US Politics Thread (2021-24)

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Nachtwandler

We got that you are hardcore MAGA/Trump supporter but it is not the reason to mock your opponents every time.

You are saying this as though the people who wanted to "defend democracy" by removing the voter's ability to choose their candidate do not deserve every ounce derision sent their way.

Originally Posted by GDB

It's also funny since it was republicans trying to remove him, not democrats.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics are not republicans and Colorado was only one of many states where democrats attempted to remove their political opponent from the ballot.

[Guardian Enzo]

Also, three justices originally dissented (the court forgot to remove the metadata on their press release) but mysteriously changed to a concurring opinion that sounded like a dissent at the last minute. They didn't do that without cutting some sort of deal.

[Nachtwandler]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

You are saying this as though the people who wanted to "defend democracy" by removing the voter's ability to choose their candidate do not deserve every ounce derision sent their way.

Oh yeah, the guy who provokerd riots after loosing his previous election, who is fined for 450+ kk for a bunch of criminal acts and says the things that are against Constioution during his current rallies with a straigh face. He should not be allowed to have any power (if it was anyone better I would agree with your position but not here).

Like really? Republicans did not have anyone better for the role? I understand preferring one party policy over the other but pushing the worst candidate just because he represents your preferred party is wrong.

US already has just two choices every damn elections which is dumb by itself but at least choose someone who is not siding with the country enemies.

[The Green One]

MAGA supporters living in their own little delusional world where they stubbornly ignore reality to the bitter end is not new or surprising information.

This decision to keep Trump on the ballot was never about justice, law, or legality. It was about power and trying to gain it or keep it. Any attempt to claim otherwise are nothing more than empty excuses. The ethics scandals this Supreme Court has had shows this quite clearly.

Hell Trump doesn't give a shit about being president again anyway. He's only desperate to protect himself from prosecution.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

You are saying this as though the people who wanted to "defend democracy" by removing the voter's ability to choose their candidate do not deserve every ounce derision sent their way.

Food for thought, should anyone be able to be a candidate? There's some limits on who can vote so it wouldn't be so hard to think than some limitation could be on who can be a candidate?

[Ithekro]

Basically, the court says that the Federal government (Congress specifically) is the body to declare if someone should be barred from holding a Federal office under the Constitution. Though Congress has slacked off on actually, you know, do anything about that since it is still supposed to go to court at some point this year. The timeframe for that might put a ruling before the election, but stalling and appeals might make it after the election. Though I suppose if Trump won the election, and then is barred from serving as President due the Constitution, then his Vice President would be the new President instead.

States have their own laws about what parties can or cannot be on the ballot, and there are laws that limit eligibility by age, citizenship and such. But it seems that States do not have a say in if someone is considered an insurrectionist or traitor under Federal law. Now if that person has done something in the State that barred them from office, they could enact that, but a Federal position in D.C. isn't in any State.

So, the ball is back in the Feds hands on if Trump can or cannot hold a federal office. And they are dragging their feet about it.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Food for thought, should anyone be able to be a candidate? There's some limits on who can vote so it wouldn't be so hard to think than some limitation could be on who can be a candidate?

There are already plenty of constitutional limitations on who can and can't be a presidential candidate. The issue here is the argument over being an insurrectionist is directly addressed.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Nachtwandler

Oh yeah, the guy who provokerd riots after loosing his previous election, who is fined for 450+ kk for a bunch of criminal acts and says the things that are against Constioution during his current rallies with a straigh face. He should not be allowed to have any power (if it was anyone better I would agree with your position but not here).

Like really? Republicans did not have anyone better for the role? I understand preferring one party policy over the other but pushing the worst candidate just because he represents your preferred party is wrong.

US already has just two choices every damn elections which is dumb by itself but at least choose someone who is not siding with the country enemies.

Trump told protestors to be peaceful, is being lawfared for hundreds of millions for taking out a loan and paying it back with interest, and you do not get to remove a political opponent from the ballot because you don't like the choices.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Food for thought, should anyone be able to be a candidate? There's some limits on who can vote so it wouldn't be so hard to think than some limitation could be on who can be a candidate?

There are indeed laws on who can run for office.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

So, the ball is back in the Feds hands on if Trump can or cannot hold a federal office. And they are dragging their feet about it.

Congress already held a trial and acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection.

[Nachtwandler]

Oh yeah, poor abused guy Trump. And seeems like you seriously belive in him being innocent good guy.

You know, after he said "if Russia attacks any NATO member, I don't give a fuck" and after his party blocking military aid to my homecountry in fighting Putin nothing can convince me in them being good guys. Mind you, I don't like a lot of dems policies either. But I consider them lesser evil here.

As I said, I would not mind republicans winning the election if it was someone more sane than Trump. If he wins it's WWIII probably as he does not give a shit about other countries. But seems like his voters are as egoistic: "The world can burn as long as I do not lose my money". Missing the point that Trump will take your money anyway and give them to himself, corporats and who else backs him.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Congress already held a trial and acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection.

If that was the case than it wouldn't still be questioned.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If that was the case than it wouldn't still be questioned.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...lution/24/text

[Ithekro]

The House impeached him, the Senate decided not to punish him. Note that the majority voted guilty. Just not the 2/3 required.

And yet Congress still investigated afterwards, and trails are still pending on if Trump is immune to charges for crimes in office.

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Trump told protestors to be peaceful,

"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore" doesn't sound like encouraging people to be peaceful.

is being lawfared for hundreds of millions for taking out a loan and paying it back with interest,

Doesn't change the fact that he committed blatant fraud.

[Infinite Zenith]

Originally Posted by Nachtwandler

As I said, I would not mind republicans winning the election if it was someone more sane than Trump.

Agreed: any other Republican would be preferable. With that being said, I'm curious to know the reasoning behind why Trump is considered a better candidate than anyone else for the Republicans.

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by Infinite Zenith

Agreed: any other Republican would be preferable. With that being said, I'm curious to know the reasoning behind why Trump is considered a better candidate than anyone else for the Republicans.

There is a diehard core of Republican voters who are obsessed with the man and support him no matter what, solely because he "owns the libs".

[Nachtwandler]

Also, talking abouit Trumps lawsuit. Would you insist the 80 million sexual assault case he lost is also a dems conspiracy?

[Ithekro]

Cult of personality. Mixed with a belief that since he was an outsider and already rich, he would not be swayed by the political elites and other lobbyists. "Draining the swamp" I believe was one of the pitches in 2016.

As for other lawsuits, he owns the State of New York a LOT of money.

[The Green One]

Laughable when he's one of the most corrupt men currently alive....

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

You are saying this as though the people who wanted to "defend democracy" by removing the voter's ability to choose their candidate do not deserve every ounce derision sent their way.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics are not republicans and Colorado was only one of many states where democrats attempted to remove their political opponent from the ballot.

It was filed by republicans, sorry. You can send your derision to your own yard, thanks.

Also, did you know there are multiple things that disqualify you for being a candidate, such as age, place of birth, and residency? Do you deride the constitution as well?

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Congress already held a trial and acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection.

I seem to recall them saying it was a matter for the court to decide. Who has now said it's a matter for congress to decide.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Congress already held a trial and acquitted Trump of inciting an insurrection.

And thankfully impeachment doesn't trigger double jeopardy.

Constitution says they are still held liable in the court of law. Senate is just deciding to remove from office. Cause thankfully, I think when they wrote the constitution, they saw politics playing a part of whether removal or not is decided. That is what played out during his second impeachment. Politics came to play.

If impeachment triggered double jeopardy, it would be a joke that the worst thing that can happen to a president that commits treason, high crimes, etc is kicked out of office.