In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
Colorado barely had a majority on the decision, three other states ruled differently and Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything yet in Congress or in court.
Do we want the pre-election period filled with both sides trying to disqualify the other side’s nominee just because they have a majority in their state’s Supreme Court?
His point was that Trump hasn’t been convicted yet. Even though he obviously invited an insurrection, legally he hasn’t until he’s convicted.
If we set this precedent pretty soon Republicans will be flooding Democrats with bullshit “insurrection” allegations to get them off of ballots. If they have enough control in their state’s supreme Court they might even succeed.
He had his many days in court, with his own appointed justices, was unable to find any evidence of significant election fraud, and still he chose to lie about it anyways. To this day. He tried to subvert the people’s will himself and refused to exercise a peaceful transfer of power, threatening and manipulating state leadership and his vice president to alter the results.
Just because he was unsuccessful, and he managed to brainwash a large enough group of people with his lies to maybe get elected again and to avoid conviction, doesn’t mean we give him a chance to try again. That is a perfectly fine precedent to set.
That’s not even counting the voter suppression that a state court probably wouldn’t even consider, and his base absolutely refuses to hear. Encouraging voter intimidation, lying about well-established voting methods that are more likely to be used by the other party in some states, priming his base to reject the results with his “its me or its fraud” rhetoric leading up to the election, daring voter fraud within his own party and his followers to turn out and “stop the count” or “count the votes” wherever the results are turning out of his favor. The way I see it this is just beating him at his own game. He already set the precedent, we are mitigating its consequences.
Honestly it’s bad precedence.
Let him lose the election fairly again.
Let the voters decide.
letting the loser of a free and fair election stoke violence without consequence is bad precedent. enforcing the law is good precedent.
Copied from another comment you didn’t read.
No it’s bad precedent.
Colorado barely had a majority on the decision, three other states ruled differently and Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything yet in Congress or in court.
Do we want the pre-election period filled with both sides trying to disqualify the other side’s nominee just because they have a majority in their state’s Supreme Court?
depends, did the other side’s nominee engage in an insurrection in flagrant violation of the constitution?
Thanks for taking the time to consider what I was saying.
His point was that Trump hasn’t been convicted yet. Even though he obviously invited an insurrection, legally he hasn’t until he’s convicted.
If we set this precedent pretty soon Republicans will be flooding Democrats with bullshit “insurrection” allegations to get them off of ballots. If they have enough control in their state’s supreme Court they might even succeed.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think it is more that Biden temporarily loses support and Trump stays the exact same.
He doesn’t gain support.
Republicans need to start talking about policy and how they will govern but that’s typically where they fall apart.
deleted by creator
You repeatedly call the Democratic Party and their voters Nazis but you want to meet them in the middle?
He had his many days in court, with his own appointed justices, was unable to find any evidence of significant election fraud, and still he chose to lie about it anyways. To this day. He tried to subvert the people’s will himself and refused to exercise a peaceful transfer of power, threatening and manipulating state leadership and his vice president to alter the results.
Just because he was unsuccessful, and he managed to brainwash a large enough group of people with his lies to maybe get elected again and to avoid conviction, doesn’t mean we give him a chance to try again. That is a perfectly fine precedent to set.
That’s not even counting the voter suppression that a state court probably wouldn’t even consider, and his base absolutely refuses to hear. Encouraging voter intimidation, lying about well-established voting methods that are more likely to be used by the other party in some states, priming his base to reject the results with his “its me or its fraud” rhetoric leading up to the election, daring voter fraud within his own party and his followers to turn out and “stop the count” or “count the votes” wherever the results are turning out of his favor. The way I see it this is just beating him at his own game. He already set the precedent, we are mitigating its consequences.
The left has decided after 2016 ‘the voters’ cannot be trusted. So they will rig elections and feel smug about it while committing treason.
Smells like copium for backing the side of the aisle that can’t generate popular/functional ideas for governing.
deleted by creator
The reasonable response is to hold politicians accountable.