Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

So a decision not to remove (and subsequently bar him from serving again) didn't decide the issue? I thought that the Senate required a 2/3 majority to convict. If he wasn't convicted, doesn't that mean he was acquitted? Based on your logic, Bill Clinton wasn't acquitted.

Indeed, Bill Clinton was not acquitted. That isn't the determination of an impeachment proceeding, unless the Senate explicitly passes a resolution as such, which, still isn't in their purview.

Seems like he was based on all of the reporting and legal articles published around that time. A President who is impeached is either acquitted or convicted. Can you please provide a source for the requirement that the Senate pass a resolution declaring acquittal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

That’s not the only thing Trump posted on Twitter in January 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

Two different venues, two different questions and two different thresholds. No reason to conflate them unless you are trying to be willingly obtuse.

But the same question around insurrection. This isn't as clear as you think.

Seems pretty clear to all of the serious legal pundits, both conservative and liberal. What gives you more expertise than them?

Pundits give opinions (and are often wrong). Justices give rulings. Assuming you're correct, then the Supreme Court should vote 9-0 in the next few weeks on all of the Jan. 6th cases that are before them. Somehow I doubt that, but it will be an interesting ruling...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

So a decision not to remove (and subsequently bar him from serving again) didn't decide the issue? I thought that the Senate required a 2/3 majority to convict. If he wasn't convicted, doesn't that mean he was acquitted? Based on your logic, Bill Clinton wasn't acquitted.

Indeed, Bill Clinton was not acquitted. That isn't the determination of an impeachment proceeding, unless the Senate explicitly passes a resolution as such, which, still isn't in their purview.

Seems like he was based on all of the reporting and legal articles published around that time. A President who is impeached is either acquitted or convicted. Can you please provide a source for the requirement that the Senate pass a resolution declaring acquittal?

The House impeaches, the Senate either removes, or doesn't remove. The term "acquittal" is associated with a criminal proceeding and has nothing to do with an impeachment. Perhaps you were following some lazy journalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

You are totally confused. Impeachment is part of the original constitution and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The Senate had an opportunity to remove him from office and bar him from holding it again but that’s an entirely different process than what we’re discussing which is laid out in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he is kicked off Colorado ballot, he is off every state ballot.

No, each state should be able to decide. According to Remy Numa of Fox News: “There are 13 other states with pending Trump disqualification lawsuits, per Lawfare. Sorted by GOP vote share: WY, WV, SC, AK, TX, WI, NV, VA, NM, NJ, OR, NY & VT. Plus pending appeals in AZ & MI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quoted=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

Question? It's totally partisan and they will. Supreme Court will rightfully overturn it but the state of CO will draaaaaagggg it out, hoping they can beat the clock.

Why do you think it’s partisan? If Trump planned the 1/6 events, how is it not violence against the government?

There is no evidence at ALL that Trump planned the 1/6 events. In fact, evidence shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there.

The judge is highly partisan.

Trump (or whomever is president at the time) is CinC of the DC National Guard. He doesn’t have to offer them up, he can activate them at any time.

I know, facts are stubborn things.

"Alternative" facts are fiction!



The only discussion from Trump people about deploying the National Guard on Jan 6 was Kash Patel asking whether to use them to keep ”antifa” counter protesters away from Trump’s mob rally at the Ellipse. There was no discussion about the Capitol because there was no insurrection march to the Capitol scheduled or permitted. That was part of Trump’s secret coup plot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

No. Immunity doesn't mean he didn't do it, it would mean he'd be immune from prosecution for the crime committed; he can't be prosecuted even if he did it. In fact, and obviously, innocent people don't need immunity. The 14th Amendment, however, does not require prosecution and once barred from being on the ballot by a state, the amendment gives Congress the power to reinstate, not the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

The Senate did not decide anything. Trump was impeached by the House and a majority of them Senate voted to remove him voted to remove him from office and but two things was needed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering. If / when Trump wins in 2024, what will you all do?

You can scream about rules and processes or what may or may not have happened on J6 and what Turnip may or may not have done on J6, the fact remains he is the leading R candidate by an enormous margin, staggeringly enormous. And is effectively tied with Biden in the polls.

Is it "democratic" to block Trump from the ballot? Certainly not to the people prepared to vote for him. To them, it would be undemocratic. Have you thought about this and the implications? Just maybe you can use legal trickery to block him but the political price to pay, is it worth it?

Do you believe in the Constitution or not? Yes or no? Do you think some people (your dear leader) are above the law? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he is kicked off Colorado ballot, he is off every state ballot.

No, each state should be able to decide. According to Remy Numa of Fox News: “There are 13 other states with pending Trump disqualification lawsuits, per Lawfare. Sorted by GOP vote share: WY, WV, SC, AK, TX, WI, NV, VA, NM, NJ, OR, NY & VT. Plus pending appeals in AZ & MI.

They are interpreting a provision of the U.S. Constitution, so the U.S. Supreme Court will decide it for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Even if he is not on the primary ballot Trump could win the Colorado delegates by getting his supporters to vote “uncommitted” and making sure that the uncommitted delegates would vote for Trump at the Republican National Convention. Presidential preference primaries and caucuses always have an uncommitted option.

[Anonymous]

The decision stays any action until after the primary (ie when any court decision is announced) so in practical terms, this is a decision for the general election, if anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The decision stays any action until after the primary (ie when any court decision is announced) so in practical terms, this is a decision for the general election, if anything.

I seem to recall the Supreme Court moves fast when Republican presidential candidates whistle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering. If / when Trump wins in 2024, what will you all do?

You can scream about rules and processes or what may or may not have happened on J6 and what Turnip may or may not have done on J6, the fact remains he is the leading R candidate by an enormous margin, staggeringly enormous. And is effectively tied with Biden in the polls.

Is it "democratic" to block Trump from the ballot? Certainly not to the people prepared to vote for him. To them, it would be undemocratic. Have you thought about this and the implications? Just maybe you can use legal trickery to block him but the political price to pay, is it worth it?

Do you believe in the Constitution or not? Yes or no? Do you think some people (your dear leader) are above the law? Why?

Plus one.

What is staggering is the level of illegal behavior that Republicans are willing to tolerate and normalize in their leader …

I hope this trend changes for all our sakes.