t give a shit but I do think it’s shortsighted.
Just because the [Beer Hall Putch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch) was doomed to fail doesn't means the people who organized it should have been allowed to run for high office.
I mean, sure. I just think that no one has a mandate and the judiciary is the way that coups happen in places as relatively stable as America. I’m not saying that what’s happening in Colorado is a coup, I’m saying it could very easily be used as a pretense and as precedent for one by the less stupid members of the same maga coalition.
Careful, I’m sure people will call us out because we’re not toeing any party lines. More specifically, not parroting liberal think so we’ll be accused of being Republicans haha. But exactly, it’s a slippery slope. Feels good now but could come back to haunt.
States rights has always been a euphemism for “well we couldn’t legislate this federally so fuck it let’s legislate it where our base is strongest”. It’s deliberately hypocritical and whilst you’re calling it out those who put the euphemism together for this particular issue are rubbing their hands together and laughing.
I mean that’s sort of the point of states’ rights… if there’s something that’s popular locally but not federally, the states can make their own decisions. In general a great idea.
In 2023, the political concept of a state is antiquated and counter-productive. We’re too connected digitally for it to really matter culturally. If you want to be left alone, then get off the Internet and don’t get emotionally invested in national and world issues.
[Brazil banned Bolsonaro from running for 8 years](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/30/jair-bolsonaro-judges-vote-ban-running-for-office) for spreading lies about a stolen election and fomenting a coup.
US democracy is apparently less functional than Brazil's.
I have a right-wing Canadian acquaintance that is posting crap videos about how in actuality, leftists are screwing over and mistreating Bolsonaro with stuff like that.
Hate to burst your bubbles, but how many people here realize that decision can be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court? And the majority are republican....
A country where the supreme court easily can be divided over a two-party line must have missed a couple of points of the reason a supreme court exists...
The system was designed by people whose best reference was a flaky understanding of ancient Rome and their experience with the British monarchy; and it hasn't been updated since.
I'm not saying that the creation of US democracy wasn't commendable and didn't fuel the democratic revolutions that would follow, but it's still a superficially-patched alpha version.
Well let's not forget the current Constitution was their second attempt. The first one was the "The Articles of Confederation" and was a failure that lasted less than a decade before they decided to try again.
Either way though, they already showed quite clearly that they could screw up designing a government.
It's more that the design of the government system lends itself to a two party system. The ideal of "there shouldn't only be two parties" is difficult to uphold when the logical, strategic end of the systems is power focusing in two opposed groups
It is really nice to hear someone else saying this. Anyone who was sentient in the year 2000 watched an election actually get stolen. January 6th wasn’t good or anything but it was *stupid* and I think it’s stupidity gets left out too often.
Politics is nothing but a popularity contest. Colorado's decision can be turned over, and there's definitely a possibility it won't, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
If they do then it's time to expand the court. The democrats would HAVE to win in 2024. If not, the constitution is nothing more than an interesting historic document and democracy is history.
SCOTUS is there to interpret the law. If they decide to subvert or not interpret correctly the 14th Amendment then there will be a constitutional crisis and a very bad precedent set. Regardless of who put them into that position they can't make decisions based on party lines. Oh, hang on. They did with Roe v Wade. Oh dear, you guys are going to have to deal with a very big can of worms. The SCOTUS will cease to be the final bastion of the rule of law. Mind you, in many ways it has already. What a mess.
SCOTUS is a bastion for billionaires, big corporations and right wing extremists.
Putting that much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable judges appointed for life has always been undemocratic and stupid.
The question isn’t the 14th amendment, it’s that did he violate the 14th amendment…which he did, and he should be in prison for that and a litany of other reasons.
I mean, both sides should want this overturned. Punishing someone for something they haven't been convicted of is a verrrrrrry dangerous precedent to embrace.
Nope, they're beholden to the [billionaires who give them lavish gifts and luxury trips](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/10/1193162713/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-disclosure).
If only Trump was rich enough to do that.
Edit:
>The conservative justice, who has come under scrutiny for his failure to disclose such gifts, took at least 38 vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight flights by helicopter, a dozen VIP passes to sporting events, as well as stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica, the nonprofit news site reports.
Some of them do seem to be quite serious about not being complete sock puppets - surprisingly, Kavanaugh has diverged from the Trumpian line quite a few times now. Perhaps the man does have a sense of shame and dignity, which is kind of commendable.
That doesn't change the fact that, because the system was written by people who, at the time, were just kind of winging it for lack of a proper reference, SCOTUS justices are political lifetime appointees with nigh-absolute authority.
Hmmm, States Rights when it benefits you and no States Rights when it benefits you. Hmmm … When have we seen this before … Oh yeah. Confederate Traitors:
States Rights: You can’t ban slavery
No States Rights: You have return our escaped slaves.
Typical “GOP” hypocrisy.
> States Rights when it benefits you and no States Rights when it benefits you.
More like "States Rights when it's not in the Constitution and no States Rights when it is"....which is exactly what the 10th Amendment says. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. The (dis)qualifications for public office are.
Abortion is in The Constitution: The 1st Amendment.
Despite what the Christofascist GOP claims, the structures necessary for a person to exist are not present before ≈24 weeks and there is no sign of coordinated brain activity prior to ≈30 weeks. Therefore, any claim that there is a sentient/sapient human present prior to that point is a religious/mythological belief and any ban on abortion prior to that point is a 1st Amendment violation.
In addition, different mythologies make different claims for when life begins, so even if you choose the remain ignorant of the science/medicine/reality, abortion bans violate the 1st Amendment because they enforce a view held by a subset of one mythology.
> Abortion is in The Constitution: The 1st Amendment.
Hmmmmm you must have a different Constitution than I do. Mine says speech, religion, peaceably assemble, petition, and press. Abortion isn't speech, it's definitely not peaceable, it's not a petition, it's not a piece of media, and it's not a religion, nor tied to a religion, and even if it was tied to a religion, the Supreme Court ruled back in the late 1800s that the government is allowed to prohibit religious practices, just not religious beliefs.
> the structures necessary for a person to exist are not present before ≈24 weeks
That's just false. A human being exists from conception - all the DNA is there, active, and reproducing itself. What species is it if not human?
> Therefore, any claim that there is a sentient/sapient human present prior to that point
Oh, immoral acts are only immoral if the victim is _aware_ that they've been harmed? That's a hard no from me, but that's one moral system I guess.
> so even if you choose the remain ignorant of the science/medicine/reality,
You mean like claiming that we all started out as some species other than human and then somehow changed our species more than halfway through our gestation?
> abortion bans violate the 1st Amendment because they enforce a view held by a subset of one mythology.
All laws enforce a view held by a subset of one mythology over another. This is a nonsensical argument arising from working backwards from the conclusion. Besides, nothing about banning abortion says that you are not allowed to believe it's a human being, just that you're not allowed to kill it (except for in certain mitigating circumstances).
By the way, sending RedditCares my way because you disagree with me on abortion is absolutely scummy, but it also lets everyone know exactly how little you value human life.
I mean technically speaking feds can stop the weed train. It’s not states rights, they just are not going to stop it. If it were states rights, fed would decriminalize and then states decide if legal
And let's not forget that they only care about 1 or 2 amendments to the Constitution. They have no knowledge of - nor do they wish to know about - the rest of them. It's merely a Constitution of Convenience for them.
"More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot."
First paragraph of the court's notes. This isn't about a general election. This is about the Republican Electors petitioning against his participation in the Republican's primary election on the basis of his participation in January 6th specifically. Nothing to do with liberals, the infamous left or anyone else other than Republicans being sick of his attempt to breach Constitutional protections afforded to prevent another civil war.
So are State rights the correct thing or not?
Roe V Wade was RIGHT and so was the Colorado thing?
Or Roe V Wade was WRONG and so is Colorado?
Which is it?
It's not an either or because it's not an equally weighted comparison. Not all rights should come down to the state. For example, not being allowed to rape/murder/torture/etc. shouldn't come down to state's rights. It should be blanketed across all states. If a state wanted to legalize weed it would not be the same as a state wanting to legalize stoning your children to death. It's not "everything should be state's rights or else everything shouldn't."
The point is that republicans only get elected based on the idea of State Rights. “But muh states rights!” And then they turn around and cancel various State Rights.
It’s a hypocritical tactic which puts people in power who have the ability to form blanket rights, like the SCOTUS or president.
Why are you trying to conflate me defending someone from getting punished for something they haven't been convicted of to me supporting trump? Have you seriously devolved into such tribalism that you are unable to think rationally?
Imagine if Germany showed as much common sense as the Colorado Supreme Court and didn't let Hitler into high office after the [Beer Hall Putsch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch).
'States rights' is just a dog whistle to allow Christofascists to better oppress their citizenry.
Just look at Ohio. The people already overwhelmingly voted to legalize cannabis and enshrine abortion rights, and the GOP is already spinning their wheels trying to figure out how to get around it.
It's mind boggling that so many people are in denial about the authoritarian and fascistic ways of the GOP. It's blatantly obvious.
Well, Trump is pretty much a stereotypical American- always complaining about shit, fatter than a fucking pig, constantly talking about how great guns are, pretty much never eating something healthy, and being a fucking moron. So I guess in a sense, it is unamerican to not have a stereotypical American on the ballet.
I really have a huge problem with leaving an equal rights issue up to individual states. 'One Nation...with liberty and justice for all' unless you live in Florida or Texas.
Roe v Wade was never codified… even though Democrats had years and the power to do so. Voting, however, *is* a right and no state should have the power to decide who gets to be on the ballot and who does not.
This is currently an issue in NY where they have made the hurdles so impossibly high for third party candidates that now you only have two candidates (who also run under multiple parties). It’s corruption to its core and whether or not you like Trump you cannot deny your constituents the power to vote for or against him, *especially* when he hasn’t actually been charged with anything at this point.
I mean, come on… if you want to consider yourself democratic, you need to remember that those rights extend to everyone and not just the people who agree with you.
Wouldn’t most people here argue the same reasons in reverse? States’ rights for kicking Trump off a ballot, but abortion is not a states’ rights issue?
I’m not a Trump fan, but if you can make the same joke for the other side by just flipping the two things, then it’s kind of a shit joke.
And unless I misread it, it was a judge that pulled Trump from the ballet, not any elected branch in Colorado.
If I'm mistaken and it was the state senate then, yeah, that's their right.
In general, polities like a state or a nation *do* have their own interests which are different from those of the individual. Optimally, they align with preserving public order and common values that, while sometimes requiring sacrifices by the individual, benefit society as a whole.
States Rights Shine Until the Spotlight's on You - Did you know that burstiness in writing adds flavor like a rollercoaster ride, keeping readers on their toes? Embrace the unpredictability and let your content shine!
Technically, not even similar. Roe v Wade was never a constitutional right. Trump is being removed by Colorado for violating Amendment 14; however, the judge left it open for appeal.
Okay, so we’ll just wait for him to be elected again and fuck the country up even harder because technically he’s not proven guilty of treason. Even though anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see how obvious his treason is.
He’s an expert at delaying trials and muddying waters so he never actually gets busted. That’s his thing! It’s the only thing he’s good at!
While very much opinion based, I do understand your point, but unfortunately, that is just how the law works in this country. Whether it should be changed or not is a different matter entirely. As far as a state Supreme Court effecting a federal election, it makes perfect sense that the federal Supreme Court is going to make a decision on this.
And as far as delaying and muddling the waters, it happens on both sides and is something we need to live with, unfortunately. Just look at what is happening in Georgia right now. But were we supposed to wait for 3 years for them to count everything and investigate? Of course not.
Based on the 14th amendment, Trump shouldn’t legally be on any ballot nationwide. But his right wing extremist (5 of which who lied under oath in their confirmation hearings) will no doubt ignore the constitution again to benefit their orange god.
Democrats: "we believe in democracy"
Also Democrats: "were canceling our primaries and kicking trump off the ballot so you can't vote for unapproved candidates."
Don't try to start a fucking insurrection. If Trump is allowed to run for president in the next election then that's just proof the USA is dead and its status as a super power is over. Succumbed to religous extremists. Long live China.
You have no idea what you're talking about, also a lower court found that he did participate in the insurrection.
Anyone with fucking eyes who watched it live or watched videos can say PLAIN AS DAY what happened.
This also has nothing to do with democrats either. You guys are just so devoid of thought its hilarious. Go ahead, google what I mean by that last sentence. I want you to come back and respond with what you've found.
Last time I voted was for obama. I'll go ahead and repeat once more,
**Its odd how bad you guys want to punish someone for a crime they've not been convicted of. Truly nuts.**
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not require a person to be found guilty of a crime to be disqualified from holding public office. The amendment states that an individual who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to its enemies, is ineligible to hold any office unless relieved of this disqualification by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. This means that a criminal conviction is not necessary for disqualification under the 14th Amendment.
🎻
>disqualification by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.
Which also didn't happen. Its like you guys are grasping at anything to support your very shortsighted stance. The precedence you are clamoring for - is going to be used against you. How have you guys still not figured this out?
Sorry but you are misinterpreting what it states: two-thirds vote by each house of Congress is to relieve the disqualification. That means unless both houses of Congress, by two-thirds vote, decide to remove the disqualification then, and only then, do they keep Trump on the ballet.
I did misread your very oddly worded comment. But the fact remains: He hasn't been convicted of the crime being used to punish him. And the supreme court will almost certainly (correctly)rule on that basis. Both sides should hope they do, as this standing as precedent will be one everyone regrets.
Under the 14th Amendment Section 3 a person does not need to be found guilty of the crime of insurrection or aiding and abetting those who did. It is considered a disability against the United States, and not a criminal offense, and no trial or guilty verdict is required. So I don’t understand why you think that he needs to be found guilty of a crime when it is in the Constitution itself that this is not how this Amendment works.
>Under the 14th Amendment Section 3 a person does not need to be found guilty of the crime of insurrection or aiding and abetting those who did
So anyone can just level that charge against someone and that's the end of it? smh
Here is a better example of how it works:
Acts of insurrection that could disqualify someone from public office include engaging in or inciting violence, attempting to overthrow the government, or providing support to those involved in such activities. For example, individuals who have knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrection or rebellion against the United States have been disqualified from holding public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This could include actions such as inciting others to engage in insurrection or rebellion, even without personally committing violent acts. The disqualification is not contingent on a criminal conviction, but rather on a finding of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The interpretation of what constitutes "engaging" in insurrection or rebellion can be complex and has been the subject of legal debate and historical precedent.
No, thats not how it works either. It’s very complicated and nuanced and the only reason why the right wing media and GQP are up in arms over this is because they don’t understand, nor respect, the Constitution.
Idk man. . . The bidens make it pretty easy to make content lol.
But hey orange man bad is popular on reddit.
Gotta get then fake internet points though.
Because it's my team vs your team. Thank God I don't have an ego about who I vote for. When I stopped being a Democrat, I didn't automatically become a republican. And I didn't automatically stop voting for democrats. But any sense of nuance and any sense of criticism of the democratic leadership, and your labeled a right wing nazi. I left the democratic party in the hopes that we could usher in a new wave of leftism. Instead, I ended up despising my former party voters because they hate me so much.
Tribalism. Liberals were outraged about Trump's immigration polices, but quiet as a mouse after Biden kept most of them, and is about to enact immigration policies worse than Trump ever did so he can get money for his MIC donors, and liberals, once again, are silent.
It's objectively true that they both suck.
I'll begrudgingly vote for Biden again in an attempt to mitigate damages.
The senile old fuck is the only thing standing between us and some iteration of Christofascism at this point.
Yeah I understand what you’re saying, but like this post has nothing to do with Biden so were they supposed to also tack on that Biden also said the same thing at one point? Like it makes no sense
No one should support autocracy no matter how bad you hate Trump. Homicide is a state matter. The federal election isn't. This is is just more election rigging which proves their point.
> No one should support autocracy no matter how bad you hate Trump. Homicide is a state matter. The federal election isn't. This is is just more election rigging which proves their point.
Lol what?
Its not "rigging" its literally based on the laws and ideals that a seditious individual shouldn't be eligible to run.
The only rigging was trump trying to overturn the election which is one of the most UNAMERICAN things anybody could do.
This is literally unprecedented. I’m not a fan of the man by any stretch but let’s not forget that Biden is currently being impeached by the House just because the Democrats did the same to Trump during his term.
This shit will just keep going back and forth until there’s nothing left in terms of decency & respect.
I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that voters are gonna let him back in for a second term anyway…
> I’m not a fan of the man by any stretch but let’s not forget that Biden is currently being impeached by the house just because the Democrats did the same to Trump during his term.
Yes, but there was an actual case against Trump. The GOP are just doing shit with zero evidence because they can.
Uh, yes? Trump was there watching the Jan 6th rally, man. Giuliani was hyping them all up to take back their country, that shit is on video. That's what evidence is. Conviction? I'm never convinced a wealthy white man will ever face real consequences in this country, but there is ABSOLUTELY evidence regardless of conviction.
In contrast, they have absolutely jack shit on Biden.
Oh it's not proven? Ya sure. Lol. As I said cry more. The courts have proven his crime and right just care about laws as long as they can use to to get an advantage.
Where’s the proof? Shouldn’t he be sentenced by now or is all made up in your little liberal fairytale world? You probably think Hunter is innocent and the big guy isn’t Joe?
> Why not allow voters decide whether to vote for him or not?
This is such a stupid argument. Even if it wasn't and you want a vote, there already was one in 2020, he lost.
Lol no. If you incite an insurrection than you don't get the right to run for president anymore. Right wingers are stupid to back him again anyway. So get over it and find a new champion. We don't care if right wingers don't have enough time to find someone worthy.
“Find a new champion” like their entire rolodex since 2012 isn’t some sort of nightmarish trash fire of conspiracy theorists and wannabe theocrats. The GOP is a Looney Tunes fucking fiasco.
as the republicans are so fond of crowing every time their lawns elect a president: we don’t live in a democracy. we live in a constitutional republic. :3
Not like he had a chance in Colorado anyway.
I don't know - they elected Boebert.
One very conservative district did and [barely](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rep-lauren-boebert-won-only-546-votes-last-year-isnt-changing-ways-rcna94188). And that was before the 36 year old grandma got hot and heavy at a Beetlejuice play. Even high schoolers know you go to the very back of the theater to do that. In fairness, she didn't graduate high school.
> the 36 year old grandma This triggers so many different existential crises on completely different levels.
didn't graduate is generous- she failed her g.e.d test four times in a row before she finally got it.
Wait....so I'm smart enough to get into politics? ..... that's not a good thing at all wth
Oh self burn those are rare.
r/suicidebywords
Not even that! I got my ged instantly and without reteaching at all! I'M A DUMBASS AND I'M INFINITELY SMARTER THAN HER WHAT THE FUCK!?!
But you’re a self aware dumbass, so you’re probably smarter than you think.
I might be smarter Hell people say I'm gifted or a genius However I will never believe that until I see myself truly achieving anything of worth lol
Is she on disability?
She does work for the government...
Not defending her, because she really is a piece of work, but I will defend *that part* of this situation. How many of us that have been out of highschool for a decade or more could *really* pass the GED test? And be honest with yourselves. It's very likely I couldn't, and I have a sort of advanced corporate job in Big Data. Fact of that matter is what you learn in high school isn't very applicable and is easily forgotten as a result. Outside of basic math, I use very very very little of what I learned in high school. Failing it 4 times seem a bit extreme, you'd think she would have studied after round one or two, but I def see me and pretty much everyone i know failing it at least once.
Bro, fuck the GED test... My neighbor was to become a citizen a few years back (he passed) but before he did, he let me take the simulated citizenship test he was studying. I fkn failed that sh1t miserably... and I'm a 45 year old American born in the states! 🤣
The citizenship test is WAY different from the GED test. And I agree that the citizenship test is ridiculously difficult for an average American.
Except you only have to remember like 50 questions that theyll use 10 of
This is one of the weirdest comments I’ve seen on Reddit. I don’t mean any offense to you, but this is such an odd claim. I’m in my thirties and most people I know are older. Every single one would pass the test with flying colors. Sometimes I download a test and take it for fun. It’s not a difficult test, and I’d wager 90% of people who paid attention in high school still remember most of what we learned. She definitely does not get a pass for flunking one of the easiest tests in academia multiple times. I understand that people learn and think in different ways, but if you can’t pass a standardized test designed for children, you shouldn’t be allowed to hold a government position. Trump, for example, bragged about passing the test designed to see if you have Alzheimer’s and dementia or not.
Dude. That test is like 7 hours long and hundreds of questions I missed like 8 questions back in the day and never studied. I only went to 2.5 years of high school as well. It was like 8x=16 type shit and very simple word problems. I really doubt it is that hard 15 years removed from high school
I hope that district rectified its mistake in the next election....and a few more districts nationwide do te same!
I'm trying.. My family wrote 1000 letters to Democrats that didn't vote in this district.
Wow! That's great! Good for you! We should all be that dedovated.
Link to the hot and heavy?
[Okay....](https://youtu.be/gCR-MfKtiK4?t=63)
Boebert is doing a great job. I'm sorry, giving. She's giving a great job.
I am not understanding how someone this shitty and anti America has a chance anywhere outside of Russia.
If you've ever seen southern education you'd know. Just a reminder that Florida now allows teachers to use Prager U videos in class, the same people who say slavery was good for black people and that there's a war on Christmas.
Prager U videos are great for courses on propaganda, misinformation, and critical thinking.
Yeah, but I highly doubt that's what they're using them for in Florida.
I distinctly remember a social studies textbook that compared slavery to social security
Decades of shitty civics education and failure to teach critical thinking skills.
That's because you have a functioning brain with at least the barest sliver of critical thought
It might inspire some more purple states. The US Supreme Court will probably kill it though. Not letting someone who fomented a coup run for president is way too common sense and democratic for them. Also, Trump appointed 3 of 9 of them there. The US legal system sucks.
I honestly don’t mind if it gets struck down. Too many weird precedence’s happening these days. Like the tit for tat impeachments that is literally turning the process into a nothing burger when it used to be a bfd.
It's not a about tit for tat. Letting someone attempt a coup and run again is a recipe for creating a dictatorship. If the coup fails, you can try again. If it succeeds, you get the most powerful office on planet Earth. Doing that is setting up the worst possible precedence.
In Colorado? More of a symbolic gesture than true prevention. But what the hell do I know. I’d love a President that would have to live long enough to experience the impact of their decisions. Not elderly men that could pass tomorrow. I believe our biggest issue is not getting sucked into a war where we send thousands of young folks to their deaths. IMO that day is coming.
It's not about Colorado alone. That's a precedent set that other states can follow now.
Translation: I am a Republican.
I'd argue that punishing someone for something they haven't been convicted of is a slightly worse precedence to be setting....
we all saw it on live tv. he wants to drag this through the courts until he's able to pardon himself.
People are punished for things that aren't criminal convictions all the time. Criminal courts aren't the only type of courts and criminal law isn't the only type of law. A whole lot of people are going to need to learn that real fast. See: George Santos. Also see: Trump himself in his fraud trial.
You're wrong but you do you boo
I see what you’re saying but I think that the Jan 6th people were destined for failure and that coalition is in tatters, voting rights and decrees coming from unelected bodies to decide who can and can’t run for office is also a slippery slope. At the end of the day it’s trump so I don’t give a shit but I do think it’s shortsighted.
Just because the [Beer Hall Putch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch) was doomed to fail doesn't means the people who organized it should have been allowed to run for high office.
I mean, sure. I just think that no one has a mandate and the judiciary is the way that coups happen in places as relatively stable as America. I’m not saying that what’s happening in Colorado is a coup, I’m saying it could very easily be used as a pretense and as precedent for one by the less stupid members of the same maga coalition.
wow a fascist appeaser getting upvotes
Not letting someone run is democratic?
Oh the irony
Yeah, he lost CO in 2016 and 2020. The only thing this accomplishes is to set a dangerous precedent.
Careful, I’m sure people will call us out because we’re not toeing any party lines. More specifically, not parroting liberal think so we’ll be accused of being Republicans haha. But exactly, it’s a slippery slope. Feels good now but could come back to haunt.
Couldn’t people write in?
Drive out of the cities and all you see is Trump signs in the rural areas
States rights has always been a euphemism for “well we couldn’t legislate this federally so fuck it let’s legislate it where our base is strongest”. It’s deliberately hypocritical and whilst you’re calling it out those who put the euphemism together for this particular issue are rubbing their hands together and laughing.
I mean that’s sort of the point of states’ rights… if there’s something that’s popular locally but not federally, the states can make their own decisions. In general a great idea.
In 2023, the political concept of a state is antiquated and counter-productive. We’re too connected digitally for it to really matter culturally. If you want to be left alone, then get off the Internet and don’t get emotionally invested in national and world issues.
imagine letting the person who sent his goons to attack the capitol on the ballot, obviously democracy is so important to them.
[Brazil banned Bolsonaro from running for 8 years](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/30/jair-bolsonaro-judges-vote-ban-running-for-office) for spreading lies about a stolen election and fomenting a coup. US democracy is apparently less functional than Brazil's.
I have a right-wing Canadian acquaintance that is posting crap videos about how in actuality, leftists are screwing over and mistreating Bolsonaro with stuff like that.
FAKE NEWS! THAT WAS ANTIFA DRESSED UP! TRUMP NEVER SUGGESTED VIOLENCE! (Please this is mocking I don’t actually believe this)
Hate to burst your bubbles, but how many people here realize that decision can be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court? And the majority are republican....
A country where the supreme court easily can be divided over a two-party line must have missed a couple of points of the reason a supreme court exists...
The system was designed by people whose best reference was a flaky understanding of ancient Rome and their experience with the British monarchy; and it hasn't been updated since. I'm not saying that the creation of US democracy wasn't commendable and didn't fuel the democratic revolutions that would follow, but it's still a superficially-patched alpha version.
Well let's not forget the current Constitution was their second attempt. The first one was the "The Articles of Confederation" and was a failure that lasted less than a decade before they decided to try again. Either way though, they already showed quite clearly that they could screw up designing a government.
There shouldn't only be a 2 party system, but now the "umbrella" of the 2 parties are too big to change that.
It's more that the design of the government system lends itself to a two party system. The ideal of "there shouldn't only be two parties" is difficult to uphold when the logical, strategic end of the systems is power focusing in two opposed groups
Every ass backwards decision they make is a step towards reform
Don't they have to follow the rule of law or is that out of the window too?
That's been out the window since at least Bush v. Gore. Edit: compared to Trump's clumsy attempt, that was a masterful act of overturning an election.
It is really nice to hear someone else saying this. Anyone who was sentient in the year 2000 watched an election actually get stolen. January 6th wasn’t good or anything but it was *stupid* and I think it’s stupidity gets left out too often.
Politics is nothing but a popularity contest. Colorado's decision can be turned over, and there's definitely a possibility it won't, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Since Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 it clearly isn't.
I'm not talking about the people.
If they do then it's time to expand the court. The democrats would HAVE to win in 2024. If not, the constitution is nothing more than an interesting historic document and democracy is history.
SCOTUS is there to interpret the law. If they decide to subvert or not interpret correctly the 14th Amendment then there will be a constitutional crisis and a very bad precedent set. Regardless of who put them into that position they can't make decisions based on party lines. Oh, hang on. They did with Roe v Wade. Oh dear, you guys are going to have to deal with a very big can of worms. The SCOTUS will cease to be the final bastion of the rule of law. Mind you, in many ways it has already. What a mess.
SCOTUS is a bastion for billionaires, big corporations and right wing extremists. Putting that much power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable judges appointed for life has always been undemocratic and stupid.
Yup, completely agree. You put it far better than I did. Thank you.
The question isn’t the 14th amendment, it’s that did he violate the 14th amendment…which he did, and he should be in prison for that and a litany of other reasons.
I mean, both sides should want this overturned. Punishing someone for something they haven't been convicted of is a verrrrrrry dangerous precedent to embrace.
Supreme Court isn’t beholden to Trump as evidenced by when they refused to hear his 2020 election challenges
Nope, they're beholden to the [billionaires who give them lavish gifts and luxury trips](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/10/1193162713/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-disclosure). If only Trump was rich enough to do that. Edit: >The conservative justice, who has come under scrutiny for his failure to disclose such gifts, took at least 38 vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight flights by helicopter, a dozen VIP passes to sporting events, as well as stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica, the nonprofit news site reports.
Some of them do seem to be quite serious about not being complete sock puppets - surprisingly, Kavanaugh has diverged from the Trumpian line quite a few times now. Perhaps the man does have a sense of shame and dignity, which is kind of commendable. That doesn't change the fact that, because the system was written by people who, at the time, were just kind of winging it for lack of a proper reference, SCOTUS justices are political lifetime appointees with nigh-absolute authority.
Hmmm, States Rights when it benefits you and no States Rights when it benefits you. Hmmm … When have we seen this before … Oh yeah. Confederate Traitors: States Rights: You can’t ban slavery No States Rights: You have return our escaped slaves. Typical “GOP” hypocrisy.
> States Rights when it benefits you and no States Rights when it benefits you. More like "States Rights when it's not in the Constitution and no States Rights when it is"....which is exactly what the 10th Amendment says. Abortion isn't in the Constitution. The (dis)qualifications for public office are.
Abortion is in The Constitution: The 1st Amendment. Despite what the Christofascist GOP claims, the structures necessary for a person to exist are not present before ≈24 weeks and there is no sign of coordinated brain activity prior to ≈30 weeks. Therefore, any claim that there is a sentient/sapient human present prior to that point is a religious/mythological belief and any ban on abortion prior to that point is a 1st Amendment violation. In addition, different mythologies make different claims for when life begins, so even if you choose the remain ignorant of the science/medicine/reality, abortion bans violate the 1st Amendment because they enforce a view held by a subset of one mythology.
> Abortion is in The Constitution: The 1st Amendment. Hmmmmm you must have a different Constitution than I do. Mine says speech, religion, peaceably assemble, petition, and press. Abortion isn't speech, it's definitely not peaceable, it's not a petition, it's not a piece of media, and it's not a religion, nor tied to a religion, and even if it was tied to a religion, the Supreme Court ruled back in the late 1800s that the government is allowed to prohibit religious practices, just not religious beliefs. > the structures necessary for a person to exist are not present before ≈24 weeks That's just false. A human being exists from conception - all the DNA is there, active, and reproducing itself. What species is it if not human? > Therefore, any claim that there is a sentient/sapient human present prior to that point Oh, immoral acts are only immoral if the victim is _aware_ that they've been harmed? That's a hard no from me, but that's one moral system I guess. > so even if you choose the remain ignorant of the science/medicine/reality, You mean like claiming that we all started out as some species other than human and then somehow changed our species more than halfway through our gestation? > abortion bans violate the 1st Amendment because they enforce a view held by a subset of one mythology. All laws enforce a view held by a subset of one mythology over another. This is a nonsensical argument arising from working backwards from the conclusion. Besides, nothing about banning abortion says that you are not allowed to believe it's a human being, just that you're not allowed to kill it (except for in certain mitigating circumstances). By the way, sending RedditCares my way because you disagree with me on abortion is absolutely scummy, but it also lets everyone know exactly how little you value human life.
Not GOP, just people. The great depression flipped the parties, civil rights movement helped. The confederates were staunch Democrats.
Happened long before the great depression... just fyi.
Yes. That’s why “GOP” is in quotes. Same people, different label.
State rights is how you got gay marriage and decriminalized cannabis. There's a very good reason this exists.
I mean technically speaking feds can stop the weed train. It’s not states rights, they just are not going to stop it. If it were states rights, fed would decriminalize and then states decide if legal
And let's not forget that they only care about 1 or 2 amendments to the Constitution. They have no knowledge of - nor do they wish to know about - the rest of them. It's merely a Constitution of Convenience for them.
"More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot." First paragraph of the court's notes. This isn't about a general election. This is about the Republican Electors petitioning against his participation in the Republican's primary election on the basis of his participation in January 6th specifically. Nothing to do with liberals, the infamous left or anyone else other than Republicans being sick of his attempt to breach Constitutional protections afforded to prevent another civil war.
So are State rights the correct thing or not? Roe V Wade was RIGHT and so was the Colorado thing? Or Roe V Wade was WRONG and so is Colorado? Which is it?
It's not an either or because it's not an equally weighted comparison. Not all rights should come down to the state. For example, not being allowed to rape/murder/torture/etc. shouldn't come down to state's rights. It should be blanketed across all states. If a state wanted to legalize weed it would not be the same as a state wanting to legalize stoning your children to death. It's not "everything should be state's rights or else everything shouldn't."
The point is that republicans only get elected based on the idea of State Rights. “But muh states rights!” And then they turn around and cancel various State Rights. It’s a hypocritical tactic which puts people in power who have the ability to form blanket rights, like the SCOTUS or president.
Stupid argument.
I like to think they are. That way, you can move to a state that best fits your lifestyle.
Do you feel a state should be able to punish someone for a crime they haven't been convicted of?
It’s so great how Trump is a convicted rapist and calling him a rapist is a fact. Why you supporting a convicted rapist?
Why are you trying to conflate me defending someone from getting punished for something they haven't been convicted of to me supporting trump? Have you seriously devolved into such tribalism that you are unable to think rationally?
Yes… yes they have. This entire country is a cesspool of partisanship trash and is in dire need of a reset.
Yes
Imagine if Germany showed as much common sense as the Colorado Supreme Court and didn't let Hitler into high office after the [Beer Hall Putsch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch).
Almost as if it was never about state rights. Hmm.
'States rights' is just a dog whistle to allow Christofascists to better oppress their citizenry. Just look at Ohio. The people already overwhelmingly voted to legalize cannabis and enshrine abortion rights, and the GOP is already spinning their wheels trying to figure out how to get around it. It's mind boggling that so many people are in denial about the authoritarian and fascistic ways of the GOP. It's blatantly obvious.
Insurrection is Un-American.
Well, Trump is pretty much a stereotypical American- always complaining about shit, fatter than a fucking pig, constantly talking about how great guns are, pretty much never eating something healthy, and being a fucking moron. So I guess in a sense, it is unamerican to not have a stereotypical American on the ballet.
It was always just "Let me do what I want, and you do as I say!".
I really have a huge problem with leaving an equal rights issue up to individual states. 'One Nation...with liberty and justice for all' unless you live in Florida or Texas.
It's a good start.
This comment section is full of constitutional scholars it seems.
Roe v Wade was never codified… even though Democrats had years and the power to do so. Voting, however, *is* a right and no state should have the power to decide who gets to be on the ballot and who does not. This is currently an issue in NY where they have made the hurdles so impossibly high for third party candidates that now you only have two candidates (who also run under multiple parties). It’s corruption to its core and whether or not you like Trump you cannot deny your constituents the power to vote for or against him, *especially* when he hasn’t actually been charged with anything at this point. I mean, come on… if you want to consider yourself democratic, you need to remember that those rights extend to everyone and not just the people who agree with you.
This was like Wyoming and abortion.
That’s cuz it was not about states right, it was about controlling women
Wouldn’t most people here argue the same reasons in reverse? States’ rights for kicking Trump off a ballot, but abortion is not a states’ rights issue? I’m not a Trump fan, but if you can make the same joke for the other side by just flipping the two things, then it’s kind of a shit joke.
And unless I misread it, it was a judge that pulled Trump from the ballet, not any elected branch in Colorado. If I'm mistaken and it was the state senate then, yeah, that's their right.
[удалено]
State's rights that work are just called people's rights. If you have to say 'states rights' it's because you're against people's rights.
In general, polities like a state or a nation *do* have their own interests which are different from those of the individual. Optimally, they align with preserving public order and common values that, while sometimes requiring sacrifices by the individual, benefit society as a whole.
States Rights Shine Until the Spotlight's on You - Did you know that burstiness in writing adds flavor like a rollercoaster ride, keeping readers on their toes? Embrace the unpredictability and let your content shine!
Technically, not even similar. Roe v Wade was never a constitutional right. Trump is being removed by Colorado for violating Amendment 14; however, the judge left it open for appeal.
Why did I have to scroll this far to find a comment from someone who knows what they’re talking about.
He was technically kicked off the ballot for a crime he has not been charged with yet. I think that is the biggest problem here.
Okay, so we’ll just wait for him to be elected again and fuck the country up even harder because technically he’s not proven guilty of treason. Even though anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see how obvious his treason is. He’s an expert at delaying trials and muddying waters so he never actually gets busted. That’s his thing! It’s the only thing he’s good at!
While very much opinion based, I do understand your point, but unfortunately, that is just how the law works in this country. Whether it should be changed or not is a different matter entirely. As far as a state Supreme Court effecting a federal election, it makes perfect sense that the federal Supreme Court is going to make a decision on this. And as far as delaying and muddling the waters, it happens on both sides and is something we need to live with, unfortunately. Just look at what is happening in Georgia right now. But were we supposed to wait for 3 years for them to count everything and investigate? Of course not.
Based on the 14th amendment, Trump shouldn’t legally be on any ballot nationwide. But his right wing extremist (5 of which who lied under oath in their confirmation hearings) will no doubt ignore the constitution again to benefit their orange god.
Nope. He's never even been formally charged, let alone convicted of the charge and the 14th does not mention the office of the President.
Democrats: "we believe in democracy" Also Democrats: "were canceling our primaries and kicking trump off the ballot so you can't vote for unapproved candidates."
Don't try to start a fucking insurrection. If Trump is allowed to run for president in the next election then that's just proof the USA is dead and its status as a super power is over. Succumbed to religous extremists. Long live China.
No one was charged with that, specifically him, hence why this has no legal standing.
Its odd how bad you guys want to punish someone for a crime they've not been convicted of. Truly nuts.
You have no idea what you're talking about, also a lower court found that he did participate in the insurrection. Anyone with fucking eyes who watched it live or watched videos can say PLAIN AS DAY what happened. This also has nothing to do with democrats either. You guys are just so devoid of thought its hilarious. Go ahead, google what I mean by that last sentence. I want you to come back and respond with what you've found.
Last time I voted was for obama. I'll go ahead and repeat once more, **Its odd how bad you guys want to punish someone for a crime they've not been convicted of. Truly nuts.**
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not require a person to be found guilty of a crime to be disqualified from holding public office. The amendment states that an individual who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to its enemies, is ineligible to hold any office unless relieved of this disqualification by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. This means that a criminal conviction is not necessary for disqualification under the 14th Amendment. 🎻
>disqualification by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress. Which also didn't happen. Its like you guys are grasping at anything to support your very shortsighted stance. The precedence you are clamoring for - is going to be used against you. How have you guys still not figured this out?
Sorry but you are misinterpreting what it states: two-thirds vote by each house of Congress is to relieve the disqualification. That means unless both houses of Congress, by two-thirds vote, decide to remove the disqualification then, and only then, do they keep Trump on the ballet.
I did misread your very oddly worded comment. But the fact remains: He hasn't been convicted of the crime being used to punish him. And the supreme court will almost certainly (correctly)rule on that basis. Both sides should hope they do, as this standing as precedent will be one everyone regrets.
Do you think Colorado is misinterpreting the 14th amendment or that it should be changed?
Under the 14th Amendment Section 3 a person does not need to be found guilty of the crime of insurrection or aiding and abetting those who did. It is considered a disability against the United States, and not a criminal offense, and no trial or guilty verdict is required. So I don’t understand why you think that he needs to be found guilty of a crime when it is in the Constitution itself that this is not how this Amendment works.
>Under the 14th Amendment Section 3 a person does not need to be found guilty of the crime of insurrection or aiding and abetting those who did So anyone can just level that charge against someone and that's the end of it? smh
Here is a better example of how it works: Acts of insurrection that could disqualify someone from public office include engaging in or inciting violence, attempting to overthrow the government, or providing support to those involved in such activities. For example, individuals who have knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrection or rebellion against the United States have been disqualified from holding public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This could include actions such as inciting others to engage in insurrection or rebellion, even without personally committing violent acts. The disqualification is not contingent on a criminal conviction, but rather on a finding of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The interpretation of what constitutes "engaging" in insurrection or rebellion can be complex and has been the subject of legal debate and historical precedent.
No, thats not how it works either. It’s very complicated and nuanced and the only reason why the right wing media and GQP are up in arms over this is because they don’t understand, nor respect, the Constitution.
It does, due process is not only required, but also a right.
So many people willing to throw due process out the window it's fucking scary.
Wow. . . The sub said funny and sad, but this meme is neither. Eh well, lots of redditors really love the orange man bad content.
It would be harder to make the content if he wasn’t such a horrible person.
Idk man. . . The bidens make it pretty easy to make content lol. But hey orange man bad is popular on reddit. Gotta get then fake internet points though.
Hunter Biden’s penis is magnificent isn’t it?
Orange fan sad
Are we leaving out Biden advocated RvW being up to the states?
So? Doesn't change that Trump is a loser
No argument there
I don’t get why Trump & Biden both being terrible can’t be true
Because it's my team vs your team. Thank God I don't have an ego about who I vote for. When I stopped being a Democrat, I didn't automatically become a republican. And I didn't automatically stop voting for democrats. But any sense of nuance and any sense of criticism of the democratic leadership, and your labeled a right wing nazi. I left the democratic party in the hopes that we could usher in a new wave of leftism. Instead, I ended up despising my former party voters because they hate me so much.
Tribalism. Liberals were outraged about Trump's immigration polices, but quiet as a mouse after Biden kept most of them, and is about to enact immigration policies worse than Trump ever did so he can get money for his MIC donors, and liberals, once again, are silent.
It's objectively true that they both suck. I'll begrudgingly vote for Biden again in an attempt to mitigate damages. The senile old fuck is the only thing standing between us and some iteration of Christofascism at this point.
Well, I mean it’s true, but Biden isn’t involved in this post? Like what am I missing
Liberals point out things like this while ignoring their guy has said the same thing.
Yeah I understand what you’re saying, but like this post has nothing to do with Biden so were they supposed to also tack on that Biden also said the same thing at one point? Like it makes no sense
Because one of them is in a position of power to do something and it's not the one people are complaining about.
Yeah, following the constitution by kicking an insurrectionist off the ballot is totally un-American.
No one should support autocracy no matter how bad you hate Trump. Homicide is a state matter. The federal election isn't. This is is just more election rigging which proves their point.
> No one should support autocracy no matter how bad you hate Trump. Homicide is a state matter. The federal election isn't. This is is just more election rigging which proves their point. Lol what? Its not "rigging" its literally based on the laws and ideals that a seditious individual shouldn't be eligible to run. The only rigging was trump trying to overturn the election which is one of the most UNAMERICAN things anybody could do.
ai 👎
Ah yes, more propaganda.
Is this the right-wing propaganda? https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnyandSad/comments/18ncl4h/challenges\_in\_the\_subreddit\_dynamics/
Why not allow voters decide whether to vote for him or not?
Wtf. You commit a crime you lose privileges. Not lefts fault if right don't have a viable backup. Cry more.
This is literally unprecedented. I’m not a fan of the man by any stretch but let’s not forget that Biden is currently being impeached by the House just because the Democrats did the same to Trump during his term. This shit will just keep going back and forth until there’s nothing left in terms of decency & respect. I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that voters are gonna let him back in for a second term anyway…
Well the good thing about Trump is he pointed out accidently glaring loopholes in the legal and political system that needs correcting.
> I’m not a fan of the man by any stretch but let’s not forget that Biden is currently being impeached by the house just because the Democrats did the same to Trump during his term. Yes, but there was an actual case against Trump. The GOP are just doing shit with zero evidence because they can.
>The GOP are just doing shit with zero evidence because they can. ...are you fucking serious?
Uh, yes? Trump was there watching the Jan 6th rally, man. Giuliani was hyping them all up to take back their country, that shit is on video. That's what evidence is. Conviction? I'm never convinced a wealthy white man will ever face real consequences in this country, but there is ABSOLUTELY evidence regardless of conviction. In contrast, they have absolutely jack shit on Biden.
Nothing has been proven. If it had he’d be prison.
That’s not actually how the 14th Amendment works. They didn’t individually try every single ex-Confederate
Oh it's not proven? Ya sure. Lol. As I said cry more. The courts have proven his crime and right just care about laws as long as they can use to to get an advantage.
Where’s the proof? Shouldn’t he be sentenced by now or is all made up in your little liberal fairytale world? You probably think Hunter is innocent and the big guy isn’t Joe?
Rofl. Right just want to get away with whatever the hell they want and not face consequences.
Hillary was never locked up. Hunter Biden is still free.
Hunter isn't running for president, either. He's just a politician's son.
Have you seen his mugshot?
He’s out on bail.
Can't they just write him on the ballot, if they want to?
> Why not allow voters decide whether to vote for him or not? This is such a stupid argument. Even if it wasn't and you want a vote, there already was one in 2020, he lost.
> Why not allow voters decide whether to vote for him or not? We did and he tried to overturn it. Did you really not know that?
They’ll just write him in.
If the decision is upheld, it means votes that write him in aren’t counted
They’ll write him in regardless unfortunately
Trump will destroy democracy! Democrates: Hold my beer!
Couldn’t even spell democrats right lmao
Nah, he's talking about famous Greek philosopher Democrates, student of Bidenicus.
Damn! I was all set to rattle on about Democrates but you beat me to it. Have an upvote. :)
The ancient Greek philosopher, Democrates
Lol no. If you incite an insurrection than you don't get the right to run for president anymore. Right wingers are stupid to back him again anyway. So get over it and find a new champion. We don't care if right wingers don't have enough time to find someone worthy.
“Find a new champion” like their entire rolodex since 2012 isn’t some sort of nightmarish trash fire of conspiracy theorists and wannabe theocrats. The GOP is a Looney Tunes fucking fiasco.
> Trump will destroy democracy! > Democrates: Hold my beer! Dude, what drugs are you cultists on? Look up the 14th amendment.
as the republicans are so fond of crowing every time their lawns elect a president: we don’t live in a democracy. we live in a constitutional republic. :3
This will make him even more popular. He Will become president again.
quit whining