CO supreme court disqualifies Trump from ballot [SCOTUS overturns]

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, they do. Colorado election law establishes a due process for challenging the constitutional qualifications of a candidate.

This is utterly absurd, and - AGAIN - you know this. AGAIN, the can of worms that this opens up - that a partisan judiciary can arbitrarily decree without presentation of evidence nor without allowing counter-argumentation that a candidate has participated in an insurrection and is thus disqualified from appearing on a ballot - will delegitimize elections ever after.

It'll be like Oprah handing out cars, except it'll be partisan judges and bureaucrats handing out flimsy claims of insurrection and declaring candidates ineligible.

I personally am fine with you sitting by and advocating the collapse of the system... I'm just surprised that you are.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Lol, you are really out of touch.

Coming from the guy who thinks Trump will be making big plays and dropping massive bombshells all throughout next year. Next I suppose you'll start saying if the Deep State takes down Trump, Trump will take them down with him.

 

[Madison320]

I think there's a good argument to be made. As more of his cronies are pleading guilty, it's only becoming more obvious that he personally directed election fraud to his own benefit, then resorted to mob violence when certain key people refused to participate in his fraud.

So you think it was an insurrection, I think this was a bunch of unarmed idiots breaking windows. A real insurrection would be the civil war. Your answer shows why it's such a bad idea to allow subjective laws used by the ruling power to eliminate the competition.

 

[TheCount]

So you think it was an insurrection, I think this was a bunch of unarmed idiots breaking windows. A real insurrection would be the civil war. Your answer shows why it's such a bad idea to allow subjective laws used by the ruling power to eliminate the competition.

The insurrection was not the chuds breaking windows.

 

[TheCount]

This is utterly absurd, and - AGAIN - you know this. AGAIN, the can of worms that this opens up - that a partisan judiciary can arbitrarily decree without presentation of evidence nor without allowing counter-argumentation that a candidate has participated in an insurrection and is thus disqualified from appearing on a ballot - will delegitimize elections ever after.

Imagine if evidence had been presented and if the candidate got to argue against that.

Wouldn't that have been something?



Oh, sorry, did the blue checks not mention that part? Huh. Weird.

 

[69360]

So you think it was an insurrection, I think this was a bunch of unarmed idiots breaking windows. A real insurrection would be the civil war. Your answer shows why it's such a bad idea to allow subjective laws used by the ruling power to eliminate the competition.

Those unarmed idiots missed capturing Pence by less than a minute. If they had, we might be having a very different conversation right now.

 

[dannno]

Those unarmed idiots missed capturing Pence by less than a minute. If they had, we might be having a very different conversation right now.

You will really believe anything they tell you, won't you?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Those unarmed idiots missed capturing Pence by less than a minute. If they had, we might be having a very different conversation right now.

Imagine if something that didn't happen actually happened...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Imagine if evidence had been presented and if the candidate got to argue against that.

Wouldn't that have been something?



Oh, sorry, did the blue checks not mention that part? Huh. Weird.

It certainly would lend considerable more credence to the claim that an insurrection occurred. As opposed to the anecdotal and frankly false claims made by corporate media organizations that refuse to show that Trump on 1/6/21 encouraged the crowd to peacefully protest at the Capitol. And that he was well within his 1A rights to say such things.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1741239499915493389

//

 

[Madison320]

The insurrection was not the chuds breaking windows.

It was an insurrection because the party in power says it was. It's subjective. That's the problem.

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"


The fact that you keep comparing the age requirement to the insurrection requirement proves you are either not very smart or lying.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Subjective: I am burning up with fever.
Objective: My temperature is 99.9

 

[Occam's Banana]

Democracy - especially mass democracy on a continent-spanning scale of a third of a billion people - is nothing but an exercise in pud-pulling wankery disguised as will-of-the-people "legitimacy".

https://twitter.com/i/status/1740568280207647027
[h/t [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] : http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ump-from-primary-ballot&p=7205731#post7205731]

VIDEO: Maine Sec. of State Shenna Bellows says she believes that government should represent "the will of the people."

Unless, of course, the will of the people is Donald Trump.

“The right to vote is fundamental to everything else we care about. Our democracy depends on every American being able to participate and exercise their right to vote…to make sure that our government is representing the will of the people."

What Bellows *actually* believes is that her partisan, unilateral judgment overrules your right to vote for the candidate of your choice.

She’s fine with disenfranchising you and your rights — if it benefits the Democrat party.

Watch:

"'Our democracy' is always code for 'our hegemony'." -- Michael Malice

"The best thing for America would be Trump removed from every Democrat controlled State’s primary ballot as soon as possible—it would force a real national confrontation and provide much needed clarity." -- Ib @Indian_Bronson (https://twitter.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1740721533629386816)

Unironcially this. ↑↑↑

The sooner the notions that America is (small-"d") democratic and (small-"r") republican are exposed as illusions and delusions, the better.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You will really believe anything they tell you, won't you?

He doesn't believe a word of it, he's one of them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

This is utterly absurd, and - AGAIN - you know this. AGAIN, the can of worms that this opens up - that a partisan judiciary can arbitrarily decree without presentation of evidence nor without allowing counter-argumentation that a candidate has participated in an insurrection and is thus disqualified from appearing on a ballot - will delegitimize elections ever after.

It'll be like Oprah handing out cars, except it'll be partisan judges and bureaucrats handing out flimsy claims of insurrection and declaring candidates ineligible.

I personally am fine with you sitting by and advocating the collapse of the system... I'm just surprised that you are.

His side has always wanted the system to collapse, that's what Brandon is causing on purpose.
When it collapses they will impose absolute tyranny, just as you anarchists have been warned about over and over.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Which of these two fits your description of a republic and which fits a democracy:

- Enforcing constitutional qualifications for candidates

- Ignoring the Constitution when a loud enough and large enough mob desires an unqualified candidate

This embodies a false dichotomy. The (small-"r") republican and (small-"d") democratic dimensions of the American polity cannot be tidily separated and treated as mutually exclusive elements that function independently of one another.

It is not a matter of "either / or", but of "both / and" [1] - especially given that the republican "enforcing [of] constitutional qualifications for candidates" is performed by democratic partisans (or their bureaucratic appointees/agents/payees/etc., who are themselves apt to be partisans and to act as such). As for the other prong of the dichotomy, "loud enough and large enough mob" have never been required for "ignoring the Constitution". Indeed, the latter occurs far more frequently without the former than with it (hence, Michael Malice's observation that "'Our [republic-cum-]democracy' is always code for 'our hegemony'.").



[1] And as far as the "both / and" goes, the (small-"d") democratic dimension has waxed predominantly over the (small-"r") republican dimension. The republican dimension has waned significantly ever since the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, and on through Reconstruction (which gave us the 14th Amendment, the source of one of the bones presently being contended over), the 17th Amendment's implementation of the popular election of federal senators, etc. - to the point that America as a "republic" is little more than a collection of a few dozen or so pseudo-autonomous administrative districts of "our" federal democracy (LOL).

You have completely ignored my point.

Perhaps I have. That tends to happen when false dichotomies are used to make a point.

The claim was that enforcing a constitutional disqualification of a candidate amounts to ignoring the law to instead appease the mob. That is an Orwell-level inversion of the truth.

If the mobility scooter mob demands to elect a 24 year old, is it "against the republican dimension" to uphold the constitutional age requirement in the face of their pontoon boat parades?

Nothing is being done in order to "appease" any mobs. This entire affair is an intra-governmental power play. The marshaling and deployment of "mobility scooters" and "pontoon boats" notwithstanding, the wishes of any "mobs" (however "loud [...] and large" they may be) are and will be of no more relevance to the outcome than the wishes of fans spectating at a sportsball game.

In any case (and unlike inter-subjectively valid criteria, such as the age of a candidate), for purposes of determining whether any "constitutional disqualification of a candidate" applies, the issue of whether anything that can properly be called an "insurrection" ever really even occurred at all is not and will never be even remotely "objective" (as are questions such as whether any formal "charge" or "conviction" is first necessary, and whether this venue or that is the appropriate locus for the resolution of such matters, and so on and so on).

Like interpretations of Rorschach blots, those who are inclined to see "insurrection" and disqualification will see them, and those who are not, will not - "... and never the twain shall meet". (Welcome to mass "democracy".)

This entire thread is about state control of elections and differences between states' laws. Isn't support for state control of elections also support for the republican dimension?

Is it? I don't know. As I said before, "America as a 'republic' is little more than a collection of a few dozen or so pseudo-autonomous administrative districts of 'our' federal democracy". Depending on which position works out in which side's favor, one side will say "the feds' rules should supersede the states' on federal election matters", and the other side will say "the states' rules should supersede the feds'" - and each side will claim to be the "real" republicans.

The mob thinks that colorado state law does not regulate a colorado election.

The Trump-aodring mob may or does think such a thing, while the Trump-hating mob may or does not.

But so what? The wishes of neither mob are relevant. They are not the ones who will dispose the matter.

What do you think?

What I think will happen is that (as I noted previously) the issue will be decided by "[small-'d'] democratic partisans (or their bureaucratic appointees/agents/payees/etc., who are themselves apt to be partisans and to act as such)" [1] - and high-minded devotion to (small-"r") republican principle will ultimately have little if anything to do with it. [2]

As for what I think ought to happen:

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1740541710277743087

​

In short, I don't really care what the issue is (or the reasons for or against) - I have no problem with Colorado (or any other state - such as Texas, for example) telling the feds to stick it where the sun don't shine. (And the same applies for Coloradans with respect to Denver, and so forth.)



[1] See Maine's Secretary of State, for just one example.

[2] In this post I said "I won't be surprised if SCOTUS overrules [the Colorado decision] 9-0" - but that is not due to any supposition on my part of high-minded republicanism at SCOTUS. Rather, it is because courts tend to (small-"c") conservative circumspection - and the higher the court, the more conservative the circumspection.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The insurrection was not the chuds breaking windows.

Without the "chuds breaking windows", there is no "insurrection" narrative.

At most, there is just Trump pulling his pud and demanding that some people (e.g., Pence) do some things (e.g., decertify or discount electors' votes) - followed by none of those people actually doing any of those things.

 

[TheCount]

Without the "chuds breaking windows", there is no "insurrection" narrative.

At most, there is just Trump pulling his pud and demanding that some people (e.g., Pence) do some things (e.g., decertify or discount electors' votes) - followed by none of those people actually doing any of those things.

Ah yes the "well it doesn't count if it didn't work" defense. Very persuasive.

What about the nationwide scheme of false electors?


I would prefer not to live in a country where the president is personally calling election officials at the county level and directly instructing them on how to conduct their duties in order to best benefit him.

Complete with the threat of complete political and personal destruction if they refuse, of course.

Smells like democracy.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ah yes the "well it doesn't count if it didn't work" defense. Very persuasive.

I didn't defend anything. I pointed out there wouldn't be any talk of "insurrection" - and thus, no talk of 14th Amendment disqualifications - if not for the "chuds breaking windows" angle.

What about the nationwide scheme of false electors?

What about them? They were false, and were easily identified and treated as such.

I would prefer not to live in a country where the president is personally calling election officials at the county level and directly instructing them on how to conduct their duties in order to best benefit him.

Complete with the threat of complete political and personal destruction if they refuse, of course.

I'd prefer not to live in such a country, either.

I would also prefer not live in a country where the president is a corrupt, senile, child-sniffing creep.

But "wish in one hand, shit in the other ..."

If being querulously combative with election officials was the worst thing Trump did, then he'd be pretty awesome.

https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1740548043936809166

​

Smells like democracy.

It certainly does. Trump is just a lot more crudely ham-fisted about it.

 

[ClaytonB]

I would prefer not to live in a country where the president is personally calling election officials at the county level and directly instructing them on how to conduct their duties in order to best benefit him.

So, assuming for the sake of argument that there was a heist of a national election, stealing the votes of Americans who voted for the incumbent President, what should they do about it? Remember, real-life is not the movies, the crooks aren't going to magically leave their fingerprints for POTUS to find and publish on TV in a national address thus magically "exposing the plot". Assume it was somebody you consider rational, idk, let's say RFK Jr? Should he just accept that the heisters won and allow them to silence the American majority, simply because it would be too ugly to call them out directly?