Elections Will Trump be on the primary and/or general ballot? (SCOTUS says Trump will remain 9-0)

[sickc0d3r]

My personal standards are very high, both for who I'd vote for and for democracy. Looks like yours are low in both scenarios. Vote for a shit candidate and try to get the other one kicked off the ballot. Amazing stuff.

You’re obviously very high as it pertains to standards. Many people are saying so. The best people. And I’ve had low standards at least since college, that’s no secret.

But, I’d really like to hone in on your central thesis, if I may.

You’re saying there should be no minimum standards for potus, correct? Age, birthplace, felonies, insurrections, treason, nothing matters but the will of the voters. Is that right?
And you also didn’t answer whether or not you think felons, who you believe should be able to run for potus, should also be able to vote.

Thanks in advance, Dutch guy. America appreciates your input.

 

[Barteh]

You’re obviously very high as it pertains to standards. Many people are saying so. The best people. And I’ve had low standards at least since college, that’s no secret.

But, I’d really like to hone in on your central thesis, if I may.

You’re saying there should be no minimum standards for potus, correct? Age, birthplace, felonies, insurrections, treason, nothing matters but the will of the voters. Is that right?
And you also didn’t answer whether or not you think felons, who you believe should be able to run for potus, should also be able to vote.

Thanks in advance, Dutch guy. America appreciates your input.

I think it's reasonable to put an age limit of 18 and have the person elected in a country be of that nationality. If we're talking age limits it'd almost be more reasonable to put one at around 70 or so, because apparently the people in the US are so stupid that both sides are putting up a demented clown for election.

Felons here can already vote and it's not controversial in the slightest, in fact I can't remember even hearing a single discussion about it. The only thing I ever heard about it was a "voter surpression" kind of argument that you lot love. Apparently the polling stations in prison weren't always accessible enough or something.

 

[HereticBD]

""Democrats' insane justification to remove Trump can just as easily be applied to Joe Biden for his 'insurrection' at the southern border"

And so continues the Republican's endless struggle with the definitions of words.

I do like how they immediately scuttle their own argument by admitting that they themselves think it's "insane".

What's the definition of "Insurrection"? Seems like courts can just make it up as they go...

 

[CatchnShoot]

You can’t read, just like 4 judges in Colorado



Don’t read the part in Parenthesis for our purposes, “taken an oath to support the constitution” is what you need to remember.



“Support and defend the constitution” well, support is there.



“Support and defend the constitution” well it’s there again



“Support and defend” there’s that line again.



“Preserve, protect and defend the constitution” wait a tick, he missed the line?



“Preserve, protect and defend” oh wait a minute

https://youtu.be/MCl3iD50ofk?si=uHlnkYbCGy3gERQf

Hell here’s 22 minutes of these guys all screwing it up, not one says they “support” the constitution.

Abraham Lincoln's First Inauguration

“Preserve, protect and defend” same language here in 1861, either the people who wrote the 14th screwed up and could’ve just wrote “defend” “preserve” “protect” to cover a President, or more likely wanted him excluded from the language of the 14th Amendment because it covered the generals, mayors, governors, cabinet members, representatives and Senators that betrayed their oath of office to “support” the constitution.

Listen...I don't know who you are using for your talking points, but... they are retarded.


Do you honestly believe that if you take an oath to "Preserve, Protect and Defend" the constitution, that you are NOT also supporting the constitution?

Your argument is like that of a pre-schooler..... AHA!!!! You didn't say the magic word!!!

You're going to be disappointed, Chuckles.

 

[floivanus]

Listen...I don't know who you are using for your talking points, but... they are retarded.


Do you honestly believe that if you take an oath to "Preserve, Protect and Defend" the constitution, that you are NOT also supporting the constitution?

Your argument is like that of a pre-schooler..... AHA!!!! You didn't say the magic word!!!

You're going to be disappointed, Chuckles.

Aww poor baby, you realize that both oaths existed at the time of the 14th amendment and they could’ve easily said “President” in the area outlining who takes oaths to “support” the constitution but didn’t right?

You’re acting like it’s toddler games when it’s tantamount to “shall” and “‘may” in legal documents, it makes a difference. Go back, read the arguments about the wording of the Presidential Oath of office versus the federal oath of office and learn just a little bit.

Then maybe when the gears in your head turn for the first time in a decade you’ll realize you have 4 textualists on SCOTUS, one originalist and a John Roberts and when Alito has already written an opinion along the lines of what I mentioned and you pea brains can’t see, you MAY understand something.

14A section 3 applies to the people who deserted during the confederacy; name a President who worked for the Confederates, but there’s plenty of Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Judges, Governors and former cabinet members who did, and they all swore to “support and defend”

 

[CatchnShoot]

Aww poor baby, you realize that both oaths existed at the time of the 14th amendment and they could’ve easily said “President” in the area outlining who takes oaths to “support” the constitution but didn’t right?

You’re acting like it’s toddler games when it’s tantamount to “shall” and “‘may” in legal documents, it makes a difference. Go back, read the arguments about the wording of the Presidential Oath of office versus the federal oath of office and learn just a little bit.

Then maybe when the gears in your head turn for the first time in a decade you’ll realize you have 4 textualists on SCOTUS, one originalist and a John Roberts and when Alito has already written an opinion along the lines of what I mentioned and you pea brains can’t see, you MAY understand something.

14A section 3 applies to the people who deserted during the confederacy; name a President who worked for the Confederates, but there’s plenty of Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Judges, Governors and former cabinet members who did, and they all swore to “support and defend”

Best of luck clinging to that weak ass argument.

 

[Cajun]

That's why we have a SCOTUS. Let's wait to see what they determine. Whatever they decide I think we'll see their ruling quickly and without an6 delay. It's pretty ridiculous to argue lower courts should decide Trump's appeals first since the appeal process eventually ends with the SCOTUS. It's just a blatant attempt to delay the trial past the election.

Would agree there. The attempt is to leave the ruling in the hopes it takes too long to get overturned. All this crap is doing is setting precedent for these things to be repeated by all presidents going forward. Crazy times.

 

[Iconoclast]

This will just get him more votes. He's a Martyr!!! Fuck people are so dumb.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Y'all just jealous of the Don coming to protect Christmas

 

[sickc0d3r]

I think it's reasonable to put an age limit of 18 and have the person elected in a country be of that nationality. If we're talking age limits it'd almost be more reasonable to put one at around 70 or so, because apparently the people in the US are so stupid that both sides are putting up a demented clown for election.

Felons here can already vote and it's not controversial in the slightest, in fact I can't remember even hearing a single discussion about it. The only thing I ever heard about it was a "voter surpression" kind of argument that you lot love. Apparently the polling stations in prison weren't always accessible enough or something.

Ok. Can they vote from prison? Because that’s what we’d be talking about here. A convicted felon serving his sentence while president (or maybe the sentence would be commuted or something, who knows?). And that actually isn’t disqualifying, as far as we know. I happen to disagree with that, and we’ll see how it goes if it happens.

Anyway, sounds like we’ve established you’re ok with some qualifications for potus, and it’s not the end of democracy to enforce them. So we’re at least in agreement on that.

 

[Andy Capp]

Well this is a start anyway.

"Republican lawmakers in
three swing states have announced their plan to remove President Joe Biden from their state ballots."

Republicans pull trigger on plan to remove Joe Biden from ballots

Republicans push to get Joe Biden off swing-state ballots after Donald Trump was banned from the Colorado ballot.

www.newsweek.com

Goofy shit lol what a bunch of child-minds.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

This will just get him more votes.

not in colorado it won't.

 

[emefer]

Aww poor baby, you realize that both oaths existed at the time of the 14th amendment and they could’ve easily said “President” in the area outlining who takes oaths to “support” the constitution but didn’t right?

You’re acting like it’s toddler games when it’s tantamount to “shall” and “‘may” in legal documents, it makes a difference. Go back, read the arguments about the wording of the Presidential Oath of office versus the federal oath of office and learn just a little bit.

Then maybe when the gears in your head turn for the first time in a decade you’ll realize you have 4 textualists on SCOTUS, one originalist and a John Roberts and when Alito has already written an opinion along the lines of what I mentioned and you pea brains can’t see, you MAY understand something.

14A section 3 applies to the people who deserted during the confederacy; name a President who worked for the Confederates, but there’s plenty of Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Judges, Governors and former cabinet members who did, and they all swore to “support and defend”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be used to bar individuals from “hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States.” Do those terms bar individuals from the office of the presidency?

Republicans in 1866 almost certainly thought the Section 3 bar on officeholding extended to the presidency and vice-presidency. Republican proponents of the Joint Committee’s Section 3 thought that Congress could treat as illegal any former Confederate who participated in the Electoral College. During the debates over the Joint Committee’s Section 3, Representative Thomas D. Eliot of Massachusetts asked fellow Republicans, “Shall our enemies and the enemies of the Government, as soon as they have been defeated in war, help to direct and to control the public policy of the Government.” Representative Rufus P. Spaulding of Ohio agreed that such men should not “make laws for the loyal people of the country.” Representative Robert C. Schenck of Ohio declared, “those who have proven false traitors and have raised their parricidal hands against the life of the country, who have attempted to strike down our Government and destroy its institutions, should be the very last to be trusted to take any share in preserving, conducting, and carrying on that Government and maintain those institutions.” These comments could be multiplied ad nauseum. No Republican made any statement that suggested a presidential exception to Section 3. Trumbull, as noted above, used the presidency when examining why changing qualifications was not a punishment. Stevens, also as noted above, used the presidency as well in discussing the Joint Committee’s draft Section 3. In the absence of any statement even hinting the contrary, no Republican could have believed that traitors should not become members of Congress, but ought to be allowed to be President of the United States.

 

[CatchnShoot]

This will just get him more votes. He's a Martyr!!! Fuck people are so dumb.

Clearly the answer is to just let him break the law at will and not have him face the consequences that any other citizen would face.

You are arguing for the declaration of King Trump.

Are the Maga turds going to.... "vote harder"? Nope, they still only get ONE vote each (as a few chuds found out the hard way following the last election)

 

[Michaelangelo]

Colorado won’t be voting red anyways, if Trump didn’t clinch them in 2016 then it’s not happening anytime soon

He can save the energy from campaigning there

 

[HereticBD]

Clearly the answer is to just let him break the law at will and not have him face the consequences that any other citizen would face.

Literally every President is above the laws that it's citizens must abide by. Or do you think every single President before Trump, was a perfect angel? Christ, you got war criminals walking around free.

 

[oldshadow]

Goofy shit lol what a bunch of child-minds.

On both side. Don't expect a weapon you use not to be turned against you if the other side can.

 

[CatchnShoot]

Literally every President is above the laws that it's citizens must abide by. Or do you think every single President before Trump, was a perfect angel? Christ, you got war criminals walking around free.

Literally every Pres that you refer to, committed those alleged offenses during the course of performing their presidential duties, and thus enjoyed a cloak of immunity...or do you think Bush was all war crimey after he was out of office?
This, is not that.

 

[HereticBD]

Literally every Pres that you refer to, committed those alleged offenses during the course of performing their presidential duties, and thus enjoyed a cloak of immunity...or do you think Bush was all war crimey after he was out of office?
This, is not that.

Trump was President until Jan 20th 2021, so I guess that nullifies your argument about him breaking any laws before then. He was allowed to do anything he wanted to overturn the election, since he was still President, so you best not complain about anything surrounding January 6th.

 

[CatchnShoot]

Trump was President until Jan 20th 2021, so I guess that nullifies your argument about him breaking any laws before then. He was allowed to do anything he wanted to overturn the election, since he was still President, so you best not complain about anything surrounding January 6th.

Again, false. The immunity is only granted if the Pres. is actually performing duties consistent with the Office of President. eg) If while Trump was in office, he didn't like something CNN said about him and he went down and shot Tapper on air... no immunity since that shit isn't in the job description.

As has been determined in the circuit (criminal) and state appellate (civil) court the Orange Offender was NOT performing duties consistent with his position, and as such the privilege does NOT extend.

Although, this has yet to reach final resolution (Expedited in the State appellate court, likely followed by Scotus)

Be that as it may, that distinction is not really applicable in this particular case, as it is defined by the specific assertion of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Nobody is arguing he has immunity from this ruling.

That argument is central to Trump's defense in his other criminal proceedings.