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

politics

19143 readers
3216 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Quaternions@lemmy.world 125 points 11 months ago (5 children)

And the precedent set by Colorado begins.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 78 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (10 children)

The question is will any purple states follow it. Trump was never going to win Colorado or California.

There's about a hundred different outcomes to this election that scare the shit out of me, but the one I'm stressed about tonight is the possibility that even after this, it'll make no difference, and then it'll be abused later on by red states in reverse.

We impeached Trump, they retaliated by trying to impeach Biden on weak pretense. We drop Trump from a ballot in blue states, they'll drop Biden in red states on some false pretense. Etc etc.

Even if it doesn't happen that way, it will take another form. I guess what I'm worried about isn't this specific event and it's fallout, it's the pattern of behavior. A democratic system can not operate when an entire party is hellbent on participating in bad faith, and increasingly willing to burn everything rather than accept a loss. No matter what twists and turns we take, it feels like it's heading toward the same eventual breaking point.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

Which is why Democrats were doormats for so long. They were very aware of this and made concessions to maintain democracy.

Of course that didn't work. It's clearly not just a phase.

We can't just keep getting run over to maintain some false sense of decorum.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 24 points 11 months ago

In regards to impeachment, there's precedent that impeachment for BS reasons doesn't resonate well with voters. Clinton was impeached for BS reasons (the process started with investigating his finances, before Monica Lewinski even worked in the white House). The following election, Democrats won a decent number of seats in congress despite Republicans expecting a Blue blood bath because of impeachment. Same with Trump, he was impeached twice (both of which Republicans said was BS), yet independents still voted for and continue to vote for Democrat candidates. I feel even Republicans know this, which is why McCarthy and McConnel, as well as other Republicans, feel this is a bad idea.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

I feel like if this becomes a partisan trend of states whose reps/governors are up for election just kicking trump off the ballot it will only embolden his most angry voters, and energize those who are like, “well, I don’t care for the man, but I think the democrats are just out of control.” They don’t have to learn shit about the legal reasoning—in fact, they won’t. You have to assume no one will learn anything and they’ll just get the spin aimed at them. This serves as a boost to trump, i think

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 55 points 11 months ago (5 children)

if enough states remove him, he'll cause a big enough fuss that he'll get 1/3 of the damn vote from loons writing him in

[–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 117 points 11 months ago (10 children)

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

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago (9 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] tym@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Don’t tell your racist uncle that though

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Not all states allow write-ins. And some that do have very strict rules about them.

[–] surfrock66@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Or claim the election is already rigged, causing enough of his folks to stay home and NOT vote in other races that the house and state governments see unprecedented flips.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

So now that Colorado has done it, do there even need to be future lawsuits in any state to follow?

I imagine there might be a lawsuit challenging the state doing it, but thats different than having to prove it in the first place like in Colorado

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

Most states that are considering this are probably waiting for SCOTUS to weigh in.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (12 children)

Get 'em California! Isn't it true the California bar exam is the most difficult out of all 50 states?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Netrunner@programming.dev 30 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Let's hope more states do it. Maybe it would send a message to the boomers about a potential Trump 2nd term.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

you don't need every legal option. the law is clear as day, all we need to do is follow it and wait for the openly corrupt supreme court to decide that it doesn't count in this case because they'd rather it didn't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

why? he doesnt have a chance in hell of CA anyway, why spin your wheels?

i guess im curious which of these states might split their electoral votes

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 111 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Denying him primary delegates, saving money during the main campaign, and effects on down ballot races are all good reasons to kick him out. Also, yknow, following the constitution which clearly disqualifies Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 70 points 11 months ago (4 children)

All good points in response to your question, but here's another: He attempted an insurrection, and is constitutionally prohibited from holding office. It's in the 14th amendment, article 3. He's legally prevented to be on the ballot, but laws like that only work if someone enforces it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 53 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It adds fuel to the fire, for one. Regardless if they’re liberal or democrat states, the more courts that legitimize the argument that Trump is disqualified from office due to supporting and starting an insurrection, 14th amendment reasons, the easier it is for other states and courts to do the same. So, yes. Let’s get every blue state, and then maybe a few purple states will follow suit. Once you get one or two of those, that’s it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jplee@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My guess: With the Colorado Supreme Court decision, he wants to build momentum of states disqualifying him. It would also send a message to the Supreme Court that this might be the right decision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

This is for the primary ballots so it would mean he cant win Republican primary votes in that state. That means another Republican candidate could beat him and become the nominee if I'm understanding correctly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›