It would help if you owned and used a dictionary. Denier and insurrectionist are two very different things.
Maine Removes Trump From Ballot
- Thread starter Thunderlips71
- Start date
It would help if you owned and used a dictionary. Denier and insurrectionist are two very different things.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,661
- 206,519
- 113
We believe in holding them according to the US Constititon which makes insurrectionists like Donald Trump ineligible.
There are plenty of non-traitorous GOP candidates who are eligible.
Basic civics and good for democracy.
So doing unethical stuff is not ok…unless it’s your side that’s doing it. You have no concerns about covid jabs being forced or a wide open border.
Why are you afraid of the constitution?
Now I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but from one article on Maine's decision.......
"“The oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws … is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek,” she said."
So it COULD be Maine's election laws support removing. We have already seen the states interpretation as some have removed him, some tried and failed and some see no issue. So they clearly already have variation in interpretation.
I was also making a "States Rights!" comment at the same time.
Not sure about Torbee, I have zero concerns about your two things that didn’t/aren’t happening. Do you? That seems…crazy.
One step closer to the Democrats ultimate goal of no longer holding elections.
Despise Trump, but this is a dangerous path these states are heading down.
Whatabout (made up stuff)
Every state has its own constitution. Most of those state constitutions mirror the federal aka US constitution. Yes, there are differences from state to state but the federal 14th amendment language is mostly consistent. Rulings largely depend on state constitution, statutes in the state law, how they were interpreted and case law. The doctrine of stare decisis is also involved. Largely, much like the scotus, it will be decided along party lines.
this is the correct interpretation of our constitution. The only way this could be dangerous is if you’re saying the constitution is dangerous and needs to be changed.
I would completely agree with you if people were trying to flippantly remove candidates from the ballots simply because they did not want them there… But this is 110% not that scenario.
We’re dealing with feelings and misinformation that has been monetized. Nothing will change when we have leaders such as a Jim Jordan who believe winning is all that matters. Flaws will always be present and it’s never enough for the loser. As far as the 2016 stuff. Guess I missed when the Capitol came under siege or Joe Biden was being pressured not to do the Electoral count.
Clinton conceded, Romney, conceded, McCain conceded, Kerry, Gore eventually, Dole, Bush Sr., etc etc. All of them could have pointed to the same supposed irregularities, rumors, urban legends. But instead they put the country first over their own interests.
Care to explain how those two specific items didn’t and aren’t happening?
False equivalence. It’s not debatable. Dupe.
Following Trump’s advice. I either win or it was rigged.
Maine isn't exactly a bastion of progressivism. They gave us Susan Collins, after all. To be fair, though, I don't know what the make up of their Supreme Court or how they get the seat (is it by appointment or election?)
Jesus Christ, you’re all in on the cult language. Coo-coo.
I see it differently. He hasn’t been convinced of anything. So this can appear they are grabbing at straws and being subjective here ‘simply because they do not want him here’
Looks like insurrection have consequences.
Vladimir Putin and the Democrats removing opposition from the ballot Soviet style.
What needs explained?
Nobody was forcefully vaccinated. I know lots of people who never got the jab.
And the border is not wide open. More people have been caught and detained by Biden annually than any other president, including Trump. If it were wide open the number would be zero…not a record high.
It doesn’t matter how you see it. The law is what the law says it is. The Fourteenth Amendment does not require that he be convicted, or even charged, with anything.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,661
- 206,519
- 113
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Working for public health is also not unethical. Nor is assisting asylum seekers.
So you fail to make any cogent point twice .
All 7 justices were appointed by a Democrat governor, just like Colorado.
I'm afraid you are correct. Every election going forward is going to be like this
Well…I’m sure you do see it differently.
However if you saw it from the point of view of actually reading and understanding the US Constitution you would know that conviction is not even close to necessary.
By definition, his actions clearly disqualify him to hold public office. Your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant…it’s a black and white reading of the constitution.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 98,661
- 206,519
- 113
I don’t get this argument.
Trump is a unique and historically anomalous case. One, however, which the authors of the 14th amendment anticipated fortunately.
Curious why you think that portion of the Constitution should be disregarded.
She has a picture with Biden? Must mean they're besties.
How many Trump-Epstein pictures are out there again?
It's like you're trying to top your prior idiotic posts with every new post in this thread. You really shouldn't wear ignorance as a badge of honor.
How many J6 protestors or Trump have been found guilty of insurrection? Is it 0 or 0.00?
It was such a massive and horrific event that congress was able to return to work three hours later on the same day.
Similar threads
