United States | News & Politics

7227 readers

155 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

Only Voters Can Truly Disqualify Trump (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 10 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://archive.ph/qZgR9

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 17 points 10 months ago (13 children)

Nonsense. Disqualifying Trump for his oath-breaking is not materially different to disqualifying a 34 year old or a foreign national.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (12 children)

So how does this "disqualification" take place?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The procedures are set by state elections laws.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

States rights eh? Nice. I can't see how that would be a problem when we are talking about electing the president of the United States.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. State control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I suppose that is true. But if this is the path you and dems want to go, I could easily see swing states that have red legislatures just removing the Dem candidate from the ballot with very flimsy justification. Think states like Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, just not having the Dem candidate on the ballot ever.

In 2020 if Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia didn't have Biden on the ballot, Trump wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_state_legislative_elections

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One is the legal use of the 14th amendment and the other is just for the fuck of it.

What you're effectively saying is Republicans are such children they can't run another candidate that didn't support insurrection and will instead illegally remove opposition to their god emperor.

Talk about the party of law and order.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What is the difference between "legal" and "just for the fuck of it." The legal system is just a process. The facts, justice, etc don't factor into it. As long as those states follow their process, removing a candidate from the ballot for any reason whatsoever is perfectly legal.

After all, you said that "state control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism." So why does a state need to allow any given candidate onto their ballot?

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What is the difference between “legal” and “just for the fuck of it.” The legal system is just a process.

Yes, a legal system is a process and you follow the process to be legal and not "just for the fuck of it"

Are we going to ask if mayonnaise is an instrument now?

After all, you said that “state control over federal elections has always been fundamental to US federalism.” So why does a state need to allow any given candidate onto their ballot?

I literally never said that.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

What's your argument? That we should allow foreigners and teenagers to run for President because no-one can be trusted to enforce the requirements to run?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago

I could easily see swing states that have red legislatures just removing the Dem candidate from the ballot with very flimsy justification

They're going to do that anyway. There's no point in playing the appeasement game.

load more comments (10 replies)