2024 Primary Elections.

Okay, setting aside your FF level paranoia about how a cabal of (((elites))) control everything you are just plain wrong on the facts.

Or if I am being charitable you are… out of date. (Like your claim the US wasn’t investing in the real economy when investments in manufacturing have increased over 10x since Biden took office and are at half a century highs.)

Be honest are you aware that the official Democratic Party Platform is that there should be universal healthcare? And that Medicaid expansion AND A PUBLIC OPTION are the party’s position on the best way to get there but also says the party is open to other solutions AND EXPLICITLY SAYS that Dems are proud to be the Party of the Public Option and Medicare For All?

Were you aware of that?

Now I’m gonna guess you think Medicare For All should be the party platform. Which is your right.

But Medicare For All is a 55/32 issue whereas a public option is a 68/18 issue.

https://pro.morningconsult.com/articles/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling

The Dems making the most popular option their official stance while acknowledging the lesser popular one is NOT anti-democratic.

And claiming they are the same as Republicans (which reject both policies) is just fucking ridiculous.

To continue to be charitable maybe this is a multiparty v two party misunderstanding.

With the current electoral coalitions and population distribution the Dems need to beat the Republicans by ~4% points in the popular vote to be assured of winning the Electoral College.

Due to asymmetric gerrymandering (Dem states are MUCH more likely to have some form of impartial redistricting) House margins are even higher.

When is the last time a party in the Dáil or House of Commons got 54-57% of the vote?

The party platform needed to get those kinds of vote totals are totally different from the platforms where 35% of the vote is a historic blowout that likely insures the party will be in power for a decade plus.

Republican National Committee considering move that would declare Trump the presumptive nominee

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/rnc-trump-presumptive-nominee-resolution/index.html


RNC REALLY worried about Trump being in the public eye this early.

Hmmm. That sounds anti-democratic to me./s

I didn't say needed to, I said has been. Only right-wing media says that anyone has been disqualified only after conviction. Nice job ignoring the first part, concession accepted. I never want to see you complain about Secretaries of State not being elected or accountable again, but I'm prepared for disappointment.

So immunity if they're popular enough. That should not be a good enough reason for anyone except an utter lickspittle.

Stop dissembling and conflating. We have 2 separate issues here: 1: did Trump engage in insurrection and should that disqualify him from the ballot, and 2: did Trump's actions rise to the level of a crime? Jack Smith has nothing to say about 1, and everything to say about 2. You say he shouldn't be charged, an answer about 2. So you must think that either he should be immune from prosecution -- whether for presidency or popularity, you're just as pathetic -- or because the charges are false. Beating him in an election at most moots question 1, but I wasn't asking about that there. You say you think he shouldn't be charged with a crime. WHY NOT?

The Colorado courts have established that, and that Trump engaged in it.

Their role is to remove disqualification, not impose it. Your position has no textual support.

Criminal trial is not the only form of due process, nor is ballot access for president an unqualified right, you civics class failure. See #1406

This is some fever dream of yours. Congress removes disqualification, it does not impose it. If you cite authorities on this (and I know you can't, this is your own misreading of a hypothetical SCOTUS ruling with no basis in reality or history, just a "how SCOTUS could really fuck things up" article), they're fucking idiots too.

So why was Madison Cawthorn disqualified? Hmm? You'd like to pretend that your third procedure doesn't go through a court and has never been followed, but no one's following your Trump-interested bullshit line here. And once again, Trump had a civil trial to remain on the ballot. He fucking lost, and the Colorado Supreme Court upheld it.

Wrong. Criminal conviction does not supersede civil finding of liability. Criminal conviction is the required process for the state to remove life or liberty. You want to extend that to presidential eligibility. That's ridiculous.

Colorado courts arbitrarily decided that Trump participated in an insurrection, they had a predetermined outcome from the beginning. Do you understand that insurrection is crime? It's part of US code, therefore determining whether someone is guilty of insurrection means they have to go through a criminal trial. Here's the text you keep avoiding.

Congress enforces it, not the states, therefore they're the one to determine if he's qualified. Once again I refer you to this.

If you read the law review you will see why a conviction is required. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this one and I think you know that if it were Biden, you'd be singing a completely different tune.

And even then it's really murky as to whether the President is considered an officer.

I highly recommend you read the rest of the review.
https://www.justsecurity.org/91009/...-of-exhuming-section-3-of-the-14th-amendment/
https://illinoislawrev.web.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Blackman-Tillman.pdf

Does the right to vote fall under liberty?

No one's depriving Trump of the right to vote, at least until Jack Smith is finished with him. There is no right to vote for any particular person, no.

From what I can tell Madison Cawthorne lost the 2022 Republican Primary to Chuck Edwards.

The first link is opinion, and shitty opinion at that. It cites nothing, and asserts everything. You should utterly disregard it. I have said more on it previously, I will not repeat it to a willfully deaf audience.
The second link is at least a law review article, but it ignores the legislative history of the 14th amendment, which conclusively proves both that the writers intended it to apply to situations beyond the aftermath of the Civil War (so much for the first link's exhortation to leave it behind), and that the President and Vice President were understood to be officers. It concludes, somehow, that even though the Presidency was understood as an office under the United States by 1862 by statute, that the 14th amendment is better understood using the 1788 definition by statute. This is an untenable position to maintain, even ignoring (as the article did) that the debate during the drafting of it explicitly acknowledged, when the "President and Vice President" text was removed, that it was done so because they were redundant with "officer under the United States". Further, this article provides no opinion on whether section 3 is self-executing, making your contention that it requires an act of Congress to enforce unsupported.

They're depriving the voters the right to vote for Trump.

Before that:

The thing was mooted when he lost the primary, but no court held that he had to be convicted of insurrection first, nor disqualified by Congress, nor did he even attempt to argue that.

Fucking amazing that even Madison Cawthorn has more intellectual integrity than you do.

There is no right to vote for Trump. That you think there is is further evidence you're busy sucking at his asshole, just slobbering all over it.

And if there were, would it not require convicting all the VOTERS of something to deprive them of that right?

You do know that states have ALWAYS had the right to not put someone on the ballot, right?

The right to vote for Trump

The most optimistic take (but well reasoned)
(11) ‘The Strongest Democratic Party That Any of Us Have Ever Seen’ - YouTube

That's the Ezra Klein show interviewing Simon Rosenberg

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4430092-rfk-jr-praises-texas-border-battle-biden/

I didn't say that a "cabal of elites" existed or that elites "control everything". It isn't a conspiracy. Elites are the very rich, the 1%, the bourgeoisie. They exist and they have a lot of power, institutionally and financially. They aren't a monolith and they don't always agree on everything (hence the two parties being different) but trying to form a political worldview while ignoring their existence is ludicrous.

Which facts am I wrong on? Where have you shown me a policy that the public supports but that elites are dead against making it onto the Democratic Party platform?

You're using a lot of words to discuss healthcare, but that's actually the issue that best illustrates my point.

Despite often hysterical propaganda campaigns, the wider public have always supported universal healthcare or steps in that direction.
For a very long time, the elite were fairly uniformly against it - and it therefore made no headway.
Yet over time as costs increased it has become apparent to some of them that the dysfunctional system damages their business interests. So now it's part of the allowable range of discussion and forms of it are on the ticket.

A lot of other stuff that the public wants (I provided some examples and can provide others) is marginalised and dismissed.

There are differences and the consequences may not be as fucked up right now but don't think that what I'm describing only has applicability in the United States. Do you imagine that the Irish or British political establishments don't primarily reflect the interests of the elites in those countries?

Lots of people are constitutionally ineligible to be on the ballot, but I never heard you whining about people's right to vote for them before it affected Trump.

Bump

Article 7, Section 19 - And on the first Tuesday of November, not to fall on the 1st of November, of every fourth year, thou shalt have the right to vote for Donald Trump.

In other news, Nikki Haley outraised Trump in the last quarter as Wall Street is coalescing more its support behind her.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-to-wall-street-donors?leadSource=reddit_wall

And a Reagan appointed Judge blasted Trump for normalizing the Big Lie:

A federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan in a filing on Thursday criticized Republican politicians for trying to defend the actions of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters.

"In my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream," Washington Federal District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in a resentencing case for one of the rioters.

It just . . . it just boggles my tiny little mind that after everything we've seen since 2016 there are still so many people fucking stupid enough to vote for Trump.

Or RFK, Jr...

Being disqualified for things like age or citizenship is not as big of a deal as being disqualified for insurrection when you haven’t even been convicted of it.

You don't have to be convicted in a court. Look up "self executing" sometime.

He either won’t or he’s ignoring that part because it obliterates his argument.