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
I don't like the guy, but idk if trying to keep him off the ballot is the right play. It seems desperate. It's giving him even more credibility.
He is guilty of insurrection and there's a phone call of him committing direct electoral fraud.
It's very reasonable and within legal precedent for voters not to want someone committed to being a dictator and guilty of insurrection on a ballot.
Also, the constitution seems to require it.
You can't just ignore the constitution, even if you disagree or find it inconvenient.
It's the supreme law of the land and it must be followed.
Otherwise, California might as well send 10 senators to Washington. That would be fair, compared to Wyoming. And since we are ignoring the Constitution, what's an extra Senator or 8 between friends?
Maybe the extra senators were the friends we made along the way?
We are all senators on this blessed day.
Trump has been found guilty of insurrection twice:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/18/colorado-judge-says-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot
Trump is also a rapist, just to throw that in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
There's also no requirement that he be found guilty of insurrection, but he has been.
But that then begs the question, which court establishes that? Because in the Colorado sense, three different courts made determination on the matter. And Article I Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution seems to imply that there is a difference between the political ramifications and the criminal ramifications of acts. While impeachment is established in Article I of the Constitution as being vested for the President as the House to decide and the Senate to adjudicate. Nothing in the 14th, Section 3 seems to delegate the political ramifications to any one group.
So Trump isn't guilty criminally of insurrection, but the 14th doesn't seem to indicate that you absolutely need a criminal indictment to carry out the political aspects of section 3. Colorado's determination isn't robbing him of life and liberty, just of his qualifications for political office.
It's not a matter of "the right play" or lending his nonsense credibility. Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to hold office. Some states have laws prohibiting people who are ineligible from appearing on the ballot.
Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for president, either. He is legally prohibited from appearing on the ballot. If he petitioned to be included on the ballot, and was refused, it wouldn't be a play or violating the rights of Arnold's supporters.
"Desperate"- some would say it's their legal obligation as a citizen to protest an insurrectionist cunt being on the ballot.
If he had been arrested, tried and ****** in 2021 this wouldn't be an issue. Doesn't really matter anyway; with the electoral college, red states dominate though they have less population and fewer teeth. My measly little anti-trump vote goes right in the shitter.
"That Jeffrey Dahmer guy is one naughty fella, but idk if calling the cops on him is the right play. It seems desperate. His arrest is giving him even more credibility that he's a famous serial killer."
Sure, let's not apply the law to ex presidents. What could go wrong.
It might be political hay for him to be disqualified. That's a huge problem.
It also might be a bad argument; there's definitely SOME kind of due process requirement implied that it is hard to tell if Trump has satisfied. I think he's an antidemocratic insurrectionist wannabee tinpot fascist, but whether that legal hurdle has been cleared is a question unanswered.
On the flip side, there's little worse for our democracy than the law deciding not to go after Trump because he's so politically powerful. The law says insurrectionists are disqualified. So these challenges have merit and should be allowed to play out, just as the justice department ought to investigate and prosecute and all these other things. We're abandoning rule of law if we say that we aren't going to prosecute for political reasons.
And the due process concern? That's what's going through the courts now. This may be the process due. And if it isn't, the courts will have to tell us what the requirements are.
Too bad the outcome will probably be the SCOTUS doing their usual chickenshit nonsense and saying it's up to the legislature to define the process so that they can protect their Very Special Boy.
The judge in Colorado determined that he attempted an insurrection. That has been decided legally in a courtroom.
He launched an insurrection to overthrow the US government, then gave aid and comfort to those combatants. He has then gone on record saying he plans to pardon those combatants upon taking office. He also has plans to round up his political rivals on day one of "being a dictator", as well as using the military to lay waste to any and all protesters. He has called immigrants verman "poisoning the blood of our country", which I'm sure wouldn't go hand and hand with vigilante justice in rounding up and executing anyone the maga folks find to be an "immigrant" in the same vein as the Salem witch trials (or people of color).
How anyone can look at just those things, with a longer list growing by the day, and see him as a viable candidate is mind boggling.
Try to contain your mind while it boggles because fascist traitors don't have minds to boggle.
Your bait seems desperate.
you dont like the guy but you sure seem to want to defend him. it seems desperate. its giving him even more credibility.
If you don't think taking him off the ballot is the correct decision it's because you're an enemy of the United States of America.
Well we could debate taking the driver's license for people involved in a DUI about the same as this topic in the vein of "is this the right play?" The notion is that folks who are apt to take the mechanisms of Government and use them as such to violate an oath they took to defend the Constitution, are likely folks we don't want to hand back control of those mechanisms so they can get another crack at it. Sort of how we don't give folks in a DUI back their license until there's been a clear "rehabilitation" or if we want to be pure cynical "a debt to society paid". The point of not giving them their license right away is because they could potentially do a lot of harm with it being just handed back to them.
And you've indicated that it seems desperate. And yeah, the whole mechanism of disqualification and the whole fact that treason is one of the very few things in criminality that's laid out by the Constitution, is such because nobody wanted people to just randomly start firing off disqualifications. It's made to be a really, really, really, really last resort kind of thing. It's supposed to be something that we try all these other hundreds of things first before using. So if it feels desperate in the sense that the word is defined as
Having lost all hope; despairingit's because there isn't a lot of hope that the GOP has pulled itself together enough to prevent someone who incited people to storm the capitol and attempt to upend an election from taking the nomination again.None of this developed in a vacuum. Trump has done and said things that few other Presidents have said and done and all the mechanisms before have in one way or another nixed the person from returning. Those functions have stopped working and that's getting more into a complex topic about why and it's a long history. But I can tell you there was a transformation of the GOP and how they conducted themselves pre/post Haley Barbour and it especially came to a head with Reince Priebus and you can get even deeper on how our forcing of a two party system has led to this.
But in summary, the GOP as a political apparatus has a great deal of control ceded to them via codification in various State laws. They are absolutely not just some group of folks coming together, lots of States have laws, rules, or regulations that basically establish them that say 3rd parties don't get to enjoy. But the GOP has lost a lot of internal control and regulation of their own apparatus, I mean look how shit show the 2016 GOP primary was. Look at the 2024 GOP primary and how the person leading the nomination isn't even in the apparatus ran debates. There's zero control mechanisms working within that political group. That's problematic because the GOP gets a free pass to get on the ballot in pretty much every State, by default they show up there.
So you've got a group that gets to be in the election without the normal State level checks and balances but that group has lost complete control over their political machine. That's so many red flags that it is a red flag factory. So with all of those controls failing within that party, yeah, we've got to pull the emergency brake here. It is a big deal.
Well I'll say this. Trump makes the point that the political elites run the show and what not. And yeah, as far as the two party system goes being forced down us, yeah, no disagreement there. But he advocates "none" for political apparatus control and that's too far the other direction. And that's actually a worse direction. Ideally I'd like something in the middle, but if we're making it binary, I'll keep the two party system as it is (just a personal taste).
And I think that really sums up what we saw in 2020 and what we are looking at for a 2024 run. You've got two really bad options here. One is obscenely bad and the other is just bad in the business as usual kind of way. So with all that said, as far as granting him "credibility" yeah, it highlights something wrong with what we got. But holy shit, there's no part of what Trump is offering that we want to replace what we got with.
You know here in Tennessee I've heard a saying that came about with Governor Ray Blanton. "If you think the professional politicians are bad, just you wait till the amateurs show up." I get what Trump is spitting here, but best I can do is buy about 10% of it because the other 90% is pure madness. So he, in my book, doesn't get points for saying something that surface level is correct but deep dive into is a sea of authoritarianism horror.
All the other crimes he has committed require a conviction to have consequences. Considering that it took 3 years to charge him with things everyone saw with their own eyes, convictions would come too late to stop him from becoming president again and just pardoning himself. Disqualification doesn't need a conviction.
Counterpoint: "Maybe the Best Way to Oppose Fascism is to Fucking Oppose It"
You think following procedure when someone commits insurrection is desperate? It seems desperate to move the goal posts when you don't like the outcome
Thanks, "Vlad"
You're welcome
Courts should do their job and remove him now and give Congress time to overturn it if they so choose or if constituents pressure them into doing it. Or amend the Constitution to change election law so he's eligible without congressional approval.