Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2024 U.S. Election of President and Vice President

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DOR
    replied
    Remember, folks: the States are sovereign! If the Supreme Court can't decide in favor of the Constitution all by itself, then the States might just have to remind them!

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Yep, imagine the potential for 'tit or tat' retaliation by some of the more ardently pro-trump Republican States.
    Last edited by Monash; 31 Dec 23,, 21:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Not sure how happy I am about state officials removing Presidential candidates from the ballot. Glad she has formally held off until SCOTUS decides the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Maine Secretary of State rules Trump is ineligible to appear on state’s 2024 ballots

    Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, issues a determination that former President Donald Trump is prohibited from seeking office again in 2024 due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

    "I conclude that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid. Specifically I find that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    But Bellows suspended her decision from taking effect until the state Supreme Court rules on the matter.
    __________

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Chunder View Post

    I remember in 2016 you saying 'we (U.S.) will never elect that man'. It has been a battle of tenacity on your part. If we're all still around in 2030 hopefully thats been won.
    Trump has been framing the 2024 election in apocalyptical terms to appeal to his Christofascist base: "This is the final battle".

    In a way, he's not wrong. The events of 2024 will most definitely decide the future of the American republic. If he's sworn in on January 20th 2025, the United States is basically finished as a sustainable democracy. There will be no "adults in the room" to act as a brake on his wilder impulses, he and his fascist advisors will have learned from his previous term and they will be out for revenge.

    The sad thing is, he isn't trying to hide any of that^^.

    One quibble: We, the U.S., did not elect that man. The Electoral College did. The American people rejected him by nearly 2.9 million votes (10 million, if you count all of the votes not cast for him)

    Leave a comment:


  • Chunder
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    Hey c'mon, just because we're sleepwalking into another catastrophe, that's no reason to swear off....OK, yeah, actually it is a good reason.
    I remember in 2016 you saying 'we (U.S.) will never elect that man'. It has been a battle of tenacity on your part. If we're all still around in 2030 hopefully thats been won.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by statquo View Post
    Feel like Clarence Thomas has a pretty clear conflict of interest in the matter considering his wife’s involvement. Should recuse himself missing from but we all know he won’t
    That implies a level of integrity sadly missing from SCOTUS today. SDO'C's funeral this week really brought that home to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • statquo
    replied
    Feel like Clarence Thomas has a pretty clear conflict of interest in the matter considering his wife’s involvement. Should recuse himself but we all know he won’t

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post

    This court has already shown a lot of deference to states rights. This court results could be the poster child for states rights.
    State's rights....until it keeps The Leader off the ballot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    This will be interesting. My understanding is that the states have always been allowed to set forth their rules on elections state or federal as per the Constitution, Article 1 Section 4. Congress could intervene if there was gross abuse although this doesn't rate gross abuse.

    So on what basis would the Federal Supreme Court say this is unconstitutional? Obviously it is possible since Thomas and Aiito pretty much ignore the Constitution. If anybody could facilitate the downfall of democracy in this country it IS those two.

    As far as write in his name? Yeah, but that would be complicated for many of his followers to even understand that.
    This court has already shown a lot of deference to states rights. This court results could be the poster child for states rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Trump Booted Off of Colorado Ballot

    The Supreme Court of Colorado has finished reviewing a lower court's ruling, and has ruled 4-3 that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot in 2024.

    Trump is not going to win in Colorado in 2024. Or, if he does, it will mean a wave so red that Colorado's EVs don't matter. So, the main significance of yesterday's ruling is that it effectively forces the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question. Had every state struck down challenges to Trump's eligibility, SCOTUS might have remained above the fray. Clearly, they really don't want to get involved here. But now, there's a serious constitutional question on which states have disagreed (Minnesota, recall, has already ruled that Trump could stay on the ballot). Recognizing full well that an appeal is coming, the Colorado supremes stayed their decision pending that appeal.

    Assuming that SCOTUS takes the case—and, again, how can they avoid doing so?—they have three basic options:
    1. Broadly Overturn the Decision: If you had to bet, this is probably the outcome you should bet on, since the Court is 6-3 conservative, and since allowing the Fourteenth Amendment to be applied like this opens many cans of worms. To make this work, the Court would have to come up with a compelling reasoning for why the Fourteenth doesn't apply to Trump. Basically, they would have to argue that: (1) it wasn't an insurrection, or (2) it was an insurrection but Trump didn't support it, or (3) it was an insurrection and Trump did support it, but that's not disqualifying for him. Option #3 is probably the most viable; the Colorado decision that was just overturned was based on the judge's observation that the Fourteenth Amendment says this:
      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.


      Note that while presidential electors are mentioned, presidents are not. That said, the presidency is clearly a civil office, and Trump clearly took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, so you have to squint very hard to argue that his current run for office is not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. But again, one (Democratic-appointed) judge already did so, so...

      It is also worth pointing out that if SCOTUS does rule that it wasn't an insurrection (#1) or that it was an insurrection but Trump didn't support it (#2), that would effectively gut Jack Smith's Washington D.C. case.

      There might be one way out for SCOTUS if the justices want to get rid of the Colorado decision without upending Jack Smith's case. They could declare that the president is in a special category because the Constitution specifically describes the president and the powers the president has. Therefore, he is not an officer, like, say, the secretary of the treasury. This would be slightly tricky because the oath Trump took reads:
      I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


      This strongly suggests that the president will occupy an Office as soon as he finishes this little speech. Normally, one thinks of a person who occupies an office as an "officer." However, if the the Court wants to weasel out, it could rule that millions of people go to an "office" every day and are not "officers." In this interpretation, the "Office of President of the United States" is a room at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, D.C., not the job of being president. It's iffy, but if you are grasping at straws, you can't be picky about which straw you grasp.
    2. Broadly Affirm the Decision: Alternatively, SCOTUS could affirm the Colorado decision. That would have a... profound effect, as Trump would then be tossed off the ballot everywhere, or nearly everywhere. After all, if SCOTUS has affirmed that he is subject to the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the ACLU or some other group will file lawsuits in every state arguing he's ineligible. And what can lower-level judges say, other than "I guess you're right." Even if a few rogue judges try to strike out on their own, he'd still be off the ballot in so many states that 270 EVs would be impossible.

      We presume SCOTUS does not want to get involved in deciding yet another election, particularly in a way that would hurt the Republican Party. So, we find this particular outcome to be unlikely. That said, if SCOTUS does uphold Colorado, then the Supremes damn well better provide a clear definition for what constitutes "insurrection." Otherwise, you're going to see a million lawsuits every election cycle, from here on out, and from Democrats and Republicans, spinning all sorts of different words and actions into "insurrection."
    3. Rule Narrowly, for Colorado Only: Every state has its own unique rules for elections, and Colorado is no different. So, SCOTUS could affirm or reject the decision, but only as it applies to Colorado. For example, the Centennial State has a mechanism built into the state election code that allows for citizens to challenge the validity of candidates. This mechanism is not unique, but it's not common. So, SCOTUS could find that this part of Colorado election law is not legal, and thus the suit against Trump was invalid. Or, SCOTUS could find that Colorado acted lawfully, but only because they have the provision allowing candidate challenges. Either way, the decision would only be relevant to Colorado, or to a small handful of states.

      This outcome seems more likely than the Court broadly affirming the Colorado decision. That said, it would probably end up kicking the can down the road. Now that one state has disqualified Trump, surely another will follow suit.
    In short, it's a big mess, and reasonable minds can disagree about what the correct approach is. Indeed, while we are used to seeing a 4-3 vote from a court, and thinking that the vote split along party lines, the fact is that all seven Colorado justices are Democratic appointees.

    Needless to say, politicians often struggle to acknowledge that both sides might have some merit. That is particularly true of today's Republican politicians. And so, Trump's enablers in the GOP spent yesterday pitching a fit. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) called it "nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack" and a "reckless decision." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) promptly introduced legislation that would withhold federal election funding from "states that abuse the Fourteenth Amendment." Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said the ruling was the work of "four partisan Democrat operatives" (ignoring the fact that the other three votes also came from Democrats), while predicting that the ruling "will backfire and further strengthen President Trump's winning campaign."

    Whether this will actually help Trump is an interesting question, though we think Stefanik's prediction is likely incorrect. Everyone who is inclined to see Trump as a victim is already on board the S.S. MAGA, and while the decision will fuel their anger, they still only get one vote each. Further, if SCOTUS sweeps the Colorado decision aside, then it will largely be forgotten after the dozens of "outrages" that will surely come down the pike in 2024. Meanwhile, if Colorado is upheld, it could plausibly de-fang, or even end, Trump's campaign.

    In short, we just can't see a way yesterday's ruling ends up as a win for Trump, while we can certainly see a way it ends up as a big loss. At the moment, though the biggest loser is Chief Justice John Roberts, who really, really wants to avoid this hot, hot potato. Well, OK, it's Colorado and not Idaho. So, this hot, hot proso millet. (Z)
    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    ‘Trump Knows What He’s Doing’: The Creator of Godwin’s Law Says the Hitler Comparison Is Apt


    Any time people start fighting on the internet, someone will inevitably reach for the Hitler comparison. It’s a virtually unbreakable rule known as “Godwin’s law,” named after Mike Godwin, an early internet enthusiast who coined it back in 1990. It’s also understood that often the party mentioning Hitler or the Nazis is losing the argument, though that’s not part of the law itself.

    Godwin’s law was invoked this weekend when President Joe Biden’s campaign said former President Donald Trump had “parroted Adolf Hitler” when he accused undocumented immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country.”

    But according to Godwin himself, that doesn’t mean Biden is losing the argument.

    “Trump’s opening himself up to the Hitler comparison,” Godwin said in an interview. And in his view, Trump is actively seeking to evoke the parallel.

    Trump made almost identical comments in an interview with the far-right website The National Pulse in November, around the same time Trump also called his political opponents “vermin” — all rhetoric that Hitler used to disparage Jews.

    “You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence,” Godwin said. “But both of them pretty much make it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental.”

    Comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis happen all the time, particularly in online discourse, but they’re often dismissed as ridiculous or clumsy. When public figures or their staff mention the H-word, it can provoke derision. But the Biden campaign has made a deadly serious statement, and a political wager that the public won’t dismiss the charge as hyperbole.

    In an interview with POLITICO Magazine, Godwin, now an attorney specializing in privacy and internet law, discussed whether he thinks the Biden team is right and why his rule has had such staying power.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    In comparing Trump to Hitler, is the Biden campaign losing the argument based on Godwin’s law?

    I’ve never said that just because you’re invoking the Nazis you’re losing the argument. If you’re going to compare somebody to Hitler or the Nazis or raise the specter of the Holocaust, be sure you’ve got your facts right. But there’s nothing categorically wrong with Biden’s — or anyone else’s — comparison of Trump calling people vermin or talking about blood poisoning to Hitler.

    I wasn’t a particular scholar of Hitler or the Nazis before, and I still don’t count as one, but I’ve always taken pains to know enough history to know whether a comparison was valid. And in general, dehumanizing rhetoric is a hallmark of Hitler’s rhetoric. So, Trump’s opening himself up to the Hitler comparison.

    So to be clear — do you think comparing Trump’s rhetoric to Hitler or Nazi ideology is fair?

    I would go further than that. I think that it would be fair to say that Trump knows what he’s doing. I think he chose that rhetoric on purpose. But yeah, there are some real similarities. If you’ve read Hitler’s own writing — which I don’t recommend to anyone, by the way — you see a dehumanizing dimension throughout, but the speeches are an even more interesting case.

    What we have of Hitler’s speeches are mostly recorded, and they’re not always particularly coherent. What you see in efforts to compile his speeches are scholars trying to piece together what they sounded like. So, it’s a little bit like going to watch a standup comedian who’s hitting all of his great lines. You see again and again Hitler repeating himself. He’ll repeat the same lines or the same sentiment on different occasions.

    With Trump, whatever else you might say about him, he knows what kinds of lines generate the kinds of reactions that he wants. The purpose of the rallies is to have applause lines, because that creates good media, that creates video. And if he repeats his lines again and again, it increases the likelihood that a particular line will be repeated in media reporting. So that’s right out of the playbook.

    You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence. But both of them pretty much makes it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental.

    The question is why do it on purpose. Well, my opinion is that Trump believes, for whatever reason, that there is some part of his base that really wants to hear this message said that way, and he’s catering to them. He finds it both rewarding personally for himself and he believes it’s necessary to motivate people to help him get elected again.
    ____________

    "They don't like it when I said that -- and I never read 'Mein Kampf.' They said, 'Oh, Hitler said that' - in a much different way. No, they're coming from all over the world. People all over the world"

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    The 14th Amendment doesn't require a criminal conviction to disqualify a person from holding federal public office. I don't think any of the Confederates disqualified were ever convicted in a court of law for insurrection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    My main concern is that while there is of course evidence suggesting that Trump may have been involved in planning and/or committing acts of insurrection that evidence has not yet been tested in court. And while I'm certainly no fan of Trump or the way he conducted himself while in office he is still entitled to a presumption of innocence like every other US citizen until such time as that evidence is tested and he is found guilty. So to me it looks like the Supreme Court of Colorado is jumping the gun. Get a conviction and then invalidate any future attempt at candidacy after that - albeit if he is convicted running again won't be an option for him.
    Last edited by Monash; 29 Dec 23,, 03:49.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Should have noted what I looked at where what I said comes from the middle of the paragraph.

    What I find interesting is the first sentence. They are now going to scream bloody murder about voters being disenfranchised while at the same time trying to prevent voters elsewhere from voting.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________________

    Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be counted according to state law. Through an examination of history, precedent, the Framers’ words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself, this document explains the constitutional division of power envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal government with respect to election administration. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to serve to protect one of Americans’ most precious freedoms, the right to vote.

    https://cha.house.gov/the-elections-...20elections%22.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X