Can Trump be on State ballots?

[Pcdunn]

Colorado's hearing to see if Donald Trump is really eligible to run for President wrapped up today. We were the third state to inquire if it is possible to simply leave Trump's name off the printed voting ballot. The grounds are his presumed inelgibity due to his words (and inaction) on Jan. 6, and did they "promote insurrection."
Judge will decide in a few days.
At least one of the other states who held a hearing on this matter was told, no, Trump's speech was protected and isn't a form of insurrection. The group is going to appeal.
it's a long shot, but I admire the simplicity of just neglecting to even list DJT!

[Ally]

You do not know how much I am hoping at least a few states have the intellectual integrity to hold that @!%&!!! to account. I have never operated under the delusion that America was a country of law, truth, justice, etc and not what it is: peddlers of influence, but the last few years have been disheartening even for my cynical ass.

[Fiver]

Trump is a terrible candidate and I still struggle to understand why anyone would vote for him.

That said, Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, so removing him from the ballot would be depriving him of his rights. This needs to be decided in a court of law, not just by a single judge.

[String]

I’m still shocked he’s so popular but then Boris Johnson……

[Fiver]

I’m still shocked he’s so popular but then Boris Johnson……

Polls show about 2/3 of Republicans favor Trump for the nomination. About 1/2 of Americans identify as Independents, 1/4 as Democrats, and 1/4 as Republicans. And a lot of Republicans don't like Trump, but they support him because they think he has the best chance of winning.

[Ally]

Trump is a terrible candidate and I still struggle to understand why anyone would vote for him.

That said, Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, so removing him from the ballot would be depriving him of his rights. This needs to be decided in a court of law, not just by a single judge.

The amendment does not require someone be convicted in order to trigger the provision. It was originally written to cover those who were Confederates, and engaged in the insurrection. Conviction is not required, the act of supporting an attempt to overturn the elected leaders, was sufficient.

[rjpalmer]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas being gifted a $250,000 motor home by a billionaire (along with a free house for mom, etc.) and still be allowed to park his backside on the Supreme Court is the funeral knell.

Our system isn't any less corrupt than Mother Russia, and many want it that way.

[Simon Wood]

Come November 2024, the Republicans should be voted into extinction.

[DirectorDave]

it's a long shot, but I admire the simplicity of just neglecting to even list DJT!

"After the election, Mussolini closed opposition newspapers and banned public protest meetings. He declared all political parties illegal except for his own Fascist Party."

#Trump2024

[Fiver]

The amendment does not require someone be convicted in order to trigger the provision. It was originally written to cover those who were Confederates, and engaged in the insurrection. Conviction is not required, the act of supporting an attempt to overturn the elected leaders, was sufficient.

But the amendment does require that someone committed insurrection. Scheming to steal the election is a crime. Inciting a riot is a crime. But I'm not sure either of those crimes is committing insurrection.

[Ally]

There has already been a Public Congressional hearing at the end of which the Congressional committee recommended that Trump be charged and sent the committee finding to the DOJ. When one incites and aids in a mob of people storming the Capitol in order to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States, by ANY Definition that's insurrection.

What exactly do you think constitutes insurrection if not a mob storming the actual Capitol, and threatening to lynch members of Congress, to prevent a certified election from taking place?

I mean, it doesn't get more insurrectiony than that.

[Fiver]

Come November 2024, the Republicans should be voted into extinction.

In Fall of 2015, I thought the worst thing that could happen would be Trump leaving the Republicans, splitting the party, and Hillary Clinton winning the election. By New Year's, I realized that was a best case scenario. I left the Party when Trump got the nomination.

Obviously, the Republican Party is divided and disfunctional. But I don't want single party state either. I think the Republican Party will split at some point, with one side led by the Trumpanistas and the other led by Never Trumpers. If Trump remains in control of the Republicans, than it should go extinct.

Right now, the only Republican I would ever vote for is an anti-Trump Republican. Not that there are many left, most have been forced out or retired. I don't want the Party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt to die, but if it stays in the hands of Trumpanistas, then it is already dead.

[rjpalmer]

I don't want the Party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt to die, but if it stays in the hands of Trumpanistas, then it is already dead.

Of course, Roosevelt himself abandoned the Republican Party because it was too reactionary and formed the Progressive Party (Bullmoose), whose platform was anti-corruption, a social security system, women's suffrage, and worker's rights (which included, among other things, a 40-hour work week).

Which, in my opinion, is about as far removed from today's GOP philosophy as one can imagine, though let us remember that in 2020 the GOP didn't even draft a platform--for the first-time in U.S. history.

The platform was literally, Donald Trump Will Be the Whole of the Law. Whatever he says at any given moment, we agree with. That's our platform.

[c.d.]

There has already been a Public Congressional hearing at the end of which the Congressional committee recommended that Trump be charged and sent the committee finding to the DOJ. When one incites and aids in a mob of people storming the Capitol in order to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States, by ANY Definition that's insurrection.

What exactly do you think constitutes insurrection if not a mob storming the actual Capitol, and threatening to lynch members of Congress, to prevent a certified election from taking place?

I mean, it doesn't get more insurrectiony than that.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you might get it. Yes, the Committee recommended that Trump be charged but it was simply that, a "recommendation", it had no weight of law behind it. Yes, Trump is incredibly sleazy and in my opinion should be in jail. But if you think this involves Trump only and the whole issue is taking place in a vacuum then congratulations because you have just graduated "Summa Cum Laude" from naive school. If you take Trump off of the ballot because of unproven (as in a court of law) allegations then ANY candidate can be taken off the ballot for unproven allegations. Now let's say that there is a candidate that you really like and support. One who wants to protect a woman's right to choose, one who is adamantly opposed to book censorship, one who supports same sex marriage and every other issue you agree with. Unproven allegations are made against him. Do you now support his being taken off the ballot as a result? You can't have it both ways. It is not simply Trump. It is a huge slippery slope. Don't go with the knee jerk reaction. You might regret it.

c.d.

[Ally]

The hearing was public. The evidence was shown to all the American people. If "my candidate" participated in an insurrection, I don't care about their position on a woman's right to choose. Because if they don't respect the fundamental principle of free elections, their other positions are irrelevant.

The facts are these: Trump, by every single definition committed crimes that by any legal definition amount to insurrection. The evidence was shown to the American people. If ANY candidate that I "liked" had a similar series of actions, and it was shown to me, in full evidence, over ten days of testimony and evidence being laid out before me, I would ALSO be calling for their removal from the ballots. If a party can't field a better candidate than an insurrectionist crook who attempted to treason by tantrum, then that party deserves to lose.

The idea of "slippery slope" is usually fallacious and a call for inaction in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing. Trump did it. The evidence is clear and convincing. The fact that our government is too chicken-**** and corrupt to do what needs to be done, doesn't mean that is the sole decider.

The fact is, the 14th amendment does not require a conviction. Just the act is sufficient. And the act has been more than proven. Judges, are looking at the act. A Judge, will decide.

We aren't talking about putting him in jail for these crimes. We are talking about never allowing a man who has proven that the rule of law and democracy is irrelevant to him, to NEVER again put him in the position where his actions or inactions can fundamentally destroy the founding principle of free society.

He isn't going to jail. Not being allowed to run for office isn't a massive punishment. It's a protection for all of us, who are his victims.