Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election 2024: 11/5/24- Democracy Dies or Survives


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, hail2skins said:

I was actually surprised that over 20 percent of Republicans would support the Colorado decision. That might just reflect the GOP voters who ate going for Haley or DeSantis in the primary, but if it shows 20 percent of the GOP wouldn't vote for Trump in the general, then maybe Joe has a chance to defy my prediction of Donald part 2.

Colorado isn’t a swing state.

 

The election will be fought in these states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. All Trump needs to do is win the states he won in 2020 and then flip 3 of those 6 states that nets him around 40evs. That will get him to 270.  Trump won’t be flipping Minnesota and Joe won’t be flipping North Carolina.  It’s can be a close and concentrated election.

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Trump not participating in the debates royally screws him in the general.  One of the things primary debates do is get your baggage out there. And people get used to hearing about it.  

 

You gonna attack me for Hunter?  He never served in the government.  Your children and their spouses served in their cabinet. 

 

You claim I am a criminal?  Your own DoJ found nothing on me. I have been in the government for 50 years and you have more indictments after 1 term.

 

Political prosecution and election interference? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. A grand jury of peers indicted you. 

 

Maybe stop channeling Hitler.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

He didn't have to be.

 

Yeah, I get that. But, as far as the case being made to the Supreme Court, I think it might make a difference.

 

Quote

Chief Justice John Boatright argued that removing Trump from the ballot would require “an insurrection-related conviction.”

Quote

 

Justice Carlos Samour echoed Boatright’s concerns but went further, contending that the court was depriving Trump of due process.

 

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” he wrote.

 

 

I think the Supreme Court overturns this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does someone need due process if they don't meet age, born citizenship, or time domiciled in the United States? No, because it's a qualification. If one commits insurrection or supports it after once taking an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, they are automatically disqualified. Trump encouraged the insurrection (come, it will be wild), didn't call off the insurrectionists for three hours (hoping they actually stop the recording of certified elector votes), and tried many times to get Pence to stop the proceeding. That's what he did that disqualifies him. No need for any trial. He broke his oath, as did those over 100 Congresspersons who voted to decertify certain states' elector votes. Not a one of them should be serving any kind of public office ever again. Disqualified!

  • Like 3
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Yeah, I get that. But, as far as the case being made to the Supreme Court, I think it might make a difference.

 

 

I think the Supreme Court overturns this.

 

There was due process.  Everyone seems to forget there was a whole trial in Colorado.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

There was due process.  Everyone seems to forget there was a whole trial in Colorado.

 

Quote

And while he is facing a slew of federal and state criminal charges stemming from his efforts to subvert the election, he has never been criminally charged with committing or inciting an insurrection.

 

Quote

More broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis,” 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spearfeather

Well, unfortunately in the lifetime of the 14th Amendment and all the Presidential elections there has only been one single candidate who people/party are trying to nominate that fits the description of "engaged in insurrection".  

 

So maybe that candidate should not have engaged in insurrection to overthrow peaceful transfer of power in America.  And maybe that parties voters shouldn't insist on nominating him.

 

It would be like nominating a 29 year old. As much as a political party might be in love with a 29 year old for their Presidential campaign.  They are not elligible.  Or nominating Jefferson Davis.  

 

And I think every State Court is going to be dealing with this issue.  In fact, two of the state courts have said "since primaries are run by the parties, we can't intervene".  But they will intervene in the general - Minnesota and Michigan.

 

And oddly enough, him and his followers continue to threaten the court system (now the Colorado justices are getting threats) whenever it is dealing with accountability for his actions.  "How dare you call my candidate an insurrectionist, I will hurt you!"

 

I have never seen such liars, deniers and enablers.  Solely to allow one narcisstic man to have all this power.  He didn't even have a good Presidency from any stretch of the imagination.  The turnover in his staff was insane.  A lot of criminal convictions.  He didn't even execute his campaign promises (which he is running on again).    By the end of 2024 he will have taken over the GOP for at least 10 years now (2015 to 2025) and I don't see much of an end in sight. Even the people running against him in the primary are tepid.  "We demand racist, sexist, out of control reality TV start Uncle Don for President."  Yeah... I guess they think it's cool that this dumbass simpleton is going to run. 

 

Guess what's gonna happen this time?  So much over-reach the Courts block.everything. But also Uncle Don and his family will continue to enrich himself, and maybe he will set up his son to run the political dynasty (GOP takeover).  Winnning!!!!!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Is that your quote?  It says this is unconstitutional. That's wrong.  It's LITERALLY a constitutional amendment. By definition, it CAN'T be unconstitutional. 

 

Not my quote. Judge Carlos Samour's quote. 

I don't think he's saying the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. I think he's saying what Colorado is doing with regards to it, is.

 

Edited by Spearfeather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Not my quote. Judge Carlos Samour's quote. 

I don't think he's saying the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. I think he's saying what Colorado is doing with regards to it, is.

 

 

One thing that keeps getting missed by everyone complaining what CO did was unconstitutional is that they said if Trump disagrees and appeals, then it is automatically STAYED until SCOTUS decides.  All CO did was tee it up for SCOTUS.  

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

One thing that keeps getting missed by everyone complaining what CO did was unconstitutional is that they said if Trump disagrees and appeals, then it is automatically STAYED until SCOTUS decides.  All CO did was tee it up for SCOTUS.  

 

Well that was what was going to happen anyway, no matter who won the other side would appeal it all the way to SCOTUS.  Now they will have to put in a ruling so that the similar cases ongoing in other states can all be resolved before the election.

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the originalist SCOTUS members will claim that the 14th was only written for Southern Civil War soldiers who tried to gain House/Senate seats post Civil War.

 

Not that I think that's a correct take, but I can easily see it happen so that their Party doesn't lose face. 

Edited by The Evil Genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Yeah, I get that. But, as far as the case being made to the Supreme Court, I think it might make a difference.

 

 

I think the Supreme Court overturns this.

 

There was "due process" though...this wasn't a single judge just out of the blue deciding to keep Trump off the ballot saying "Yanno, I'm thinking Trump engaged in an insurrection." A lawsuit was filed with the courts and evidence was presented, and a judge issued his findings. And Trump's team of lawyers presented their case as well...he was represented during the lawsuit hearings. That's the legal process required because this is not a criminal determination--it's only a determination of ballot qualification. Same as if someone brought a suit in Colorado claiming Obama should be off the ballot because he was not born in the U.S.A...the "due process" would be the litigants providing evidence to prove their claims and the "defendant" presenting the opposite. For fun, you should look up all the lawsuits brought up concerning Obama not being qualified to run for president (just kidding, that wouldn't be fun at all lol).

 

Can the Colorado SC decision be overturned? Yep, sure...just like the Colorado SC overturned the lower court's decision. But the SC won't have a leg to stand on if the conservative majority deems "due process" must include an indictment for insurrection, a trial by jury, and conviction. Their most likely valid avenue would be in saying it has not been sufficiently determined that Jan 6th should legally be considered an insurrection. It would be like saying "Yeah, he took part in all of that stuff...but was it really an insurrection? we have our doubts."

Edited by Califan007 The Constipated
  • Like 3
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, China said:

 

Well that was what was going to happen anyway, no matter who won the other side would appeal it all the way to SCOTUS.  Now they will have to put in a ruling so that the similar cases ongoing in other states can all be resolved before the election.

 

Right.  But they did it voluntarily. They aren't trying to force themselves above the constitution. They begged SCOTUS get involved. 

 

So to highlight, they had a trial. Trump sucked. The highest court in that state found, after both sides presented their cases, he was ineligible. They then recognized that they alone should not be the final arbiters and teed it up for SCOTUS. 

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Right.  But they did it voluntarily. They aren't trying to force themselves above the constitution. They begged SCOTUS get involved. 

 

So to highlight, they had a trial. Trump sucked. The highest court in that state found, after both sides presented their cases, he was ineligible. They then recognized that they alone should not be the final arbiters and teed it up for SCOTUS. 

 

It's amazing, sitting here almost 150 years later, discussing an Amendment that the argument is if it's self-executing. Feels like the reverse of Fat Boy asking Pence to have the courage and strength to do the right thing. It's an Amendment. Just take it word for word.

  • Like 3
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Supreme Court overturns this too.  The legal arguments are nice, but I don't think they'll matter to enough of the Supreme Courts.  The Court is partisan and enough of them are Republicans.  They aren't going to allow the Republican candidate for President be left off the ballot in certain states no matter what the Constitution says.

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I think the Supreme Court overturns this too.  The legal arguments are nice, but I don't think they'll matter to enough of the Supreme Courts.  The Court is partisan and enough of them are Republicans.  They aren't going to allow the Republican candidate for President be left off the ballot in certain states no matter what the Constitution says.

 

It will will be interesting to see if any of the other three side with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PeterMP
And then how does that not Constitute yet another Constitutional crises?  This is not 2000, Bush v. Gore again.  Overturn this and allow Trump to be on the ballot inspite of not being eligible due to the 14th Amendment.  While at the same time allowing him to delay all criminal cases to past the election (as he is trying to do...).  What if he is convicted in the DC case?  Does that change things - even though he hasn't been directly charged with "insurrection" (and I don't even know the last time someone was charged with Federal insurrection).  

 

This is not the year 2000 where it wasn't hard to push the narrative on "We the People" that the Supreme Court is non-partisan.  We've had Bush v. Gore.  We've had all sorts of voting rights cases where SCOTUS has basically said "yeah, it doesn't matter anymore".  We've had Roe v. Wade.  "Consent of the governed" is one of the keys to American democracy.  Whether it's openly admitted and said or not -- we are ruled by a Supreme Court that 3 justices were picked by a President who lost the popular vote (and keep in mind 1 justice was blocked by the Senate due to "there's going to be an election" and a 2nd was pushed months before the election").  This discounts the Bush vs. Gore result (in which case 5 Justices have been placed by undemocratic means).  

 

Are we going to even talk about a bought off/bribed Justice since the year 2000 whose wife actively worked with the insurrectionists?  I also agree that the most likely thing that occurs is a partisan Supreme Court ruling -- even if I think they are best not to touch it (yet, everyone is going to be screaming at them to touch it).   If the SCOTUS overturns it, they will be admitting there's no way that the 14th Amendment can be enforced, and it'll be too late to adjudicate it before 2024.  Otherwise there's going to be some type of SCOTUS-defined process to determine whether or not someone has violated the 14th Amendment? 

 

So just because half the country sympathizes with the "insurrectionist" side it's okay?  

  • Thanks 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does having members of the Proud Boys and that other asinine group of incels (forget the name) pleading guilty to seditious conspiracy help to legally validate that January 6th was indeed an insurrection attempt?...Especially if there's proof that Trump was in communications with those group of dudes prior to Jan 6th (and I think there is).

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I think the Supreme Court overturns this too.  The legal arguments are nice, but I don't think they'll matter to enough of the Supreme Courts.  The Court is partisan and enough of them are Republicans.  They aren't going to allow the Republican candidate for President be left off the ballot in certain states no matter what the Constitution says.

 

I know everyone here thinks I'm just a perpetual optimist but I think SCOTUS sides with Smith only because they know Biden will be prepared to do anything SCOTUS deems legal via the Trump case.  I feel an 8-1 for Smith with CT dissenting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...