2024 Primary Elections.

Apologies if you have already answered these questions. If you don’t mind please just copy paste the answers or it too much a hassle just post the links.

So you should be the arbiter of who is or is not eligible for the ballot?

Or should there be some kind of legal and/or procedural process to determine these kinds of questions?

But just so we are all on the same page, you do agree that the constitution should be followed in regards to presidential eligibility, yes?

Let's skip past the bullshit. If you believe in the constitution then you don't to cherry pick which amendments you like or which parts of amendments you like or don't like. Yes states can have some say as to who can and can't be on the ballot and yes the fourteenth amendment doesn't lay out the specifics on who can be disqualified and yes an unelected official can disqualify Trump on the grounds of determining he participated in an insurrection, but the Supreme Court will likely strike it down. I think in order to look legit in the eyes of the American people, Trump would have to be convicted of insurrection before being disqualified because there is also a due process clause in this country and insurrection is a criminal act and there is a section 5 of the fourteenth amendment that gives congress the authority to enforce the amendment. So in the end, most people see this for what it is, a political stunt by the Democrats that will likely fail and could cost them the election. But sure, play games with the constitution.

Okay then!

We'll see.

"The American people".
Sure, buddy.

It’s always funny to dig down just a little further… You don’t have to go that far.

Con: The American People want/think/say…

Regular person: Actually we have extremely large amounts of data that show 60-80% of the US pop want/think/say the opposite…

Con: Yeah… but… I mean… You know… C’mon… Real Americans want/think/say…

Actually I’d prefer if you just answered the questions first so I know we are all starting out on the same page.

35 states have an elected Secretary of State, and a further 12 have one appointed by elected officials (9 governors, 3 legislatures). But somehow I don’t think you’re fine with the Secretary of State in those 35 disallowing Trump being on the ballot either, so you’re not really cutting the bullshit here, are you? To say nothing of how judges and juries are unelected. So if you’re going to say, “cut the bullshit” might I suggest doing so yourself.

No one has ever had to be convicted of insurrection before to be barred from the ballot under 14AS3. Only right wing media is trying to pretend otherwise. You’re falling for it, surprise, surprise.

Yep and between Colorado’s process (which throws it to the judiciary) and Maine’s (where the SoS is a member of the Executive but appointed by and answering to the Legislature every two years) we have all three branches of government represented in these challenges.

You just said you don’t think he should be charged at all. Why not? Either you think he should have total immunity for his actions, which makes you a monarchist — whether just for Trump or not, doesn’t matter, just as Unamerican either way — or you don’t think he actually did what he’s accused of.

Your guy tried to thwart the will of the American electorate. That sounds pretty "shutting down democracy" to me.

Again, not my guy.

But seems to be your pal, friend.

Right.

So why do you insist on tonguing his taint? Hobby? Boredom?

No it's not only right wing media, Ari Melber was on Real Time this past week and he agreed that Trump needs to be convicted of insurrection first. Get out of your bubble every once in a while.

I don't insist on doing shit.

No it's not either or. You guys do this all the time, you either this or that, there's never any other options becaudse you lack imagination. I don't think it's practical when half of the country likes him. I think the best way to solve this is through elections. I also don't think he should have total immunity either, but you have to show that a crime was committed. We haven't even established that J6 was an insurrection, I say it isn't. Congress can decide if it was and enforce section three if they so choose. You know what's unamerican, deciding someone is guilty before they've even been charged with a crime and then taking away their rights without due process.

Funny, because you've already admitted that (1) the authors of the 14th Amendment intended for Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee to be disqualified from holding office, and (2) neither of them was ever convicted of insurrection.

Everyone be sure to congratulate Dean Phillips for finishing second to somebody who wasn't on the ballot.

Umm… So is this where I admit that I was kinda pulling for Marianne Williamson to get second…

… for reasons.

That's right. I must have missed where they tried to run for President and the Republicans tried to take them off the ballot.

Schroedinger’s eligibility.

Lee and Davis weren’t eligible to run for office unless they decided to run for office in which case they would be eligible unless proven ineligible via a process you just created.

Got it. Makes perfect sense. I in no way see how @@tafkats came to the conclusion that logic isn’t your strong suit.

No, dumbass. I think that they wouldn't be eligible because they participated in an insurrection. But they didn't run for office so we have no idea how that would have played out. Maybe congress would have decided that they were eligible to be on the ballot and that's the end of it or maybe they decide that they aren't eligible because they participated in an insurrection, but first they should be convicted of insurrection. Get it now? I'll make it simple for you.
1. Participate in an insurrection
2. Convicted of insurrection
3. Candidate runs for office
4. Congress disqualifies them from running for office.
The End.

Or
1. participates in insurrection
2. candidate doesn't run for office and lives out their lives in peace
The End

No need to disqualify them because they didn't run for office. History can decide if they were qualified or not.

Not
1. Some people think candidate participated in insurrection, but candidate hasn't been charged or convicted of insurrection.
2. candidate runs for office
3. Those same people decide candidate participated in insurrection and therefore remove candidate from ballot without a trial.
The End

So the difference is ... whether the person tries to run for president or not? And if they try, they should automatically be allowed to; they're only disqualified if the disqualification doesn't mean anything?

The difference is that you may believe that Trump participated in an insurrection, but he hasn't been convicted of insurrection and Congress hasn't decided that he's not qualified, therefore he's still qualified. You see there's another part of the 14th amendment that you keep missing

A SoS just arbitrarily deciding he participated in an insurrection and then deciding for the whole state that he is disqualified, thus removing the voters' ability to vote for him is not due process, it's the actions of an authoritarian.

If only John Wilkes Booth had survived then we’d really have a test case.

Actually…

No.

Everyone knew they were ineligible.

So much so that it was a serious sore point for Southerners/conservatives and so as part of ‘National Reconciliation’ after the civil rights movement and then Vietnam and Nixon first Gerald Ford signed a 14th Amendment Congressional action for Lee and then Jimmy Carter one for Davis.

They literally had to pass a law to rehabilitate those insurrectionists and explicitly tied it into the 14th Amendment Section 3.

Read the text. I’ll post it below.

This is what conservatives/Southerners required to come to peace with the darkies being considered equal (at least from a FedGov standpoint).

Everyone knows IJ Simpson is a murderer too that doesn’t legally make him one.

So, seems to me Republicans are painted into the world's most uncomfortable corner.

A significant proportion of Haley voters say they will never vote for Trump. He can't win without them.
An even larger proportion of independents say that, even more net loss off of his 2020 total.
Similar margins say that a criminal conviction is a deal breaker.
And as he continues to appear publicly, the party is going to have more problems hiding his steep cognitive decline than hiding his legal problems.

Conversely, if the Party finds an off ramp and bails on him at the convention, MAGA will explode in rage at his nomination having been stolen and will by no means vote for Haley in November. Though she will surely do a LOT better with independents, it likely can't make up for MAGA staying home (or voting for Kennedy)

If there were no Trump, or he had simply shut up and played golf after he lost, Haley could probably comfortably beat Biden...not that's not the world they have to live in.

Worse, if you look ahead to 2028 and assume that Haley is burned with MAGA and can't try again, at least not soon, who else in the GOP can bring Trump's unique appeal to lunatics without the senility or the legal baggage?
The bench is basically empty of any Republican who can win a national election.

Cruz thinks it's him, but it's not. Abbott would fare worse than Desantis (and everyone has learned that nobody likes Desantis as a person and that's not a winning charisma). Kemp? MAGA hates him. Youngkin? Bland. Sununu? Backs Haley so no (otherwise he might have some traction). Vance is a vacuum of personality too.

MAYBE Kristy Noem?

Not completely true.

He isn’t criminally a murderer.

But a jury of his peers has found him by a perpondeance of evidence to be liable for murder.

Is this really the blade you want to dance on son?

Well, the folks who filed suit to have Trump removed from the ballot in CO were Republicans. The Maine SoS who pulled Trump from the ballot might be a Democrat, but she's not acting upon orders from the party AFAIK. Reportedly, and take this with a grain of salt, since I learned about it from that raging leftist Keith Olbermann, the Biden campaign has polling data that indicates a large number of Republicans don't actually think that Trump will be the GOP nominee. Because of this, again, this is according to that raging leftist Keith Olbermann, the Biden campaign is hoping that Trump secures the nomination as quickly as possible. If that happens, they believe that this will translate into more votes for Biden.



Let's not forget that legend has it the reason Trump decided to run (and then get the nomination) in 2016 was because the Clintons thought that he'd be easy to beat. So, the question is: Which aspect of history will repeat itself? Will it be Teddy Roosevelt seeking a third term? Or will it be the Clintons puffing Trump because they thought that there's no way Hillary would ever lose to him? We'll find out.

Oh, and if I'd have had my druthers, there's no way that Hillary would have been allowed to run for President, as I think that political dynasties are a bad thing. So, a Constitutional amendment that prevents a relative from running for the same seat (even if they're doing it from a different state), is absolutely something I'll back. And feel free to check me on this, you'll find that it has been my stated position since at least '08.

No. If you read the memoirs of famed forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, he makes a case that while there is reason to believe OJ Simpson did in fact do it, there is also reason to believe that OJ had help with the murder and that there are aspects of the case which do raise questions about how the crime was committed. My audiobook narration of "The Life and Deaths of Cyril Wecht" will be on sale through Amazon/Audible in a few days. If you'd like a free download, I'll be glad to send you a code for it. You have to sign up for an Audible account if you don't already have one, but it's free.