Maine's Secretary of State removes Trump from primary ballot

[Swordsmyth]

I tried to explain logic to a moron once. Total waste of time.

Do you often talk to yourself?

 

[Swordsmyth]

The problem with this theory is that they're getting everything they want through Biden.

It's just a stretch—the idea that they'd ever want to give up a literal puppet president who will sign-off on anything in exchange for an ice cream cone, and swap him out for a president who is egotistical enough to have the gall to think he has any power as president, doesn't seem like a wise or logical decision, from their angle.

Trump could have (and should have) resisted them more. But the fact that he resisted them at all makes him a less-favorable choice compared to the current one.

I'm sorry, but this current president is TPTB's dream-come-true:

They can't stop him without drastic action, so they have to set the stage for drastic action.
Meanwhile they send out talking points to their plants on the right to claim that their actions to set up drastic action are actually proof we should reject him.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What did Sun Tsu say about underestimating the enemy? Don't underestimate the greed of sociopaths.

Has there ever been a commie regime that didn't stand their supporters up against the wall and shoot them the moment the revolution was over? Are they in a position to do that yet?

When the white men say, we'll give up our cash and let the social credit score determine if we can participate in the economy provided you put our Trumpy Bear in charge of it for life, then they can afford to start shooting the useless eater liberals. And if the white men then say, yes, please do shoot them, that's the hypocrisy, the vanity, that deadly sin, that burns the last shreds of the tattered Constitution.

LOL

That is total fantasy.
And you are the one underestimating and overestimating the enemy at the same time.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Confederates weren't convicted of insurrection or treason.

Which would have made their disqualification invalid if it had been done by removing them from the ballot without that.

As far as I know the disqualification was never tested, if it had been tested it would undoubtedly have been done by removing them from an office after an election through the legal system and there would have been a day in court where they were accused and and found guilty and therefore invalid.


And you can't ignore the fact that a rebellion was officially declared but in the case of Trump there was no official declaration of an insurrection.
If there had been they could try to charge Trump and he could fight the charges in court, but since there was not this is all subjective decrees.

 

[Swordsmyth]

None of the bill of rights amendments have an enforcement mechanism. Following your logic, congress can modify or eliminate your rights via legislation.

They do have an enforcement mechanism, regular due process, exactly the same as the 14thA defaults to.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If Jan 6 is an insurrection then what is happening at the border is an invasion.

It's an invasion anyway, don't grant them a false equivalence.
J6 was a mostly peaceful protest, or at worst a riot.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

So this is what they will do.
They will wait until close to the election and some judge will rule that Trump committed insurrection. States will mandate that Trump cannot be elected or run in the state. Trump will appeal with SCOTUS but do to the timing of the first verdict the ruling won't be until after the election.

 

[Cap]

Do you often talk to yourself?

Projection. Get behind me Satan!

 

[Swordsmyth]

So this is what they will do.
They will wait until close to the election and some judge will rule that Trump committed insurrection. States will mandate that Trump cannot be elected or run in the state. Trump will appeal with SCOTUS but do to the timing of the first verdict the ruling won't be until after the election.

SCOTUS will rule now that it was not an insurrection, that insurrection and the 14thA are federal matters and not state matters, and that nobody has standing and it is up to the voters and Congress to decide.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Projection.

I don't think you know what that word means.
That doesn't surprise me.

 

[acptulsa]

LOL
That's why they cheated him in 2020.
LOL

Yes, Einstein. To create separation anxiety. Absence certainly has made your heart grow fonder.

In fact, it turned you into this:

I don't think you know what that word means.
That doesn't surprise me.

Now that's funny, considering I taught you the word, you've used it a lot since, and you've rarely if ever used it accurately.

 

[Cap]

It's amazing how a diseased/warped mind can distort their own reality.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If there are no grounds for Biden to be "removed from the ballot", then how is "impeaching Biden [...] probably warranted"?

Or to put it the other way around:

If "impeaching Biden [is] probably warranted", then how can there be no grounds for Biden to be "removed from the ballot"?

I believe that Joe was complicit in Hunter's overseas illegal deals. I believe that Joe Biden and his family including his son and brothers have been taking bribes for a long time.

I think those are grounds for impeachment. Various GOP figures have called for Biden to be removed from the ballot in red states, but have not articulated a reason why. Impeachment alone isn't a reason to be removed from a ballot.

I wasn't talking about the acts of impeachment (removal from office) and redaction (removal from ballots) in and of themselves.

I was talking about the ostensible "grounds" or "warrants" for those acts.

Granting that the process and/or venue for each act might be different, if any "grounds" or "warrants" justify impeachment as appropriate, then how do they not also justify redaction as appropriate (and vice versa)?

IOW: If, for whatever reasons, one is (or should be) deemed unfit to (continue to) hold an office, then why shouldn't one also be deemed unfit to run for that office? Or if, for whatever reasons, one is (or should be) deemed unfit to run for an office, then why shouldn't one also be deemed unfit to (continue to) hold that office?

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

SCOTUS will rule now that it was not an insurrection, that insurrection and the 14thA are federal matters and not state matters, and that nobody has standing and it is up to the voters and Congress to decide.

I disagree.
SCOTUS will rule that he has not been found guilty of insurrection and unless he is found guilty the states cannot keep him off the ballot. Then at the right time some judge will rule he is guilty. At that time it will be too late in the election cycle to have SCOTUS intervene with the appeal. All about timing. Then States will say Trump found guilty of insurrection and off the ballot.

 

[69360]

I wasn't talking about the acts of impeachment (removal from office) and redaction (removal from ballots) in and of themselves.

I was talking about the ostensible "grounds" or "warrants" for those acts.

Granting that the process and/or venue for each act might be different, if any "grounds" or "warrants" justify impeachment as appropriate, then how do they not also justify redaction as appropriate (and vice versa)?

IOW: If, for whatever reasons, one is (or should be) deemed unfit to (continue to) hold an office, then why shouldn't one also be deemed unfit to run for that office? Or if, for whatever reasons, one is (or should be) deemed unfit to run for an office, then why shouldn't one also be deemed unfit to (continue to) hold that office?

I think you have to keep in mind the differences between impeached and removed. You can be impeached, but remain in office.

 

[69360]

I disagree.
SCOTUS will rule that he has not been found guilty of insurrection and unless he is found guilty the states cannot keep him off the ballot. Then at the right time some judge will rule he is guilty. At that time it will be too late in the election cycle to have SCOTUS intervene with the appeal. All about timing. Then States will say Trump found guilty of insurrection and off the ballot.

It will present a dilema to the half of scotus that claim to be constructionist and originalist. Section 3 of the 14th was very clearly intended to keep people like Trump out of office. If a conviction was required to keep them out of office, that would have been the wording.

 

[acptulsa]

I think you have to keep in mind the differences between impeached and removed. You can be impeached, but remain in office.

He made it perfectly clear. He wasn't talking about whether someone should be removed from a ballot pending a trial, any more than removing an impeached official prior to the proceedings. Either you didn't understand him, or this is just a smokescreen.

He simply wanted to know if you think a summarily deposed official should be able to get their name printed right on a subsequent ballot for the same office.

It will present a dilema to the half of scotus that claim to be constructionist and originalist. Section 3 of the 14th was very clearly intended to keep people like Trump out of office. If a conviction was required to keep them out of office, that would have been the wording.

American Constitutional jurisprudence has since the beginning protected the electoral process from random scurrilous accusations getting candidates knocked off ballots and such. It was considered important enough in the beginning that I'd say the default position was more likely the opposite. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Bottom line is that in this day and age, those in power will do whatever they want and do it right in your face without any fear.

 

[acptulsa]

Bottom line is that in this day and age, those in power will do whatever they want and do it right in your face without any fear.

Not quite yet, no. There are still some things they dare not do directly. But they're inuring us to that. They're working at getting to that point. They're like the grade school bully, prodding us to see if we've got cojones enough to push back.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Not quite yet, no. There are still some things they dare not do directly. But they're inuring us to that. They're working at getting to that point. They're like the grade school bully, prodding us to see if we've got cojones enough to push back.

As an individual one cannot win their game, with their rules, while under duress.