TFG or That Florida Guy? Either way, can the GOP win in 2024?

[npts2020]

I don't see why being kicked off the ballot should be such a big deal. Democrats and Republicans go to court EVERY election to exclude names of candidates from third parties, sometimes even after they jump through all the hoops to get on it to begin with.

Edited December 31, 2023 by npts2020
clarification

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I don't see why being kicked off the ballot should be such a big deal.

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

[npts2020]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

I see, so third parties aren't trying to win elections?

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I see, so third parties aren't trying to win elections?

You seem to be suggesting that 3rd parties… go to court in attempt to… kick themselves off the ballot… in the elections they mean to win? 

I’m not the driest sandwich in the ice cooler, but I’m fairly certain that ain’t how it’s works. 

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

Technically, Trump didn’t have much of a chance in either Colorado or Maine, so even if they do remove him it’s likely moot. The election will likely come down to a few hundred people in a tiny bumfuck nowhere county of a state like Wisconsin simply deciding to stay home that day.

[npts2020]

43 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Democrats and Republicans go to court EVERY election to exclude names of candidates from third parties, sometimes even after they jump through all the hoops to get on it to begin with.

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to be suggesting that 3rd parties… go to court in attempt to… kick themselves off the ballot… in the elections they mean to win? 

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?

55 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I see, so third parties aren't trying to win elections?

 

[npts2020]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It is harder to win elections when you are not on the ballot. If your goal is to win elections, or to help a person win elections, then getting kicked off is a big deal.

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

I see, so third parties aren't trying to win elections?

I was asking if it was your belief third parties don't try to win elections but it got somehow twisted around to being a positive statement. The whole point is that Donald Trump is FAR from the first person this has happened to. The reason it has never been to the Supreme Court is that they have let state SC rulings stand because elections are run by the states according to the US Constitution, not the federal government. To have uniform elections across the country seems very unlikely, to me, since it would probably require a constitutional amendment.

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

The whole point is that Donald Trump is FAR from the first person this has happened to.

So why does that make it "not a big deal"?

Lots of things are a big deal even if they've happened to a lot of people already. Cancer for example.

[npts2020]

How big of a deal was made of and how much press has ANY of the previous attempts at removing names from ballots received? AFAIK cancer has always been a big deal.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?

Basic reading skills and comprehension mostly 

[npts2020]

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Basic reading skills and comprehension mostly 

Yes, and comprehension increases when you take into consideration the whole statement in context rather than taking just a piece of it to make an argument...

[iNow]

7 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Yes, and comprehension increases when you take into consideration the whole statement in context rather than taking just a piece of it to make an argument...

Exactly correct. Let’s use this opportunity now to review these exchanges with this in mind:

 

YOU: I don’t see why getting kicked off a ballot in certain states is a big deal. The major parties go to court all the time to remove lesser known candidates from ballots. 

ZAP: Winning is impossible if you’re not on the ballot, so it actually is a big deal if you have any desire to actually win. 

YOU: Ah… so you’re saying 3rd parties aren’t trying to win?

EVERYONE ELSE: What the AF are you talking about?!??

YOU: It’s happened before.

ZAP: Yep, but precedence doesn’t mean it’s somehow not a big deal. How is this not self-evident?

YOU: More moot blather and blunder…

Edited December 31, 2023 by iNow

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, npts2020 said:

How big of a deal was made of and how much press has ANY of the previous attempts at removing names from ballots received? AFAIK cancer has always been a big deal.

Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President and an ex-president himself. His name is being removed for (alleged) violation of the Constitution regarding insurrection. He has 90 something criminal charges outstanding. He is trying to win the presidency in part to shut down cases that may send him to jail. This is unprecedented. Even my young grandkids realize this is a big deal.

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President and an ex-president himself. His name is being removed for (alleged) violation of the Constitution regarding insurrection. He has 90 something criminal charges outstanding. He is trying to win the presidency in part to shut down cases that may send him to jail. This is unprecedented. Even my young grandkids realize this is a big deal.

Yes, this is all about keeping him away from the law.

Edited December 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

I'm just glad that no one is keeping him away from cheeseburgers.

Though any 25th Amendment scenario could be scary if TFG chooses Nikki as a Veep.  She strikes me a Right Wing shapeshifter posing as a reasonable conservative centrist.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm just glad that no one is keeping him away from cheeseburgers.

Though any 25th Amendment scenario could be scary if TFG chooses Nikki as a Veep.  She strikes me a Right Wing shapeshifter posing as a reasonable conservative centrist.

Yeah, I think she veers more to the Right than she lets on.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President and an ex-president himself. His name is being removed for (alleged) violation of the Constitution regarding insurrection.

Alleged?

If someone who was under 35, or not a natural born citizen, declared to be running for president, we would not be talking about alleged violation of Constitutional requirements.

If Obama declared, we would not be saying that he was ineligible because he allegedly already served two terms.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Alleged?

Yes, until SCOTUS adjudicates one way or the other. Until then it is simply opinion by people who don't have the final say.

If you are declaring someone is under 35 or not a natural born citizen, presumably it is because of the existence of legally recognized documentation. If you have no such documentation, it is "alleged".

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, until SCOTUS adjudicates one way or the other. Until then it is simply opinion by people who don't have the final say.

AFAICT (IANAL) they will not adjudicate whether or not TFG engaged in an insurrection. They are not trial judges. 

There may be several ways they might be able to overturn the decisions.

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you are declaring someone is under 35 or not a natural born citizen, presumably it is because of the existence of legally recognized documentation. If you have no such documentation, it is "alleged".

People have been denied public office without having been convicted of engaging in an insurrection.

“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.”

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

 

One could argue that folks like Jefferson Davis, and many others, did not run for office because they knew they weren’t eligible. TFG famously doesn’t care about such things as rules, since they’re for other people to follow.

But there’s plenty of documentation that he was involved in insurrection.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

AFAICT (IANAL) they will not adjudicate whether or not TFG engaged in an insurrection. They are not trial judges. 

 

Perhaps I don't understand the term well. This from Wikipedia makes it sound like SCOTUS adjudicates. That is, they will make a formal judgement about whether or not he violated the 14h Amendment.

Quote

Adjudication may be defined as "the legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjudication

On a side note, I thought the Supreme Court acted as trial judges when litigation begins at the Supreme Court level.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

People have been denied public office without having been convicted of engaging in an insurrection.

Yes, I didn't say they had to be convicted of an insurrection. I said in the case of being too young or not a natural born citizen, there had to be some legally recognized documentation (or lack thereof) to support denying someone public office. A birth certificate indicating the candidate is too young for example.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Perhaps I don't understand the term well. This from Wikipedia makes it sound like SCOTUS adjudicates. That is, they will make a formal judgement about whether or not he violated the 14h Amendment

“Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

Quote

Yes, I didn't say they had to be convicted of an insurrection. I said in the case of being too young or not a natural born citizen, there had to be some legally recognized documentation (or lack thereof) to support denying someone public office. A birth certificate indicating the candidate is too young for example.

There’s a court in Colorado that’s decided he has, as a matter of public record. (two courts, I think)

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied”

 

You seem to be saying that "holding a trial" is the same as "adjudicate". I don't think that is correct, per my previous link to Wikipedia:

Quote

Adjudication may be defined as "the legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. 

SCOTUS does indeed resolve disputes and give formal judgements in court proceedings.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

You seem to be saying that "holding a trial" is the same as "adjudicate". I don't think that is correct, per my previous link to Wikipedia:

SCOTUS does indeed resolve disputes and give formal judgements in court proceedings.

I’m saying AFAICT they won’t decide an issue of fact, that TFG did or did not engage in an insurrection, that a lower court decided. As I stated.

 

[iNow]

My money is on all this being moot anyway. Roberts is likely calling every legal contact in his Rolodex trying to conceive of a legitimate way to punt

Edited January 1 by iNow
Autocorrect made it wrong. Manually corrected

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I’m saying AFAICT they won’t decide an issue of fact, that TFG did or did not engage in an insurrection, that a lower court decided. As I stated.

 

So if while reviewing the Colorado SC decision in the ballot case, the US Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment is not relevant to the particular set of facts regarding Trump's actions, and that the Colorado SC made a mistake, isn't that deciding an issue of fact? That Trump DID NOT engage in an insurrection as described in the Constitution?