The question I keep asking is: how can someone who continues to deny the lawfully-determined result of the last election be permitted to contest the next election? You wouldn't be allowed to compete in a tennis tournament or chess tournament if you didn't agree to abide by the umpire's rulings. So why this contest? Especially since there is abundant evidence of Trump attempting to subvert the outcome. The fact that Trump is even considered a candidate is a symptom that something is terribly wrong in America.

This is huge — Wayfarer

It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. I know you think it is justified for this person, but even some Democratic strategists are calling it a step too far. A Democracy in which one cannot vote for a popular candidate of a major party because the reigning opposing party won't even allow his name to be penciled in on the ballot?

A Democracy in which one cannot vote for a popular candidate of a major party because the reigning opposing party won't even allow his name to be penciled in on the ballot? — jgill

Remember the 'birther theory'? That Obama was ineligible as a candidate because of being born in Africa? That hoax was pushed for years by Trump even though it was a lie. But it is a fact that if someone is ineligible to be on the ballot, then they are not eligible as a candidate for the democratic process. And I think Trump's actions have proven his ineligibility in spades.

The lower court in Colorado believed that the wording of 'officer of the US' in the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of President, but the Colorado Supreme Court says it does. But they both agree that he participated in an insurrection - something for which he is due to face trial in early 2024. How he can remain a candidate in light of all this beggars belief. He's seeking popular support to overturn the constitution. The electors want the right to overturn elections. Makes zero sense.

Are you saying that the "Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion" section of the 14th Amendment doesn't exist?

Or are you saying that this section doesn't apply to the Presidency?

Or are you saying that this section doesn't apply to Trump because he did not "[engage] in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution of the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"?

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that that section of the 14th Amendment does exist, that it applies to the Presidency, and that Trump engaged in insurrection. If each of these is true then it follows that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for President.

It should be noted that this ruling only applies to the Republican primary:

In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

It should also be noted that this case was brought by “both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters”, not by Democrats.

The wording might leave it open to him being removed from the actual ballot even if he wins the primary. "President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". It's not like this would stop being true if he won the primary.

Yes, but a second ruling would be needed for that, although it’s almost certain that they’d rule the same way (unless one or more justice dies or retires and is replaced by then).

So much for NOS4A2's idea that the Democrats are an antidemocratic force.

Actually, if conservatism was all like this, I probably might be a a conservative. — unenlightened

Actually, those conservatives or conservative parties which reject populism are quite like that.

Yet it's quite telling that Rory Stewart resigned/was kicked out of the current conservative party.

@NOS4A2 The "poisoning" was done by the Democrats according to Trump as you pointed out, but the poison is the illegal immigrants. Trump is saying that the act of allowing the immigrants (poison) into America is an act of poisoning the blood of the country. If it were not the case that he meant that illegal immigrants were the "poison" then letting them in would not be an act of "poisoning" as there would be no poison. So, if you support that comment, you cannot escape the fact that you are referring to that group of humans as poison. If you contest this, and you claim Trump did not mean the immigrants were poison, you need to specify with what the Democrats are poisoning the blood of the country. What else could the poison be? And you would really have to stretch reality on that one.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-hitler-comparisons-doubles-down-1234932630/

Donald Trump accused immigrants of “destroying the blood of our country” during a campaign rally in Iowa Tuesday, repeating hateful rhetoric echoing white supremacists and genocidal Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

“They’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country. They don’t like it when I said that — and I never read Mein Kampf,” said Trump, referencing Hitler’s manifesto. “They could be healthy, they could be very unhealthy, they could bring in disease that’s going to catch on in our country, but they do bring in crime, but they have them coming from all over the world,” the former president continued. “And they’re destroying the blood of our country. They’re destroying the fabric of our country.”

Hitler, who repeatedly compared Jewish people to a blood poison within German society, wrote in Mein Kampf that “all great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” and blamed Jews and other “undesirable” groups for said contamination.

OK, well could hardly be clearer (even though I originally thought I was reading satire).

He's being more overtly fascist than he was the first time around. He knows he'll take Florida no matter what he says about Latinos. People are stupid.

The quoting out of context, the false equivalencies—it’s a deluge of really bad takes. One minute we’re talking about illegal immigration and in the same breath we’re trying to connect it to the holocaust. Why do you guys fall for this, and not even for the first time?

The inability to read, the deluge of Trump worship. One minute we're defending Trump comparing illegal immigrants to poison, the next we're raising a strawman about nobody who said anything about the holocaust. Why am I such a Trump shill, and not even for the first time?

You get a little testy every time I take your propaganda away from you. I show that in fact Trump does not compare immigrants to poison, that illegal immigration, a crime, is not the same as illegal immigrants, a group of people, and then you get salty at me for doing so while those who lied to you never receive your ire. It must sting having to think so hard.

:rofl: Yes, I'm sure that is. Not only can't you read but satire is lost on you as well.

Name-calling and emojis—the tell-tale signs of good satire.

What have I misread?

As to the ‘fairness’ or otherwise of Trump being ruled ineligible as a candidate, let’s nor forget he repeatedly called for disqualifications of others. Apart from the mendacious ‘birther’ campaign against Obama:

Trump repeatedly pointed to the possibility that lawsuits could disqualify Ted Cruz over his birthplace, adding, “I don’t want to win it on technicalities, but that’s more than a technicality. That is a big, big factor.”


He added that a constitutional lawyer who questioned Cruz’s eligibility “should go into court and seek a declaratory judgment because the people voting for Ted, for Ted Cruz, those people — I think there’s a real chance that he’s not allowed to run for president.”

Shortly after Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, Trump tweeted, “The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated — a total fraud!” (The thrust was that Cruz allies had promoted the false claim that Ben Carson had suspended his campaign, affecting the results.)


Trump also said in 2011 that then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) “should never ever be allowed to run for office” because of his sexting scandal

And during the 2016 campaign, on dozens of occasions he said that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t “be allowed to run” because of her private email server. “She shouldn’t be allowed to run for president. She shouldn’t be allowed,” Trump said shortly before Election Day 2016. “I’m telling you, she should not be allowed to run for president based on her crimes. She should not be allowed to run for president.” — Washington Post

He's being more overtly fascist than he was the first time around — frank

My theory about his attraction to dictators and facists is that it’s not grounded in political theory, but the simple fact that they wield the kind of power that he craves. He wants to be able to liquidate critics and journalists and be sorrounded by toadies who worship his every word and hang portraits of him in their offices. That’s why he expresses admiration for Putin and Kim (who incidentally are about the only world leaders that Trump ever had good things to say.)

Tu Quoque

Is that your favorite card to play?

It's not like this would stop being true if he won the primary. — flannel jesus

This brings in a state's right question. If the decision is upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, that court limiting a state's power to repeat their decision when the general ballot is drawn would require a contortionist fit of legal reasoning to come so soon after whatever gets validated by a ruling on the primary ballot.

The weight given to each state's prerogative to administer the election will become greater if the Supreme Court supports the ruling.

I wonder if, should this case be taken up by the Supreme Court, whether they ought to wait and see what the outcome of the Jan 6 insurrection case is? You would think a guilty verdict in that case would have a bearing.

How he can remain a candidate in light of all this beggars belief. He's seeking popular support to overturn the constitution. The electors want the right to overturn elections. Makes zero sense. — Wayfarer

Things like this are not new, just look at the history of monarchies and big religions. People fighting for power.

What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump? — GRWelsh

Not loyalty to Trump per se, but to what he is taken to represent: a ruthless will to win, the belief that life is a struggle for the upper hand.

Many people have this will, this belief (including many of Trump's critics), which is precisely why Trump's chances for victory are so good.

I wonder if, should this case be taken up by the Supreme Court, whether they ought to wait and see what the outcome of the Jan 6 insurrection case is? You would think a guilty verdict in that case would have a bearing. — Wayfarer

I don't think there's any possibility SCOTUS will rule Trump ineligible, with or without that verdict. He's not charged with insurrection, so he can't be found guilty of that. I anticipate SCOTUS will probably base their decision on the lack of due process establishing he engaged in insurrection.

I had to laugh when I saw this:
RFK Jr. issues stark warning after Colorado court blocks Trump from ballot: 'Country will become ungovernable'
"If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable," Kennedy, who initially launched a Democratic primary challenge to President Biden in April before switching to an independent 2024 bid in October, wrote on X.

It's hilarious because Trump's supporters still don't believe the 2020 election was fair and they never accepted the result. What's the difference?

I don't think there's any possibility SCOTUS will rule Trump ineligible, with or without that verdict. He's not charged with insurrection, so he can't be found guilty of that. I anticipate SCOTUS will probably base their decision on the lack of due process establishing he engaged in insurrection. — Relativist

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections.

Not that I expect the Supreme Court to follow precedent.

Interestingly the case referenced a decision Gorsuch made before joining the Supreme Court:

… a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process … permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.

I wonder if people realize that this thread in a nutshell explains why Trump might win a second term.

The disdain for ordinary people, the "all means necessary" approach confirming one's own moral bankrutpcy while pretending to have a moral high ground, etc. — Tzeentch

Yes. This can't be pointed out enough.

That same disdain, ridicule, and supremacism on both sides. Were it not for mere names, one couldn't tell who's who.

If the Gorsuch ruling is indicative of a consensus, the Supreme Court's present inclination against Federal initiatives could lead to them to letting each state decide by itself; Quite a change from counting dangling chads.