politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
People have been talking about the unindicted traitor since J6 and the media pretends Nazis hushing up means no one is talking about it. Anyone still pretending he's a legitimate candidate for office has their head up their ass.
He was elected once and I hate to say it but there's still a chance he'll be elected again. He isn't legitimate in the sense that he has no sense of decorum or history or human decency but he could be elected.
He's constitutionally ineligible for office.
You and I agree he's ineligible, but if 2016-2020 has taught us anything, it's that our laws and rules mean nothing if the courts don't enforce them.
What happens if Trump appointed judges decide that Trump still can be on the ballot? What if they decide that insurrection isn't disqualifying because reasons?
Trump could get into office again and shred any bits of the Constitution that he hasn't already ripped up. And this time, he might decide that he's not leaving office and judges he appoints could agree.
Then we move on to other forms of redress
Rules don't apply to him because Democrats are only interested in following rules that keep themselves ineffective.
They worry to much about "escalation" and the Republicans saying "don't you do that, or we'll do it too!". They were going to do it anyway as soon as their old tricks didn't work.
I understand that there is a huge argument for that. However, I wasn't under the impression that this is proven. It would potentially go to the Supreme Court. I don't have faith in the court as its currently configured.
Congress could make this vote on their own motion. It's only going to the courts because people can't coordinate a way of forcing a vote through the legislature.
Oh, I couldn't have any less faith in a Republican led house. They can barely elect a speaker or pass a budget. Anything more meaningful than that will certainly be off the table. Especially since they are all cowards and refused to call a spade a spade with Trump.
The most beautiful thing, in my opinion, about 14a3 is that in times of crisis when we are likely to be divided, the vote is designed to fail. It's a bottom line, 2/3 majority in both houses to requalify.
Like that's gonna stop him
"I am the Constitution"- The Heritage Foundation
Source? For science.
See the other comments up and down this thread
Ummm, no. Where did you come up with that one?
Being "right" doesn't equal reality. He hasn't been blocked from running anywhere in the U.S., yet. Certainly won't be blocked nationally.
What's right and what happens are two different things. He is officially ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't physically be elected.
He is NOT officially ineligible. No one has blocked his candidacy.
This is the same problem as a cross walk. You have the right of way, but the car will kill you. By the time a court rules on it you'll be dead. What's right and what's real are two different things.
And bank robbery isn't illegal unless you're prosecuted, right?
The previous person indicated that there is a clause in the constitution that would make him ineligible, not that anything had been done about it.
14th amendment section 3
And? No one has official barred him from running. Just because we hate him, doesn't mean he's blocked from running.
Until Congress votes to redeem his candidacy he's ineligible. It takes the type of reading comprehension that public schools avoid teaching up to.
This is definitely not true. No one has barred his candidacy.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here. seems too many are thinking with their hearts and not their heads. i appreciate that you don't like the man but can still see the logic in the situation.
What logic?
Is he a Nazi? Yup
Is he a criminal? Yup
Should he be ineligible? Yup.
Is he? Not yet.
He openly supported the J6 coup attempt. He's ineligible.
Listen. I hate Trump.
But, as of right now, there is NO legal ruling anywhere in the U.S., that has made him ineligible.
You repeatedly saying so, doesn't make it so.
If Trump was a competent leader there wouldn't be a system to make such a ruling. It's by design.
If you murder someone, have you broken the law? Yes (most likely) . Are you going to jail? Well only if they catch you, and prove it in court.
People above are saying they believe he's ineligible because of what he did. They're not saying that all necessary procedures to actually decide and declare him ineligible has been completed. I.e, he should be ineligible based on what he's done, but he hasn't yet been made ineligible in practice.
He has in a few states, granted it's being challenged in court