After reviewing "every legal option" to remove Trump California keeps Trump on the ballot. And this is sort of the problem isn't it? The insurrection issue is not settled. Not finally determined. So you have some states going one way in some states going another on what appears to be a federal issue not a state one. The interpretation of the Federal Constitution as relates to the qualifications for holding the highest Federal position in the nation. This will be taken up by the Supreme Court where it belongs.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/43...ite-calls/

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M AN AG THAT TOTALLY DISREGARDS THE CONSTITUTION BUT I'M A LIBERAL HERO AND I'M IN THE NEWS!!!

I am assuming DJT can still be a write-in?

Can they just not count those votes for him as well?

The Dems are so stupid for this nonsense.

(12-29-2023 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The Dems are so stupid for this nonsense.

They're not stupid. They're evil. All of them.

Quote:Supporters of former president Donald Trump have taken to social media to say they will cast write-in votes for him after the Colorado Supreme Court removed him from the state's presidential primary ballot.

But their plan has a major flaw: the court's ruling also bars the Colorado secretary of state from counting any write-in votes for Trump.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...r-AA1lN7FT

PENMANSHIP TUTORIAL

Never intentionally create martyrs to the cause you oppose. Just stupid. Thinking out loud though, I don't understand how (or why) they would focus on the primaries? Aren't the primaries predominantly controlled by the parties themselves? Isn't this the way the political parities within each state decide on which candidate they want to give their delegates to for tabulation at the Party conventions?

(12-29-2023 10:58 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Never intentionally create martyrs to the cause you oppose. Just stupid. Thinking out loud though, I don't understand how (or why) they would focus on the primaries? Aren't the primaries predominantly controlled by the parties themselves? Isn't this the way the political parities within each state decide on which candidate they want to give their delegates to for tabulation at the Party conventions?

Sununu endorsed Nikki Haley. He only wants her on the primary ballot.

(12-29-2023 09:46 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(12-29-2023 09:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The Dems are so stupid for this nonsense.

They're not stupid. They're evil. All of them.

On this particular issue of how to deal with Trump I think they are more stupid than evil (but they are evil because they don't care about democracy at all see their handling of the 16, 20, and now 24 Dem primaries). On a whole lot of issues I think they are not stupid at all and extremely evil, but we probably don't agree on the issues or the sides of the issues, which is fine.

(12-29-2023 10:58 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Never intentionally create martyrs to the cause you oppose. Just stupid. Thinking out loud though, I don't understand how (or why) they would focus on the primaries? Aren't the primaries predominantly controlled by the parties themselves? Isn't this the way the political parities within each state decide on which candidate they want to give their delegates to for tabulation at the Party conventions?

Yes. But the News and their followers love it. Republicans can do a caucus.

WATCH: Maine Sec of State Defends Move to Boot Trump, but Suspends Decision and Gets Blasted

Quote:Thursday was a busy day in 14th Amendment Trump decisions.

We reported how Colorado issued a statement saying former President Donald Trump would remain on the ballot despite the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court because they had also stayed their decision pending appeal to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS weighing in, one way or the other. The Colorado GOP filed an appeal, and the Trump team is expected to file one as well. The Colorado Secretary of State was not a happy camper that she had to make such a statement, and had a meltdown post on X.

Then Maine decided to boot Trump off their ballot as well, also by citing the 14th Amendment, but it was an even worse decision than the one in Colorado because it wasn't even a court decision. This was just a decision by the Democratic Secretary of State, who had previously made anti-Trump statements. Trump had objected to the Secretary of State making the decision, alleging she was biased.

But the bottom line is if a Secretary of State can make a decision like that, then you've opened the door to chaos where anyone could take out a political opponent that way--and take away the right of millions to vote for the candidate of their choice.

In the 34-page decision, she also concluded that Trump “was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it.”

Trump did not at any point encourage violence--he told people to act peacefully and patriotically--and he encouraged people to leave and go home in peace. So much for her decision.

In addition to the factual problems that don't support the insurrection claim, it doesn't fit Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment because he hasn't been charged or convicted by federal statute. Plus, there's also the point that he isn't an officer within the meaning of the provision. So yes, truly a problematic decision for a candidate, but also for the voters and the right to vote.

The decision that she made on Trump alleging bias pretty much tells the tale. She's deciding on whether or not she's biased. What does one think she's going to say? She claimed Trump's motion to disqualify her was untimely, and she claimed in any event she wasn't biased, "Moreover had the motion been timely, I would have determined that I could preside over this matter impartially and without bias." Oh. Okay, that sounds convincing. That sounds fair.

But she went on MSNBC to defend her decision, saying she determined it according to Maine law and Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Notice she can't even bring herself to say "President Trump" or "former President Trump" -- the normal address one would use. She calls him "Mr. Trump."

She also claimed that she couldn't wait for SCOTUS to make a decision, and had the temerity to brag about voter participation in her state as she tried to disenfranchise millions.

She also hit CNN as well.

The Trump campaign denounced the decision Thursday, attacking Bellows as a “virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat.”

“We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said. “Make no mistake, these partisan election interference efforts are a hostile assault on American democracy.”

Indeed. Can we say banana republic?

But there's another catch to this. Just as in Colorado, Bellows suspended the effect of her decision pending an appeal to the court.

So again, this will not take effect, at least not yet. The Maine court may toss it out and if they don't, SCOTUS probably will.

FLASHBACK: Dem official who struck Trump from 2024 Maine ballot praised 'free, fair and secure' elections in state

Quote:Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who ruled on Thursday that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot, previously praised "free, fair and secure" elections in the Centennial State.

Commenting on an X thread last month lamenting that Mississippi had passed new voter ID laws that eliminated same-day registration and making photo ID at polling places mandatory, Bellows wrote, “This story is horrifying. Incredible to see the lengths at which votes are discarded by partisans. Grateful to be in Maine where our elections are free, fair, and secure.”

After alleging various discrepancies, the article concluded, “It’s been 23 years since a Democrat was elected governor of Mississippi and 41 years since a Democrat was elected to represent the state in the U.S. Senate.”

“What might happen if Mississippi’s elections were truly fair and free from partisan shenanigans? My guess is that Republicans who oversee them don’t want to find out. Why change a winning formula?” the article concludes.

Bellows is seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy of her own “partisan shenanigans.”

The ruling from Bellows stated that Trump's "primary petition is invalid" under the Fourteenth Amendment's insurrectionist ban, which followed the Colorado decision earlier this month to also remove Trump from the ballot. Colorado has determined to leave Trump on the ballot.

In March 2022, Bellows wrote on X, then Twitter, "We need to come together around our democracy - around voting rights, which are fundamental to everything else we care about."

Red States need to use the same broad interpretation of the 14th amendment to start the process of getting the kid sniffing, woman groping, stair stumbling, speech mumbling, Chinese bought, Ukrainian paid off traitor off of the ballot in their states. His refusal to close the border is reason enough.

Texas and Florida should have that paperwork filed already.

Republican’s need to do something unRepublican like and grow a set of balls.

Conservatives need to be on the phones with their AG’s in their states demanding this president is held accountable for selling the country out.

What do you mean he hasn’t been convicted. Apparently you just need a partisan hack to accuse you in sh*tholes like Colorado and Maine.

Abbott and Desantis both need to be loading bus loads of illegals and send them to Colorado and Maine.

Even Maine Dem Jared Golden Joins Susan Collins in Blasting Sec of State's Decision to Boot Trump

Quote:I'm not a big fan of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), but one might expect her to stand against the decision by her state's Secretary of State. She did, in fact, come through.

Maine voters should decide who wins the election – not a Secretary of State chosen by the Legislature. The Secretary of State’s decision would deny thousands of Mainers the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, and it should be overturned.

As expected, she got attacked by people on the left on X/Twitter for her statement. They didn't seem to care much about due process or a Democrat just blithely removing peoples' rights.

But it was the words of Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) that stood out more, as a Democrat. He weighed in and also said even though he thought Trump had committed insurrection (he hadn't) and voted for impeachment, that this move by the Secretary of State was wrong.

"However, we are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot," Golden said in the statement.

He didn't address the question about the 14th Amendment not applying to Trump as president, but at least he got the main due process point correct, and good for him for standing out there, knowing that he was exposing the big hole in this effort, knowing that he's going to get attacked by Democrats for undercutting this tactic.

Now, part of that may be his desire to stay afloat in his Trump-voting district. He may care more about that than any Democratic tactic at this point. But Golden has shown before he's willing to buck the narrative. He wasn't afraid to bash Joe Biden over what he believed was a bad decision hurting lobstermen in his state.

Part of his reasoning now may be that he's in a district that went for Trump in 2020.

Keith Olbermann's reaction was typical of the left's reaction to Golden.

When you're agreeing with Olbermann, you may have a problem.

Notice how much of a p*ssy Colorado and Maine are being. They know EXACTLY what will happen if their ruling reaches the SC and they have already prevented Trump from being on the ballot. Their EVs will not count and their state EV's will be removed from the 270 required for president.

(12-29-2023 09:05 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(12-29-2023 08:51 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  If MAGAts are so insistent Trump won 2020 shouldn't he be disqualified from running a third time anyway?

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

Please slow down & think

As far as I know you can run as many times as you wish, what you can't do is be president for more than two terms. You must be from the new age educational system because you are not wise at all. You did notice that I didn't say very wise, because it would imply that you were wise in the first place. In high school terms you would be considere a "Dumb S", but you're not in high school as far as I know so that makes you doubly Dumb.

Not getting all worked up. This is all for show and the Supremes will have to rule on it and soon. They will and I'm pretty certain they will slap this down.