this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
567 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19143 readers
3309 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 117 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If he's disqualified then write in votes for him won't count either.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Technically they will count.

The issue is that he is ineligible to be president. The the same as if he was foreign born or under 35.

[–] _thrax@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

How will they count if he’s ineligible?

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

It is a primary. A party can nominate whoever they want. It has no bearing on whether who they nominated actually is eligible to be sworn in.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

I think they mean the secretary of state may release a total of write-ins, but to my knowledge they make no effort to distinguish write-in names if there aren't enough to swing it.

So technically, they count write-ins. Just not in the winner's column.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Some 3rd parties have ran ineligible candidates. If they actually won, the electors wouldn't actually cast their votes for them, but the votes are counted and tallied AFAIK. Given these are parties that make the Green Party and Libertarian parties look like first parties, they've just been ignored.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Notably, Colorado is one of the states that wouldn't let Calero on the ballot because he was ineligible.

[–] AnarchistsForDemocracy@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

A lot of foreign born presidents, so I'm calling bullshit on this one!

Many of the presidents were actually born in england....

.

.

.

.

.

.

/S

[–] tym@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Don’t tell your racist uncle that though

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Please do tell him. That's one less vote for whoever the legitimate R candidate is.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 16 points 11 months ago

That's the point? Don't tell him so he'll write him in and the vote will be lost?

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

To be honest, I just don’t see how he can be disqualified without a conviction. Among others, it requires state courts to rule on out-of-state conduct. For instance, in the (admittedly unlikely) event that the jan 6th charges against T are dismissed, should he be allowed back on the ballot?

[–] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Ok,but somebody has to make the determination that Trumps conduct is consistent with sedition. Just from a formal point of view I don’t see how a CO court can rule on this, when the action took place in DC.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 11 months ago

Already told you; if section 3 is self-executing, nobody has to make that determination.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Does Arnold Schwarzenegger need to be convicted of having been born in Europe?

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That’s a bit of apples to oranges. Nobody contests the fact that Schwarzenegger is born in Europe, while Trump’s case is literally pending in court.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 2 points 11 months ago

What about Ted Cruz?