The possibility is there for him to some how win but considering his track record since his 2016 win, it doesn't look very promising for the Trump camp.
Trump crushes Biden in latest ABC News poll
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
They may understand how the system works but just have different priorities than you, valcazar.
Not looking good for Lefties who wanted to get Trump off the ballot
they say trump is the threat to democracy yet they think they can tell the american people who or who not your allowed to vote for
Not the ones who think "my vote is about who I support".
That's just misunderstanding what voting is actually doing and clinging to a myth of what they "want it to do".
The people who understand that but vote Third party for other tactical or messaging reasons but understand the consequences just have different priorities.
Yes, it sounds much better if you say they have 'different priorities' rather than they don't understand the system.
Sounds like the SC won't let the states take rump off the ballot.
Biden should announce that if coups are ok he'll starting planning one for next J6.
Most people actually paying attention figured the Supreme Court would overturn it - the question has always been on what grounds and with what new guidance.
Will they go with a narrow technical ruling that dodges the issue - knocking down this Colorado case but leaving the 14th amendment section 3 unresolved? (Something like the Colorado process wasn't proper due to some technical issue, or it can only apply to the general election and not primaries)
Or will they go with something that basically makes Section 3 non-viable in reality - saying it has to be a federal criminal conviction of insurrection, or the whole "this oath is different so it doesn't count" or "The President isn't an officer as specified in this passage".
Or will they try to put together some kind of clarification of the process going forward? - "Congress needs to pass a law specifying how the states or federal government can determine this" or "it must be state courts following a specific process" or "federal offices need to be decided in federal circuit courts" or whatever?
I'd like it to be the third, and hopefully in a process that makes sense.
(Ideally, I would like this to be a blow to federalism for elections and slowly start a move to real national voting for national office, but that's not likely.)
I kind of figure it will be the second, although I think there is a good chance it ends up with everyone agreeing to overturn Colorado but three or four different explanations why so nothing concrete is solved.
If the use the third can't the dems come back and say he was impeached twice and if that's not the process what is?
But that's a small minority.
The vast majority of people voting third party or refusing to vote don't understand the system.
The clue is usually when they say "I just can't support X person" - that is a clue they've got it wrong.
No, he shouldn't.
Also, that's not what the SC is deciding here. (I suspect they won't engage in any way with whether or not Trump did it.)
No.
The first impeachment wasn't about that at all, and the second one didn't result in a conviction, so how would that be helpful?
Also, it is quite possible to commit insurrection without being someone who was in an office subject to impeachment, so it would be a pretty wild narrowing of the meaning of Section 3.
That's supposition on your part, you don't actually know what those people are thinking but assume you do with your personal opinions on morality and pragmatism.
I know, the SC is deciding whether states can eject a candidate for starting a coup, or any reason at all.
It would be worthwhile for the SC to understand the repercussions of this decision, I know the MAGA crowd here will talk about the rights of voters and the possibility that this can weaponize states to make candidates ineligible. But if it goes through it means candidates can never be removed for criminal acts, doesn't it?
No.
If you think your vote is about "who you support" and your moral worth, you don't understand the mechanics of the system.
It's also not really your fault, because the way we talk about the system acts as if that is what it is doing.
It's what we want it to do for the most part, it just isn't designed to do it. (And to be fair, when it was designed that wasn't clear.)
This is one of the major reasons people have proposed and developed other systems - to try and get closer to a system where you can vote for "who you support" in a way that is practically useful.
Not really.
They are deciding if the way Colorado did it was proper.
In the process of that they might end up deciding whether state can eject a candidate for starting a coup, or any reason at all.
They do.
They just disagree on what repercussions would be good or bad things.
Not at all.
It depends entirely on why they choose to overturn it and what rules or guidance they put in place.
