It's so funny that you get jolted into reality after reading it and all you can do is distract away from your failure. Now that's funny! (and very predictable)
You need some new tactics.
Breaking!!! - CO Supreme Court strikes Trump from ballot.
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
You need some new tactics.
DoFo needs a new backdrop.
And you need need to do something other than just randomly declare you won every debate.
Your nonsense and bullshit AKA misinformation isn't worth my time, sorry.
I remember a kid in public school used to go up to kids and say you can look at mine if I can look at yours. He got beat up a lot but that didn't stop him. I wonder what happened to that kid ? Are you him ?
Bringing up DoFO in a Trump post? You must be so desperate to distract from your failure again.
Sounds like you're doing the classic Leftist "Stomp my feet and plug my ears cause I don't want to hear the truth" dance.
No. You must have me confused with someone else.
I was the kid getting blowjobs from your mom at lunchtime.
DoFo and rump share tactics, skoob.
Lie your face off.
That was you - I guess getting beat up is better than not getting any attention at all if you have no friends
You're asking me the same thing?
in other words, "Is this a "You aren't allowed to restrict Trump" thing or do you have a specific, thought out view on eligibility and rules for elections?
If the latter, what is that view? "
Sure.
Ideally, if I had a magic wand, I would remove the electoral college and also put in something like score voting for the President across a national popular election, which would make the results far more reflective of the actual will of the people and also therefore encourage more honest vs tactical voting since the systemic incentives would change.
In that case, I'd actually be tempted to push to remove all eligibility requirements for the President. I don't have a huge issue with the residency, citizenship, or age requirements for President but I'm not convinced they need to exist.
As far as this case under the current structure of law and constitution, then states making the assessment one by one is perfectly reasonable behavior but I don't think it is a feasible solution.
Given that something like "they engaged in insurrection" is inherently going to be a much more subjective assessment, some kind of standard process to determine that should be laid across all 50 states.
Does it need to happen at the primaries stage? I'd prefer not - since I don't like the whole way primaries evolved in the US system.
I'd want some kind of accepted time for challenges, I'd probably want it to be in Federal court (but then I want a national system and not 50 separate elections), it would have to be much shorter than a criminal trial.
But I don't think you can really throw them off the ballot if it is federal - you would have to put the challenge at the level of holding the office.
If ballot access is at the state level - then I think you would have to do it state by state, but I think you could have a standard test that the state courts are supposed to look at.
Then you have states pass laws making it clear how that challenge would be addressed in their state. (I think a big problem of what is happening now is that the challenges are going through systems that are not designed to assess something that has this kind of constitutional assessment rather than more technical issues like "did they get enough signatures".)
You have to keep the "Congress can override this with a vote" as a way to respond to overwhelming results of the people.
Yes, two thirds super majorities are pretty useless in the current polarized environment, but it offers a "we got fucked on a weird technicality and the whole country things this is stupid" backstop.
If 99% of Americans want him, he gets put back on the ballot by Congress, obviously.
That's the system in place now and as you can see above, I completely agree with that.
Of course, if 99% of Americans wanted him, this would likely not come up - who would bring the complaint in that case?
There is no rule that would stop anyone who had 99% support to be President.
But since the rules already have a backstop, that's fine.
I'm not going to throw out eligibility rules on the basis of the edge case - especially when a way to redress the mistake in an edge case already exists.
Of course, since no President has ever won an election with 65% of the vote, let alone 70%, arguing that rules should be suspended for someone in case he gets 99% is just silly.
Because it doesn't answer my question.
There are multiple interpretations of what you mean by that.
1 - Reductio ad absurdum - You are arguing that since barring anyone from running could result in a situation where the population overwhelmingly wants someone who was barred on a technicality, the rule should never be applied. The logical follow up from this is that all eligibility requirements should be scrapped, since they all suffer from this flaw. As you can see above, I don't think this is a strong argument both for the case that if the argument requires absurd numbers, it doesn't seem very strong in this case and for the simple fact that "fuck that, we are just voting the rule as moot" is already in the system and rule set as it exists, so this complaint can be handled.
2 - This is a Trump-only exception - You are arguing that Trump has huge support and therefore should not be subject to the rule because he might or is likely to win or because you like him.
3 - This is an exception for this particular requirement only. - I'm not sure how you would argue this, but given the more subjective nature of the Constitutional issue here as opposed to "Were they born in the United States", I could see someone wanting to make this argument.
This should be an easy thing for you to answer, and the follow up of what that implies for other eligibility requirements, but you seem very reluctant to engage with that question.
Do you mean this statement?
How is this me claiming to be on the Supreme Court since I am saying that the Supreme Court has to determine (along with the rest of the system) a consensus on what should be the proper application?
LOL!
That's a cute one.
Yes, the US has always existed in tension with the fact that it was based in an insurrection and then immediately passed laws saying you aren't allowed to have an insurrection against it.
What's the expression?
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
But how does that make anyone a hypocrite?
No one among the revolutionaries thought that if they lost, they should not suffer any consequences for their actions.
Some of the Confederates were granted amnesty.
That is expressly written in the amendment.
Do you think that the proper answer here should be that Congress proposes a motion to remove any possible removal of Donald Trump from the ballot?
I'd have no objection to that - it would actually be a very interesting debate for Congress to have and would be completely and unambiguously constitutional.
Wow, talk about the leading question!! LOL
Hilariously crude.
Answered above.
But, of course, by that argument, he should be removed, since the "vast majority of Americans" don't want him, "rules or not".
There is no "vast majority" that wants him as President. They never have and no evidence currently exists to imply that even a majority, let alone of a vast one, wants him now.
Does a majority of Americans think he should be on the ballot?
I don't know if anyone has that info.
When the Colorado decision was made, the only poll I saw showed that a slim majority of Americans approved of the decision to remove him from the ballot.
Do you approve or disapprove of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump can't appear on the state's 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 takeover of the Capitol amount to insurrection or rebellion against the United States? | Daily Question
Do you approve or disapprove of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump can't appear on the state's 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 takeover of the Capitol amount to insurrection or rebellion against the United States?
today.yougov.com
A somewhat different question produces a different result.
Most Americans say voters should be able to decide Trump's eligibility | YouGov
More Americans say the voters should be able to make the decision about whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president again than say the decision should be made by the courts or by Congress.
today.yougov.com
So lots of people think both the Voters and the Courts have a voice in this.
(I'm curious about the 10% who think none of the above, I suspect they mean some kind of "other" group that wasn't listed should also be involved, but maybe they really mean none.)
I would hope there have been follow up polls from various polling firms following up with this to see what people think, but I don't know of them.
Either way, even on the question of him being on the ballot, there doesn't seem to be a vast majority who say that what's going on here shouldn't be happening.
LOL
Still waiting on that proof.
Here: Real Clear tends to just put up all major polls, I think. (If you don't like them, you can look somewhere else.)
2024 General Election: Trump vs. Biden | RealClearPolling
2024 General Election: Trump vs. Biden | RealClearPolling
As you can see, none of those show a majority of Americans wanting Trump. The closes you get is that Harvard-Harris poll last month that shows a majority of registered voters want him. (And if you go into the poll itself, you see that you only get the 52/48 when you remove the "don't know/unsure" voters from the measure.)
So still waiting on that if you can provide it, please.
Tthanks for answering it. So much would have been avoided.
With respect to the present situation, there is really only one way to find out if the majority of Americans want him. Isn’t there?
With respect to the present situation, there is really only one way to find out if the majority of Americans want him. Isn’t there?
LOL. I answered it the first time.
So we are back to the earlier question - do you or do you not think there should be no eligibility rules at all?
Is your position that since the only way to determine if an eligibility rule applies is after the fact (because if a majority wants the person, the rule shouldn't apply), then eligibility rules are useless and should all be removed since they are for all practical purposes pointless.
You have also now shifted to "a majority" and not the overwhelming majority numbers you were using earlier.
So again, is that because you don't believe any eligibility rules should apply or is their actually a majoritarian threshold you think means the rules should be suspended at that point?
And finally, since the most likely case of Trump winning involves him not receiving a majority of the votes, or even a plurality, how does that play into your view here?
Is it again, you simply believe there should be no eligibility requirements at all, or is it that requirements should not apply if the person is supported by a majority of the population, or is it that requirements should not apply if someone wins (which is, of course, indistinguishable in practice from "there should be no eligibility requirements at all".)
Or, finally, is this only about the 14th amendment insurrection passage, which should simply be stripped out because you think it is a bad requirement? (The age, residency, citizenship, and state ballot access requirements should stay.)
Last edited:
Search the thread and you'll see the proof I provided. Lots of polls out there.Still waiting on that proof.
Here: Real Clear tends to just put up all major polls, I think. (If you don't like them, you can look somewhere else.)
2024 General Election: Trump vs. Biden | RealClearPolling
2024 General Election: Trump vs. Biden | RealClearPollingwww.realclearpolling.com
View attachment 288240
As you can see, none of those show a majority of Americans wanting Trump. The closes you get is that Harvard-Harris poll last month that shows a majority of registered voters want him. (And if you go into the poll itself, you see that you only get the 52/48 when you remove the "don't know/unsure" voters from the measure.)
So still waiting on that if you can provide it, please.
Point is, considering everything that has been thrown at Trump over the past several years, the support is there.
I did.
As I said in the earlier post, you posted a link to 270 to win, but that is a bunch of state polls and an assessment of the electoral college, not anything about "the majority of Americans want him".
You haven't posted anything else.
Sure, but I just linked to a collection of them and they all show him not with support that tracks to "the majority of Americans want him".
He has lots of support.
But that's not what you claimed.
You said "the majority of Americans" want Trump to be President and we have all asked for you to back that up.
